MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413617509 · doi:10.3390/rel16091100

Christ Jesus as Object of Cultic Worship in Philippians 3:3b: A Linguistic Study

2025· article· en· W4413617509 on OpenAlexaff
J. Luis Dizon

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipObject (grammar)LinguisticsPhilosophyLiteratureArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grammar and syntax of Philippians 3.3 presents a number of ambiguities, particularly in terms of the grammatical object of the verb “worship” (Gk. λατρεύοντες). Most modern translations render the middle phrase of the verse as “worship by the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus” (e.g., CSB, ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV, etc.). This rendering implies an intransitive use of λατρεύοντες. However, the word order of the verse, as well as the parsing of λατρεύοντες, strongly suggest it is better to understand “Christ Jesus” as the grammatical object of the verb. This essay challenges the prevailing translation of the verse, and argues that the middle phrase should better be translated as “by the Spirit worship and boast in Christ Jesus,” to reflect the grammatical relation between “worship” and “Christ Jesus.” This re-rendering is highly significant for our understanding of Paul’s Christology, as well as contemporary debates over early vs. late high Christology, as it shows points towards Jesus being worshipped as a divine figure by the early Christians, even as early the lifetime of the Apostle.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueReligionsSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207