Ironie dramatique dans la mise en intrigue de l'empire en Romains 13, 1-7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most attempts to explain Romans 13:1-7 proceed from the premise that Paul is speaking plainly and directly as he recommends that Christians adopt a respectful and obedient attitude towards those servants of god, the Roman authorities. Historically, Christians have read the passage as an endorsement of all governmental authority, a conclusion which appears repugnant to most exegetes in the wake of the Shoah and similar government-sponsored atrocities. While some authors explain the passage away by supposing it to be an interpolation, others maintain that it becomes understandable only if one takes into account a very particular set of historical circumstances. Given that elsewhere Paul clearly condemns the lords of the age and their magistrates—most notably for the crucifixion of Jesus and their corrupt practises—a reading of his recommendation in Romans 13 at face value produces insurmountable internal contradictions in the Pauline corpus. When this passage is approached with literary sensibilities, another interpretive option presents itself. The following article proposes an ironic reading of Romans 13:1-7 based on an analysis of a set of internal textual clues (suggested by the theoretical work of Wayne Booth) and supported by recent research into the relations between the nascent church and the oppressive Roman Principate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".