Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every verse in the parable of The Two Sons is dotted with textual problems. The most significant, however, is the string of variants that runs through verses 29–31. Although UBS 4 lists five variant readings in these verses, three principal alternatives may be isolated, as Table 6 indicates. Readings 1 (NA 27 et al.) and 2 (NA 25 et al.) introduce the two sons in differing order but they agree that the son who eventually repents and sets out to work has done the father's will. By contrast, the third reading pronounces a blessing upon the son who only promises to work in the vineyard. We begin our discussion with this distinctive third reading. Reading 3 Though not accepted today by any major critical text or translation, this third reading has not been without eminent proponents. J. R. Michaels has offered one of the most distinctive defences of this reading. He notes first that the parable proper (21.28–31a; ‘saying vs. doing’) and its interpretation (21.31b–32; ‘belief vs. lack of belief’) lack correspondence, but that the interpretation is closely linked in theme to 21.23–27. Second, no less than three key words in the parable are ambiguous. In each case, Michaels abandons the usual understanding, noting that the resulting sense brings the parable into close connection with its context. μεταμέλεσθαι can describe repentance but also a regret that falls short of repentance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".