MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977392880 · doi:10.33137/rr.v38i3.8794

Holy Scripture Speaks: The Production and Reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament

2002· article· en· W1977392880 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hilmar Μ. Pabel, Mary Vessey, John F. McDiarmid

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasmus+New TestamentPhilosophyProduction (economics)TheologyArtLiteratureHistoryClassicsArt historyThe Renaissance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erasmus' Paraphrases on the New Testament provide a startling example of the adaptation of the Bible to the religious and rhetorical ideals of Renaissance humanism. Yet very little is known about the production and reception of the Paraphrases, which comprise nine volumes of the Collected Works of Erasmus in English. In this collection of twelve contributed essays, Hilmar Pabel and Mark Vessey aim to address this gap in Erasmus studies. The papers reflect recent critical scholarship in three main areas: Erasmus' promotion of the ideals of Renaissance humanism; his work as an editor, translator, and interpreter of the New Testament; and the impact of his published writings on the culture of early modern Europe. Holy Scripture Speaks represents the most concerted collective study of Erasmus' Paraphrases on the New Testament since the completion of the first English translation by scholars during the reign of Edward VI (1548/9). It reveals the rich complexity of the literary, theological, and cultural dimensions of the Paraphrases, and indicates future directions that research in this area should take.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicReformation and Early Modern ChristianityFrench-language works237,207