Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas we can connect with the story of the giving of the Commandments, it is very difficult for us to do so with this incident. It reflects the age when the places of worship were noisy and bloody and smelly. The bawling of animals and the cooing of turtledoves were an integral part of life around an altar. When contemporary Christians hear or read the "cleansing of the temple" scene in the gospels, we tend to see it as an effort by Jesus to clean the Temple up and get rid not only of the commercialism but also of all the ugly sacrificial elements. That is an interpretation not justified by the text. When Jesus quoted the words about the Temple being a house of prayer for all nations, he was not referring to quiet prayer murmured in a quiet place. It is true that when Jesus began to throw things around in the Temple that day, he drove out the animals along with the money changers. But he was not trying to get rid of the noise and the smell in order to secure the hushed, hygienic conditions we now require in our churches. He was trying to get rid of the profiteering that had developed around the money changing. And if people like N.T. Wright are correct in saying that Jesus was in part signalling the end of the Temple, it was not on the ground that sacrifice had always been a pointless exercise but that the significance of what had been taking place in the temple was now to be gathered up in Christ..
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".