Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Whereas Richard Swinburne has tried to make a case for the rationality of Christian revelation, this article argues for the rationality of early Christian discourse. Early Christian texts display a type of “formal” rationality that is not an attribute of Christian revelation, intending authors, or historical contexts, but rather is a property of the discursive series to which they belong. Early Christian texts could come into existence only by achieving a relational coexistence with other, previously existing, non-Christian texts within a shared associative discursive series. Such an addition of a Christian text to a discursive series was always governed by the shared “rules” of coherence of the series itself. As a starting point for elucidating these “rules” of coherence, this article examines the structures of social grouping, social interaction, and social values as they were reproduced in the linguistic categories of Hellenistic Greek. This article further argues that the emergence of biblical texts within their respective discursive series occurred according to two strategies, synchronic and diachronic emergence. Synchronic emergence involves the addition of texts to a discursive series in such a way that the “rules” of the series are instantiated without significant alteration. In contrast, the term diachronic emergence designates the addition of texts to a series whereby the “rules” are instantiated in a novel or unexpected manner. In both cases, the emergence of early Christian texts is a function of formal rational processes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".