The Route of Paul’s Second Journey in Asia Minor: In the Steps of Robert Jewett and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert Jewett, in his 1997 article on Paul’s second journey, explored the geographical dimensions of Paul’s travel in north-west Asia Minor as described in Acts 16:6-8. His focus was to investigate thoroughly the road ‘down to Troas’ mentioned in verse 8. This study will not only renew that investigation from Dorylaeum where Jewett began it, but will also look at the earlier stages of the journey that began at Antioch on the Orontes. In so doing, it will examine the textual and material evidence that provides knowledge of the region’s road system. Regarding this route, Johnson observes: ‘Although endless scholarly discussion has been devoted to determining the precise route Paul took … it is in fact unsolvable.’ Despite such a pessimistic perspective, hodological research in north-west Asia Minor in recent decades has provided fresh data to aid in evaluating alternative proposals for Paul’s route. To this end, milestones and inscriptions will be noted especially. Relevant finds from archaeological excavations in the area of the journey will also be mentioned. Lastly, we will review publications since 1997 that have interacted with Jewett’s important study and then suggest other alternatives to his thesis. The authors wish to thank Professor Jewett for his innovative work on this subject. His model of doing on-site investigation has inspired us to take up this study, which owes much to his pioneering spirit and example.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".