Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Johannine Jesus regularly speaks in terms that are ‘misunderstood’ by dialogue partners. That is, Jesus’ dialogue partners fail to appreciate his words in the profound register he apparently intends and which the paradigmatic reader is apparently able to grasp. Taken at face value, however, in a mundane register, the remarks constitute acts of deception. The exchange between Jesus and his brothers in Jn 7.1-9, combined with the narrator’s comment in 7.10, offers the clearest instance of this pattern. Jesus’ brothers hear his words in a mundane sense, are deceived and depart. The figure of Jesus, furthermore, despite having preternatural access to ‘what was inside a person’ (cf. 2.24-25), appears unaffected by their deceived state and does nothing to remedy it. This too is consistent with his speech profile in the Fourth Gospel, where he is represented as uninterested in guiding conversation partners towards the profound, higher-order ‘truths’ of his verbal revelations. These tendencies of the Johannine Jesus to mislead his conversation partners on the mundane level and subsequently leave them in the dark, I argue, have been largely obscured by a tradition of apologetic hermeneutics reaching from antiquity to modern New Testament study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".