MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905427712 · doi:10.1177/0034637318807368

The new family of Jesus and the relativization of the natural family: An exposition on honor and shame (Mark 1:16–20; 2:13–14; 3:13–35)

2018· article· en· W2905427712 on OpenAlexaff
Narry F. Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueReview & Expositor · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorShameGospelNarrativeValue (mathematics)Natural (archaeology)Exposition (narrative)PsychoanalysisPhilosophyLiteratureTheologyReligious studiesSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyHistoryArtMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the time of Jesus, the social values of honor and shame were embedded in the family. The Gospel of Mark not only evidences these social values but also radically redefines them through their narrative reversal. The narrative reversal seeks to persuade the readers to view as honorable what they have valued as shameful, and to regard as dishonorable what they have seen as honorable. Although the natural family is important in the Gospel, Mark transforms it and the honor–shame value system by emphasizing the greater value of the new family that Jesus is forming (“fictive family”) over the importance of the natural family. In Mark 1:16–3:35, I see the narrative reversal of the family in two ways: (i) Mark highlights the three instances when Jesus calls to himself his new family with a transformed honor–shame value system; and (ii) Mark relativizes (i.e., takes away the foremost importance of) the first-century concept of family in favor of the new family of Jesus. Specifically, I will explore the three stories of the disciples’ call (1:16–20; 2:13–14; 3:13–19) and the intercalated story of Jesus’ natural family seeking to gain custody of him (3:20–21, 31–35).

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview & ExpositorSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207