THE FINALITY OF THE GOSPEL: KARL BARTH AND THE TASKS OF ESCHATOLOGY. . Edited by KaitlynDugan and Philip G.Ziegler. Leiden: Brill, 2022. Pp. 229. Paper, N.p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essays in this volume explore Karl Barth's famous claim, made in the second edition of Der Römerbrief, that “if Christianity be not altogether thoroughgoing eschatology, there remains in it no relation whatever with Christ.” The authors overturn the mistaken assumption that Barth's theology is eschatologically thin by unveiling the eschatological aspects of his writings, from Römerbrief to Kirchliche Dogmatik. The first essay, written by the late Christoph Schwöbel, is a brilliant reminder that eschatology is not about the end of the world as we know it but the apokalypsis of God in Christ, who comes to renew our world and redeem our time in resurrection. Contributions from John Barclay, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, and Douglas Campbell present noteworthy analyses of Pauline eschatological themes that will satisfy biblical scholars. One can only admire Christiane Tietz's essay, examining Barth's theodicy through his homiletical reflections on the death of his son, Matthias. Nancy Duff's essay is likewise concerned with the pastoral dimensions of Barth's eschatology, yet the essay's defense of physician-assisted death is less satisfying. Duff misunderstands the nature of Barth's dialectic, evidenced by her claim that accepting and resisting death means choosing when one ought to forestall the ending of one's life and when one should embrace death rather than maintaining each horn of the dilemma in tension. Similar misunderstandings follow Duff into her assumption that physician-assisted death is a means of accepting death rather than a collusion with the anti-God powers that oppose God's good purpose for creatures. The volume examines a wide array of Barth’s writings, including his commentary on 1 Corinthians, the lectures in Münster, and the various eschatological themes in Römerbrief and Kirchliche Dogmatik. Essays are both critical and appreciative, approaching Barth from the perspective of various theological disciplines and diverse aspects of his corpus. Scholars interested in Barth's “unfinished” eschatology will benefit from these essays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".