Orality and Context in a Hermeneutical Key
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows that pentecostal hermeneutics (Latina/o–Canadian hermeneutics specifically), is fluid, dynamic, and participatory, and follows a narratival approach to the reading of the biblical text. Instead of perceiving the Bible as containing a foreign story, for pentecostals the Bible narrates their own journey of faith, as they seek communion with God. As an expression of the popular character of pentecostalism, this paper highlights the elements of orality, participation, experiential contextuality, and scriptural pneumatology as key hermeneutical principles in engaging the biblical text. I argue that for pentecostals reading the Bible is not a mere exercise, but rather it is a sacramental space of the Spirit by which people listen to the message of good news. Pentecostal hermeneutics can be better understood as a conversation with the text so as to tease out the divine voice and its relevance for Christian living. In order to show how these elements are interwoven, I will engage the Latina/o–Canadian pentecostalism, as a example of the complex and fluid character of pentecostal hermeneutics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it