The Use of the Bible in Jacques Dupuis's Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism: An Examination According to Chapter III of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how theologian Jacques Dupuis uses the sacred scriptures of the Catholic Church throughout his argumentation for a proposed “Christian theology of religious pluralism.” Its examination follows along the path of the four characteristics of Catholic biblical interpretation outlined in chap. III of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1993 statement, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” This fourfold schema covers the following: the Bible’s interaction with its own data; the Bible’s use and interpretation within the church’s sacred tradition; the Bible’s interpretation according to the methodological conventions of “historico-critical” exegesis; and the Bible’s interaction with theology in general. Using these criteria, the thesis looks at whatever presuppositions may be lying behind Dupuis’s methodology and theory, and how these “preunderstandings” may have influenced his creative deployment of the biblical text. Five scriptural texts are abstracted from Dupuis’s writings which seem to have had a theological significance for him. Dupuis’s own interpretation of these scriptural texts is then analyzed according to the schema proposed above by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document. The thesis demonstrates that, while in some cases Jacques Dupuis’s appropriation of the Bible in his “Christian theology of religious pluralism” coincides with aspects of the commission’s fourfold schema above, in other cases it does not. Overall, he seems to have been more concerned with highlighting what he sees as continuities with his own argument for a positive appraisal of “pagan” religiosity. This leads him either to diminish or ignore what the biblical texts themselves say or how they have been interpreted in the sources he uses to support his theories.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".