ACTS OF ADMONITION AND REBUKE: A SPEECH ACT APPROACH TO 1 CORINTHIANS 6:1-11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper attempts a reading of 1 Cor. 6:1-11 primarily from the perspective of speech act theory. The approach, however, will be augmented by insights from a variety of methodological perspectives. The conclusions of social scientists about honor-shame and patron-client relationships will permit conclusions about Paul's loss of institutional status. Determining the language and genre of 1 Corinthians and locating it in the context of exhortation, paraenesis and apologia is also useful. Ascertaining the social structure of the congregation in Corinth, as based on various sociological studies, permits the conclusion that secular models of leadership had infiltrated the congregation. Status-conscious members of the congregation were seeking to enhance their reputation in the community by taking each other to secular courts. Lawsuits were, in effect, social competitions for incremental increases in prestige through the game of challenge and riposte. Collectively, the litigious behaviour of the congregants also represented an aggressive public challenge that damaged Paul's achieved honor as founding father. In order to regain his status in the community and have it publicly recognised, Paul engaged in retaliatory verbal sallies—he rebuked and admonished them.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".