Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the influence of the Church father Origen, ca. 185-254, on the formation and development of the New Testament canon. Origen wrote about and understood the writings of both the Old and New Testaments as sharing a genuine unity, encouraging this idea by being the first person on record to use the term “New Testament” to refer to a number of Christian writings which complimented what was then known to some as the “Old Testament,” better known generally as the Jewish Scriptures. Origen also recognized that both collections were divinely inspired, and inspired by one and the same God. Yet it is also true that when Origen referred to the Jewish Scriptures in his writings, he typically prefixed the word “Scriptures” with the words “sacred,” “holy,” or “divine,” whereas he refers to the Gospels and Apostolic letters as merely “Scripture.” This bifurcation in Origen’s thinking actually makes the evidence in his work on the unity of the two sets of writings more profound in that although he was committed to the special nature of the Jewish Scriptures vis-a-vis all others, his writing clearly shows a preponderance to characterize the Christian writings as belonging to the same class of revelation as the Jewish Scriptures. I suggest Origen’s coalescence of the two bodies of writings makes him one of the most important historical players in the development of the NT canon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".