MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607047000 · doi:10.1177/0142064x17705017

Paul’s Knowledge of Aristophanes

2017· article· en· W2607047000 on OpenAlexaff
R. Drew Griffith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the New Testament · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImitationJudaismClassicsLiteratureAncient GreekGreek literaturePhilosophyHistoryArtTheologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The book of Acts plausibly claims that Paul was also named Saul. Yet in neither the genuine nor the deutero-Pauline epistles does this name appear. Several scholars have suggested that Paul avoids the name, because in Greek σαῦλος describes ‘the loose, wanton gait of courtesans or Bacchantes’. This brief article argues that the word was not current in Hellenistic Greek, and that the only classical author in whom Paul might have found it is Aristophanes, whose plays were deemed by Hellenistic schoolmasters to be the most accurate reflection of Athenian speech in its golden age and hence the best possible stylistic models for imitation. I conclude that Paul was familiar with the work of Aristophanes, and that he was able to ‘become all things to all people’ because his own formation in Greek as well as in Jewish literature was traditional and broad.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the New TestamentSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207