MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Voiceless Idols, Speaking People: 1 Corinthians 12–14 and the Accessibility of Divine Presence

2020· article· en· W3117436258 on OpenAlexaff
Ambrose Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Paul and His Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Divinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyPsychologySocial psychologyCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There is a broad consensus in New Testament scholarship that 1 Cor 12–14 is Paul’s attempt to reign in an abusing use of glossolalia among the Corinthian Christ followers. While a concern about such abuse is evident in the passage, the extent of Paul’s discussion, particularly in its theologically reflective character, is rather more complex than typical treatments of this passage recognize. This article sets forth a fresh reading of 1 Cor 12–14 that takes as its starting point the framing statements of 1 Cor 12:1–3 as an essentially Jewish theological formulation. I argue that Paul’s entire discussion in 1 Cor 12–14 hangs on an Old Testament theological framework that specifically addresses the problem of access to divine presence in terms that are culturally relevant to the ancient world. A coherent description of what Paul is actually saying about a proper understanding and use of spiritual “gifts” is then developed from this framework. The resulting thrust of the passage is that universal and equal access to the presence of God is the hallmark of the redeemed community, which thereby has the responsibility of making God’s presence available, accessible, and efficacious to others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of Paul and His LettersSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207