Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his influential 1954 study, Johannes Munck proposed that one of Paul's self-perceived purposes as a missionary was to hasten the parousia of Christ by bringing in the “full number of the nations” (Rom 11:25). 1 Outside of this theory there have been few attempts to investigate what Paul understood his mission to be. 2 Perhaps this is because it is notoriously difficult to study an author's intentions. Or, more probably, since the difficulty of interpreting authorial intentions has not deterred Munck or other Pauline critics, perhaps this is because some texts in the Pauline corpus seem to offer a very clear answer to the problem. These passages play a central role in scholarship on the “purpose problem.” 3 One of them is Gal 1:16, wherein Paul reveals that he became an apostle in order to preach about Jesus τοῖϛ ἔθνεσιν (to the nations). This statement seems straightforward enough. 4 Another text is 1 Cor 9:19–22, wherein Paul admits that his missionary tactics serve his (apparent) overall goal of “winning” (κερδήσω) individuals. These verses, and a few others like them, have been sufficient for L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte and John Knox to conclude that the apostle understood his task to be primarily one of preaching. Lietaert Peerbolte offers an abridged version of his position when he states, “for Paul the character of his work can be summarised as ‘preaching the gospel.’” 5
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".