MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410611629 · doi:10.5325/jtheointe.19.1.0019

A Canonical Reinterpretation of 2 Kings 23:26

2025· article· en· W4410611629 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. D. Stulac

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theological Interpretation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsBriercrest College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationArtHistoryMathematicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the interpretive possibilities associated with 2 Kgs 23:26, with special attention to the key adverb אך (“but/nevertheless” and/or “surely/indeed”). Frank Moore Cross’s well-known double-redaction theory suggests that Josiah’s reform, as described in 2 Kgs 23, constituted the rhetorical climax of the preexilic text, which was subsequently updated by an exilic author who had come to view that reform as a failure. As a result, the books of 1 and 2 Kings preserve an irresolvable tension best explained as a matter of the text’s compositional diachrony. By contrast, the present article argues that the text’s palimpsestuous canonical form permits the reader to view Josiah’s purge as a typological success—an important signpost en route to the exilic judgment through which YHWH brings about Israel’s transformation of heart. Specifically, the key adverb’s asseverative-emphatic dimension and the strong, lexical correspondences between 2 Kgs 23 and 25 open the door to this intriguing possibility. The article concludes by identifying two areas of theological interpretation—the homiletical value of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23 and the significance of Jehoiachin’s release in 2 Kgs 25—where scholarly conversation on this topic might continue to develop.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theological InterpretationSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207