MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991433106

Glory, judgement and the Divine in 4Qinstruction and the gospel of John: a comparative analysis

2024· other· en· W6991433106 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of Notre DameHarvard UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of South CarolinaUniversity of CambridgeYale University
KeywordsGospelJudgementKey (lock)Set (abstract data type)RelativismInterpretation (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the newly discovered data from Qumran Cave IV is the largest and subsistent of the Qumran wisdom texts which was originally designated Musar le Mevin and is known today as 4QInstruction. In this thesis, we aim to show that when 4QInstruction is brought into dialogue with the Gospel of John fresh insights, mutual illumination, and a better understanding from text to text takes place in both directions in ways previously unexplored. This study aims to explore three themes and their texts that are prominent in both texts: glory, judgment, and the divine plan. With the key evidence provided by these texts, we aim to demonstrate the relationship of these two texts to each other by the themes that they promote in both directions of glory, judgment, and the divine plan. In this study we articulate two significant research questions: First, “what do the texts of 4QInstruction and the Gospel of John have to say that glory, judgment, and the divine plan?” The second question is: “when 4QInstruction and the Gospel of John are set side by side, how do they mutually illumine each other’s thought worlds in the areas of glory, judgment, and the divine plan?” The contribution of this thesis aims to demonstrate the mutual illumination we anticipate that the textual evidence will bring forth in the thought worlds of 4QInstruction and the Gospel of John that a pattern of conceptual dissimilarity giving birth to the wider implications between the two texts and issues the need for a continual search for new evidence for a broader contextual background to the Gospel of John in the milieu of Second Temple Judaism. In addition, the mutual illumination which we anticipate will be brought forth is that what each author’s intends or assumes about salvation is the critical dividing factor in understanding in both directions between 4QInstruction and the Gospel of John. His intentions about salvation functions as the Johannine author’s building block to construct his theological understandings of glory, judgment, and the divine plan in the cases we present, while the author of 4QInstr. appeals to one’s predetermined destiny within the fufillment of divine plan to build his case.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.025
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham)French-language works237,207