MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308250180 · doi:10.53751/001c.38680

The Enthymeme in Luke 19:9 and the Salvation of Zacchaeus

2022· article· en· W4308250180 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

VenueTyndale Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourRhetoricRhetorical questionScholarshipPhilosophyLiteratureEpistemologyTheologyHistoryArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on salvation in the Luke 19:1-10 Zacchaean story generally tend to exhibit an underdeveloped analysis of its rhetoric as part of the controversy genre. This paucity reduces salvation to an individual event and ignores the social effect of Lukan salvation in the story. To remedy this, it is here argued that the weight of the controversy genre is felt specifically in the rhetorical use of enthymeme in verse 9, and that Jesus’s enthymemic pronouncement of salvation reveals a social aspect to Zacchaeus’s salvation. The enthymeme supports Zacchaeus’s refutation of the crowd’s position; it insinuates and infers from contrariety and obligates the crowd to distribute honour to Zacchaeus. This function of enthymeme is based on the evidence of first-century rhetors, whose position differs from modern scholarship’s view of the enthymeme as a truncated logical syllogism. Salvation has a social effect. Jesus’s enthymemic pronouncement crowns Zacchaeus’s refutation by calling the crowd to reinterpret Zacchaeus’s social-religious status on the basis of legal precedent.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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