MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2319077699 · doi:10.14288/1.0092685

Hoi Ioudaioi in the Gospel of John : an ethnic designation from an expelled community

2010· article· en· W2319077699 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Harold Dimmock

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGospelEthnic groupHistorySociologyAnthropologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis focuses on what I believe is the correct translation and interpretation of the term hoi Ioudaioi used in the Gospel of John. While there have been many translations and interpretations of what this enigmatic term means in the past two thousand years, it is my contention that the authors of the Gospel of John viewed hoi Ioudaioi as referring to the ethnic group of the Jews. The Gospel of John is a document written from the perspective of a Community, called here the Johannine Community, which felt socially dislocated after they were expelled from the local Jewish synagogue through the use of a cherem, a synagogue ban. The reason for their expulsion was because of their views that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. This action and the resulting alienation stemming from it caused a social identity crisis in the minds of the Johannine Community members, who no longer felt that they belonged to the Jewish e t h c group called, hoi Ioudaioi. To cope with this dilemma, the Gospel of John was created which attacks key elements of the identity markers of hoi Ioudaioi. These identity markers were then replaced with new non-ethnic identity markers based solely on the Community’s interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→