Christ the Ideal King: Cultural Context, Rhetorical Strategy, and the Power of Divine Monarchy in Ephesians. By JULIEN SMITH.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this revised doctoral dissertation from Baylor University (supervised by Charles Talbert), Julien Smith investigates to what extent the motif of the ideal king in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature is detectable in the presentation of Christ in Ephesians. To be sure, Smith is not interested in the question of origins or pre-existent sources; rather, his aim is to explore both how the original audience may have heard the author's claims about Christ's victorious rule and what these claims were meant to achieve in the literary strategy of this letter. Smith concludes that Christ is indeed portrayed in Ephesians as an ideal king, which both highlights the primary theme of Ephesians (according to Smith, ‘the reunification of the “fractured cosmos” ’ [p. 3]) and threads the various topics of this letter into a coherent organizational structure. Smith begins the study with the usual prolegomena, outlining its key purpose, justification, method, and organizational features (pp. 1–18). In chapters 2–3 he turns to the theme of the ideal king in Greco-Roman (pp. 19–89) and Jewish (pp. 90–173) thought. Here he casts the net widely because, he maintains, the conceptual world of the audience (and author) would have travelled in the same orbit as the texts he surveys. Regarding Greco-Roman thought, he rehearses the Classical period (culminating in the orations of Isocrates) and the fragmentary evidence in the Hellenistic period (e.g. Diotogenes) before devoting the bulk of his energies to the Roman period from Augustus to Trajan. On this latter period he gives special attention to authors/orators such as Seneca, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Suetonius. Smith concludes that the ideal king, appointed by the gods, is the most virtuous and law-embodying benefactor of his age who in his rule ushers in peace and harmony to humankind.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".