MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379805713 · doi:10.1353/cro.2014.a783392

Comparative Christian Hermeneutical Approaches to the Land Promises to Abraham

2014· article· en· W4379805713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Gregerman

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossCurrents · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsState (computer science)GeopoliticsJudaismNexus (standard)Land of IsraelLawSociologyHistoryReligious studiesPhilosophyTheologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative Christian Hermeneutical Approaches to the Land Promises to Abraham Adam Gregerman While formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge have waned in Jewish–Christian relations, disputes over the land and State of Israel provoke intense controversy and disagreement. Decades ago, in the Christian world, this topic was already widely said to be especially divisive, and today, it remains so. It is not surprising that an issue that provokes intense geopolitical interest and touches on territory of nearly unsurpassed religious significance would be so provocative. The nexus of politics and religion is especially volatile. Among Christians, church organizations and individual theologians in the west (North America, Europe) join diverse religious claims and biblical interpretations to their foreign policy statements and arguments. Sometimes, it seems that the political views trump the religious. For example, Christian disputes over the State of Israel often can be mapped onto existing deep divisions in the American churches over domestic policies or military action, with left and right presenting predictable arguments. It is understandably tempting to see appeals to Scripture and theology as tools to buttress pre‐existing political views. However, a sympathetic reader should also recognize the presence of serious theological reflections on this contested and fraught sacred space. Christians who grapple with the land and State of Israel do so in the wake of highly complex millennia‐old Christian theological traditions about Jews and Judaism, sacred space generally, and the land of Israel in particular. There are profound religious issues at stake that go beyond politics, for the State of Israel as a “Jewish state” inevitably raises religious questions for Christians, especially for those rethinking largely negative historical views of Jews and Judaism. For many centuries, nearly all Christians believed that Jewish powerlessness and exile were divine punishment for Jews’ refusal to believe in and/or murder of Jesus. The ejection of many Jews from the biblical land of Israel and the end to Jewish sovereignty there were proofs of the truth of Christianity. Not surprisingly, then, in the wake of the 1948 creation of the State of Israel, the ingathering of (some) Jews to the land, and the (partial) end of Jewish subordination to Gentile rulers, many Christians struggled to make sense of this event not just politically but theologically. The difficult theological questions raised by this event, and for some subsequent events, such as the Israeli capture of all of Jerusalem in 1967, include as follows: Does the creation of the state—though a result of a United Nations vote—have any religious significance for Christians, as a contemporary act of God in history or manifestation of God's will? Need it prompt changes in Christians’ views about Jewish landedness or landlessness, and if so, how broad might these changes be? Are the policies of the state to be evaluated by Christians using religious criteria different from those used when evaluating other countries? Because these questions rest on underlying (and changing) Christian theological views about Jews and Judaism, they should be situated in a broader context: how do widespread contemporary Christian efforts to understand Judaism in theologically positive ways influence Christian views of the land and State of Israel specifically? This last question provides the context for addressing this topic. Since many western Christian groups and thinkers now reject supersessionism and affirm the ongoing legitimacy of the Jews’ covenant, the biblical promises concerning the land are an unavoidable topic. Even those who deny any contemporary religious significance to the State of Israel must face it, if only to make this separation between biblical promises and the modern nation‐state clear. There have been studies on contemporary Christian views of the religious significance or lack of religious significance of the land and State of Israel. Most have focused on one group or one perspective, such as liberal Christians, Catholics, evangelical/conservative Christians, and even British churches or Canadian churches. Other studies—fewer in number—survey a variety of perspectives. Much attention has been paid in particular to church/Christian activism, such as support for or opposition to Israel and its policies. Surprisingly, less attention has been paid to the underlying religious issues of the covenant between God and the Israelites/Jews and...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.151 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossCurrentsSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207