Reading the New Testament Household Codes in Light of New Research on Children and Childhood in the Roman World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The references to children and the child–parent relationship in the New Testament household codes (Col 3:20–21; Eph 6:1–4) have received little attention from scholars. Yet recent, cross-disciplinary interest in the study of children and childhood invites us to consider these exhortations afresh. In particular, current research in Roman Family Studies has led to greater appreciation of the multifaceted circumstances of children, raising new questions about the children who were addressed directly in the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians. Two themes are especially important to consider: (1) overlapping categories of identity tied especially to the complex structures of a slave-holding society; and (2) the household as a locus for education throughout the life course. Informed by current research on children and childhood, the household codes appear to be even more significant than was previously thought for understanding the place of house churches in the Roman imperial world. Les références aux enfants et la relation parent-enfant dans les codes domestiques du Nouveau Testament (Col 3.20–21; Ép 6.1–4) ont reçu peu d’attention des chercheurs. Pourtant, récemment, l’intérêt interdisciplinaire dans l’étude des enfants et de l’enfance nous invite à reconsidérer ces exhortations. En particulier, la recherche actuelle en études familiales romaines a conduit à une plus grande appréciation de la situation des enfants à multiples facettes, ce qui soulève de nouvelles questions sur les enfants qui ont été adressées directement dans les codes domestiques de Colossiens et Ephésiens. Deux thèmes sont particulièrement importants à considérer: (1) catégories qui se recoupent d’identité liée en particulier aux structures complexes d’une société esclavagiste, et (2) la maison comme un lieu d’éducation tout au long du cycle de la vie. Informé par la recherche actuelle sur les enfants et l’enfance, les codes domestiques semblent être encore plus importants qu’on ne le pensait pour comprendre la place des églises de maison dans le monde romain impérial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".