MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324911135 · doi:10.1111/rsr.12341

Eschatology of the Thessalonian Correspondence: A Comparative Study of 1 Thess 4,13–5,11 and 2 Thess 2,1–12 to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha By JanuszKucicki. Das Alte Testament im Dialogue, 7. Bern: Peter Lang, 2014. Pp. 401. Paper, €94.40, $111.95.

2016· article· en· W2324911135 on OpenAlex
Richard S. Ascough

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEschatologyPhilosophyNew TestamentStatement (logic)LiteratureDead Sea ScrollsHistoryClassicsTheologyEpistemologyArtBiblical studiesHebrew Bible

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kucicki examines “universal eschatology”—”the fate of all humankind and the universe at the end of times”—in 1 and 2 Thessalonians by drawing on comparative motifs in Second Temple Jewish texts. The initial chapter surveys eschatological motifs in the letters, while the second and third chapters examine “Events Preceding the Parousia” and “Events Connected to the Parousia” by citing passages as they relate to particular words and phrases in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Kucicki concludes that the differences in eschatological concepts in the two letters can be explained by Paul envisioning different audiences—Christian and non-Christian. Yet Kucicki pushes even further to argue that 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 contains “all the eschatological and apocalyptic motifs necessary to create a systematic and comprehensive eschatological teaching,” a bold statement indeed. In his preface, Kucicki claims that he was “unable to find any coherent account of the eschatological teaching found in the Thessalonian Correspondence,” yet recently there have been a number of significant and lengthy monograph treatments; for example, those of Konradt (2003), Pahl (2009), Luckensmeyer (2009), and Schmidt (2010). Engaging with such works would have brought a deeper level of analysis to the discussion and made it difficult to draw the conclusions he does. Unfortunately, the bibliography contains almost no entries from the 2000s. In a book with such a hefty price tag, one would expect much better, if not from the author then from the publisher. Such limitations make it difficult to recommend the book, even for library purchase.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.269 · 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