MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386387932 · doi:10.1177/00145246231195255

The Species and Purpose of the ‘Young Man’ in Mark 14 and 16

2023· article· en· W4386387932 on OpenAlexaff
Rob James

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Expository Times · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaptismShroudConnection (principal bundle)Reading (process)LiteratureAllegoryArtHistoryPhilosophyTheologyLinguisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents evidence that the νεανίσκος, “young man”, referred to in Mark 16 is intended to be read as a human being rather than as an angel. Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark 16 is examined to show that they too understood Mark in this way and chose to edit the text to replace the young man with one or two angels. Reading Mark 16 in this way elicits an easier linkage with the young man in Mark 14, and it is suggested that the author intended for such a connection to be made. Following Robin Scroggs and Kent Groff, this connection leads to the suggestion that the stripping and reclothing of the young man in Mark 14 and 16 is an allegory of baptism. Further evidence of this is presented in a tentative suggestion about the liturgical origins of some of Mark 16, and the observation that the word for the clothing worn by and taken from the young man in Mark 14 is only ever used elsewhere in the New Testament for the burial shroud of Jesus.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Expository TimesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207