Bibliographic record
Abstract
ultmanns demythologization is criticized as dealing inaccurately with the miraculous and fantastic in the New Testament.A contemporary of Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr also understands these fantastic and miraculous events recorded in the Bible as myths and points to Gods action within history.We first look at Bultmanns understanding of myth, at the nature of interpretation, then at the nature of myth and how myth informs Bultmanns understanding of eschatology.The second part of this paper analyzes Reinhold Niebuhr s use of myth, his doctrine of history, and then how myth informs his view of eschatology.The conclusion will contrast and compare Bultmann and Niebuhr. Bultmann: Demythologization at WorkBultmanns method for understanding the New Testament, his project of demythologization is an attempt to get at the meaning of the text, to unfetter it from mythological language, which only serves to hinder understanding.While the Hebrew narratives speak of Gods intervention in history, the science of history cannot assert such an act of God; it only claims that there are people who by faith believe that God acts in history.While the science of history examines the biblical texts as historical documents, it must be kept in mind that they do not claim to be historical documents even though they are historical documents in the sense that
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".