MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382471371 · doi:10.1093/litthe/frad013

What If God is a ‘Pagan Amalgam’: Marilynne Robinson and Historical Bible Scholarship

2023· article· en· W4382471371 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature and Theology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Sports and Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipHebrew BibleContext (archaeology)PhilosophyLiteratureTranscendence (philosophy)ChristianityHebrewReligious studiesTheologyBiblical studiesClassicsHistoryArtLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marilynne Robinson is one of the most influential Christian writers and public intellectuals alive today, and her views on a range of topics should be taken seriously. In her 2015 essay entitled ‘Memory’, she argues that the ‘liberal side’ of American Christianity has retreated from scriptural theology under pressure from academic biblical criticism. Her dismissal of Hebrew Bible scholarship is centred on two primary and interrelated ideas. First is the idea that Israelite religion was embedded in a broader context of Ancient Near East (ANE) religious cultures, such that biblical stories and characters sometimes borrow from other ancient sources. Second is the problem that the scholarly understanding of ancient Israelite polytheism threatens to make God into a ‘pagan amalgam’. The interrelated problem, that is, is the uniqueness and transcendence of the Hebrew Bible, and the God who is its main character. In this article, I review the scholarship on ancient Israelite religion and Robinson’s complaints about it. I argue that Robinson treats the critical scholarship only at a distance, allusively, (mis)representing it and sometimes (mis)understanding it in superficial ways, but that her theological anxiety is warranted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterature and TheologySame topicAmerican Sports and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207