Which Master? Whose Steward? Metalepsis and Lordship in the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Lk. 16.1-13)*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate regarding the identity of the κύ ριoς at the conclusion of the parable of the Prudent Steward (Lk 16.8a) has not been satisfactorily resolved. Gérard Genette's study of narrative level, which helpfully illuminates the relationship between parables and their embedding narratives, provides a fresh perspective. Luke frequently employs a narrative trope that Genette calls metalepsis: the transgression of the boundary between narrative levels. An understanding of the puzzling denouement of the parable, as well as the morals appended to it (vv. 9-13), emerges from an appreciation of Luke's employment of metalepsis, which effects a collision between the cultural mores of stewardship that are operative within the parable and the very different understanding of faithful stewardship promoted on Luke's primary narrative level. The surprising intrusion into this parable of a κύ ριoς who approves of debt relief compels the parable's audience to reconsider their own loyalties and vindicates the debt relief scheme of a prudent steward.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".