Unearthing Paul's Ethics: Douglas Campbell on Creation, Redemption, and the Christian Moral Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article will examine and critique Douglas Campbell's account of the proper grounds for Christian ethics in light of his exegesis and interpretation of Gal 3:28. It will do so by raising three difficulties for his proposal. First, a close reading of his argument will show that as it stands it suffers from a lack of internal coherence. Second, it will show that Campbell's project is best understood as a restriction of the sources for ethical belief formation and then argue that this restriction leaves the ethicist with insufficient resources for constructive ethical reflection. Finally, it will show that his reading of Gal 3:28 shows considerable tension with the development of his thought in his recent essay, “Apocalyptic Epistemology” and also appears to be incompatible with traditional accounts of the incarnation. Inasmuch as Campbell's proposal reflects a number of common trajectories in contemporary studies of Pauline ethics—a turn toward eschatology, a suspicion of “natural theology,” and an emphasis on the liberational elements of Paul's gospel—the conclusions of this article have salient implications for future studies in Pauline ethics, particularly on the continuities and discontinuities between the categories of our lived existence and their relation to our identity in Christ.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".