MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Deutero-Pauline Letters in Contemporary Research

2014· book-chapter· en· W2196065224 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Y. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEschatologyScholarshipEarly ChristianityEvent (particle physics)PhilosophyTheologyEmpireHistoryClassicsLiteratureArtPolitical scienceLawAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chapter begins with a discussion of the preoccupation with authorship in the study of the disputed Pauline epistles. The concept of pseudepigraphy is defined and the recent scholarship on the relationship between the undisputed and disputed letters is examined, pointing to a move away from a distinction between an 'authentic' Paul and a 'false' deutero-Paul. The chapter explains how the reinforcement of the authority of Paul's fellow workers in the disputed Pauline epistles has been central to theoretical constructs of a Pauline school and pays particular attention to the comparison between the Pauline school and philosophical schools in the ancient world. With respect to eschatology, the realized eschatology of Colossians and Ephesians is compared to 2 Thessalonians with its exclusive interest in the parousia as a future event. The relationship between eschatology and the interest in Paul's martyrdom which has emerged in recent scholarship on 2 Timothy is examined. Discussions of community organization and household codes are informed by recent scholarship on Gender, Early Christian Families, and Paul and Empire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→