As the Bandit Will I Confess You: Luke 23,39-43 in Early Christian Interpretation. By MARK GLEN BILBY.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T his is a book remarkable for both its detail and its range. Covering the late first century to 450 ce , the author examines the relationships between the Gospel accounts of the two thieves, and the treatment of the passage by a vast array of early Christian writers, Greek, Latin, and Syriac, in a variety of genres and under a multiplicity of headings. Indeed, it is one of the author’s principal contentions that what a thorough examination of the reception of the passage demonstrates is just how varied were the interpretations of the elements of the passage and how varied its applications. The author helpfully gives an account of the indexes and electronic means he employed to search for references to the passage; the text is replete with extensive quotations in the original languages with accompanying translations; and the book concludes with a number of tables laying out texts, authorship, chronology, and approaches to the harmonization of the Gospel accounts. A scriptural index is provided, as is, critically for a book as detailed as this, one of texts and ancient authors, but unfortunately a subject index is not. The clarity of writing, again critical for such a dense and complex book, is exemplary, and the author provides frequent summaries of his conclusions. His stated approach is to give an analysis which is both diachronic and synchronic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".