The Curious Voyage of Christ: Katábasis, Anábasis , and the New Testament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract . — The descent of Christ into hell, like the Orphic narratives, is a katabasis . However, unlike the descents of Orpheus or Dante and many other famous katabaseis , descent was never the main narrative element of the story of Christ. Neither Paul’s letters, which are the earliest written evidence of Jesus’s proclamation of the Kindom of God, nor the Christian gospels penned decades later, take any great interest in the actual features of Christ’s katabasis . Jesus’ voyage to the dead is a journey that is curious for just this lack of early detail; I argue that it originated not as a primary but as a tertiary theological detail, a secondary feature of the story. In fact, Christ’s katabasis took its shape and significance from a far more famous anabasis – Easter morning’s resurrection. Resume. — La descente du Christ en enfer, comme les recits orphiques, est une catabase. Cependant, a la difference d’Orphee, de Dante et beaucoup d’autres catabases celebres, la descente n’a jamais ete l’element narratif principal de l’histoire du Christ. Ni les lettres de Paul, qui constituent le premier temoignage ecrit de la predication de Jesus parvenu jusqu’a nous, ni les evangiles chretiens, rediges plusieurs decennies apres, ne demontrent un grand interet pour les caracteristiques concretes de la catabase du Christ. Le voyage de Jesus dans le monde des morts a ceci de curieux precisement qu’il manque de precision initiale ; je soutiens qu’il est apparu non pas comme une precision theologique de premiere importance, mais comme un element de troisieme rang, une caracteristique secondaire du recit. En fait, la catabase du Christ doit sa forme et sa signification a une anabase bien plus celebre : la resurrection du matin de Paques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".