Bibliographic record
Abstract
ne of Fred Wisse's challenging assertions was that the major V>/elements of the study of early Christianity have long since been elucidated.What remains for us today is to sift through the "scholarly rubble" that is left over from the foundational work accomplished over the previous few centuries.Although some of his colleagues delighted in posing the question of why then he bothered to remain a New Testament scholar, his views on the value of biblical research were in reality quite positive.The fact that so much had already been accomplished was cause for celebration and called for wide dissemination to an interested public, whether through lecture or sermon.What remained to be done, even if it would likely never alter significantly the overall framework of interpretation that had previously been constructed, was nonetheless as valuable a task.By way of example, in his view, Rudolf Bultmann's single chapter on the historical Jesus said about all that could be said about Jesus in terms of generally accepted canons of historical research.However, despite this negative outlook on future discovery (Bultmann's portrait and his methodological conservatism was a frequent target of leaders of the Jesus Seminar), Bultmann's Jesus research was a solidly positive contribution that said much more about Jesus than could be said of many other historic figures in Antiquity.Fred Wisse adopted a similar approach to the study of the primitive Christian movement and of Gnosticism.He did not employ New Testament or Gnostic texts to prove the existence of a multitude of early Christian or Gnostic communities and theologies.His aims were much more modest.His method was again not apt to produce any
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".