Barth’s Reception of Nineteenth‐Century Exegesis and Theology in <i>The Resurrection of the Dead</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the early 1920s Karl Barth was searching for historical resources in his own magisterial Protestant tradition that would enable constructive theological work outside the confines of nineteenth‐century neo‐Protestantism and its contemporary heirs. This article takes up his 1924 commentary on 1 Corinthians, centred on the fifteenth chapter, The Resurrection of the Dead, to examine the impact of such searching. It demonstrates that Barth, first, is sharply opposed to the framework for modern critical interpretation of the letter influentially established by F.C. Baur; second, finds an alternative to a mythological reading of 1 Corinthians 15 in the heilsgeschichtlich exegesis of J.C.K. von Hofmann; and, third, remains latently marked by the eschatology of Friedrich Schleiermacher. This shows another way in which Barth was creatively appropriating elements of the historical Protestant tradition at the same time as visibly breaking with others.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".