The Philosophy of History and New Testament History: A Survey of the Former with Some Implications for the Latter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article surveys a selection of figures in the recent history of historiography with particular focus on their discussion of the nature of historical epistemology (including facts, evidence, and knowledge) and concludes with implications for New Testament history. Figures and works are selected for their representativeness of new thinking in the field at their time, their critique of prior thinking, and in some cases their reception/critique by representatives of that prior thinking. Specifically, I consider in varying depth the historical epistemology of E. H. Carr, G. R. Elton, Hayden White, Richard Evans, Frank Ankersmit, John Zammito, and Aviezer Tucker. These exemplars are considered in order to construct a landscape of traditional, postmodern, and post-postmodern philosophy of historical epistemology. The survey is selective, but the effect is dialectic; ending with recent post-positivist historical epistemology, I raise a number of considerations for thinking about New Testament history.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".