{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016622922134733157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017497812773403325, 'mean_word_length': 5.891566265060241, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rudolf Bultmann's “Demythologization” Hermeneutic as Applied to New Testament and Constitutional Exegesis

Those who have made an equally sedulous study of 1) American constitutional law and 2) religion—particularly New Testament theology—are immediately struck by the many similarities inherent in both the process and polemics of textual interpretation between them. The observation and description of these similarities have been the subjects of a relatively small yet proliferous corpus of comparisons and investigations, predominantly in law journals and monographs. Most constitutional legal scholars, not formally trained in and therefore unfamiliar with the arcana of theological hermeneutics and exegesis, earnestly join the jurisprudential debate over the “intent of the framers” and the creation by certain justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of new constitutional fundamental rights via substantive due process and/or the penumbra doctrine, without ever realizing the striking parallels in the debate between theologians about the original meaning and applicability of the New Testament canon to modern moral and religious problems.