Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the eighteenth century, interpreters of the Letter of James have pointed to a judicial assembly as the envisaged background for Jas 2:1–7. In particular, commentators have identified rabbinic examples as parallels for the type of setting that the letter describes. However, one can also consider Jas 2:1–7 in light of the theatricality of the Roman courtroom. Theatrics figured centrally in Roman social and political life. In Roman juridical contexts visual effects such as gestures and dress functioned importantly for the outcome of a trial. In this study I consider Jas 2:1–7 in comparison with court proceedings and legal issues, but with a focus on the dress of the man in “shining clothes” (ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ) and the poor man in “dirty clothes” (ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι). I explore the peculiar Roman practice of donning “filthy” (sordes) dress as a means of procuring support from jurors and judges, who themselves were susceptible to participating in partiality. I argue that a court setting makes the most sense for Jas 2:1–7: Why else would the letter writer include these details of dress?
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".