MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197882693 · doi:10.1177/00145246211038815

Doing Torah, Imitating Yahweh: A Reconsideration of the Good Samaritan Story

2021· article· en· W3197882693 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Expository Times · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorahObedienceGospelInterpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyContext (archaeology)TheologyServantLawJudaismHistoryPolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholars often puzzle over why the discussion about Torah obedience in Luke 10:25–29 does not appear to fit coherently with the story of the Good Samaritan that follows it (10:30–37). Was this an oversight on Luke’s part, a lack of editorial finesse, or did he have other aims? In this paper, I will argue that the apparent shift in logic, marked by the transformation of the lawyer’s question from ‘Who is my neighbour?’ (10:29) to ‘Who acts as a neighbour?’ (10:36), invites the lawyer to realign his interpretation of Lev 19:18 with the theology of imitatio Dei already present in Leviticus 19: The one who properly fulfills Lev 19:18 does so by imitating Yahweh. Within the context of Luke’s Gospel, moreover, Luke 10:25–37 illustrates how Luke both affirms and expands the terms of Torah obedience such that proper fulfilment of the Mosaic Law requires a disclosure of and participation in the very nature of God.

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.

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 score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.197 · 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