MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765364827 · doi:10.1177/0146107917731835

The Gospel Traditions Inferring to Jesus’ Proper Burial through the Depictions of Female Funerary Kinship Roles

2017· article· en· W2765364827 on OpenAlexaff
InHee C. Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblical Theology Bulletin Journal of Bible and Culture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantGospelPassionKinshipJudaismHonorNew TestamentJesus christHistorical JesusRighteousnessLiteraturePhilosophySociologyHistoryTheologyArtAnthropologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early Christians believed that Jesus was buried according to Jewish customs. However, the question regarding the nature of Jesus’ burial remains contestable and this leads our attention once again to the textual information of the Gospel traditions dealing with Jesus’ death and burial scenes. As the Gospels uniformly disclose that Jesus is the embodiment of the divine Covenant, the authors must have been obliged to draw the picture of Jesus’ burial in association to propriety rather than impropriety and honor rather than dishonor since dishonorable burial was the lot only for those who violated God's Covenant through their disobedience. For this, the Synoptic Gospels, particularly, feature women in the kernel accounts of Jesus’ Passion as the intimate providers of essential funeral services necessary to mark Jesus’ burial as being ritualistically acceptable. Although it seems laconic and implicit in the Gospels’ descriptions of these women's actions and intents, these women fill the noticeable void of the immediate family of Jesus and fulfill the familiar roles required in the rites of the passage.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 venueBiblical Theology Bulletin Journal of Bible and CultureSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207