Resourcing New Testament studies : literary, historical, and theological essays in honor of David L. Dungan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Table of Contents Foreword Allan J. McNicol, Austin Graduate School of Theology, Texas David B. Peabody, Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln J. Samuel Subramanian, Wartburg College, Iowa, Editors PART I. In Honor of David 1. Dungan 1. David L. Dungan's Life and Work: A Cooperative Essay on a Collaborative Scholar, Charles Reynolds, David Linge and Ralph Norman, University of Tennessee, Knoxville David R. Cartlidge, Maryville College, Tennessee and Sean McEvenue, Concordia University, Montreal 2. A Bibliography of Work by David L. Dungan PART II. the Synoptic Problem 3. Source and Text Criticism of the Past. Analogues for the Present David B. Peabody, Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln 4. The 'Abridgement' of Matthew and Luke: Mark as Epitome? Robert A. Derrenbacker, Jr., Regent College, Vancouver, BC, CANADA 5. Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem, Allan J. McNicol, Austin Graduate School of Theology, Texas PART III. Jesus, the gospels and Acts 6. Jesus as a Nazwrai'o, Adrian Leske, Concordia College, Montreal, CANADA. 7. More Than David's Son, Albert Fuchs, Katholisch-Theologische Privatuniversitat, Linz, AUSTRIA 8. St. Matthew. The Gospel for All Nations, Samuel Oyin Abogunrin, University of Ibadan, NIGERIA 9. The Lord's Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew, J. Samuel Subramanian, Wartburg College, Iowa 10. Mary and Martha in the Third and Fourth Gospels. An Exercise in Source Criticism, William O. Walker, Jr., Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas 11. Luke and the Trial of Jesus. A Special Source? Joseph B. Tyson, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 12. Christ's Good News for All. Multiple emphasis in Peter's speech of Acts 10:34b-43, Jan Lambrecht, S. J., The Catholic University of Leuven, BELGIUM 13. Dating the Canonical Gospels. The Critical Witness of Acts 28 David Noel Freedman, University of California, San Diego, Henry Innes MacAdam, Robbinsville, New Jersey PART IV. Canon, Theology and Ethics 14. Reflections on Jesus and the New Testament Canon, William R. Farmer, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. 15. Christ in the Ethical Teaching of Early Christianity, Birger Gerhardsson, Lund University, SWEDEN 16. Universalism and Unity of Human Rights - On the Theme: An Ideal Claim and Practical Behavior, Hans-Harmut Schroeder, Lubeck, GERMANY.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".