Observation

The purpose of Distributed mediation — multiple witnesses vs single point of failure is not to add another argument, but to make the argument more inspectable. In plain language, the datum is this: Distributed testimony can reduce single-point-of-failure risk, but this item is currently a methodology/source-structure note rather than a worldview hypothesis row. Read it as part of the public audit trail, the place where the map explains how it tries to keep itself honest. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Distributed testimony can reduce single-point-of-failure risk, but this item is currently a methodology/source-structure note rather than a worldview hypothesis row. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

This is one of the map-making rows. It explains how The Signal tries to reason: not by shouting, not by hiding uncertainty, but by asking what each clue should do to our expectations.

There may be no score attached yet. That is fine: some rows are here to explain the map, preserve context, or wait for better source work before they are weighed.

Distributed testimony can reduce single-point-of-failure risk, but this item is currently a methodology/source-structure note rather than a worldview hypothesis row. It should remain unweighted until DATA/Rob decide whether testimony mediation needs a dedicated support-layer seat.

Background / Context

Read this as methodology / support-layer context. Its category path is Methodology / Signal Core / Evidence Governance / Source / Testimony Structure, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

No active scored hypothesis is assigned. Treat this as contextual or pending calibration until governance says otherwise.

Bayesian Meaning

This item currently has no active Bayes factors. Its value is explanatory, contextual, or pending further article/source/hypothesis-seat work.

Caveats

Methodology boundary: keep unweighted unless a testimony/reliability support-layer hypothesis is approved.

Methodology rows clarify how evidence is handled. They are not ordinary worldview evidence unless a separate scored item makes that relation explicit.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

C. Blomberg, *The Historical Reliability of the Gospels* (on source relations).

R. Swinburne, *The Resurrection of God Incarnate* (method).

Explanation: Redundancy and cross-checks modestly raise reliability.

Explanation: Single-node models are more failure-prone.


Observation

Historical anchors — externally testable claims in revelation asks the reader to slow down over a thought that is easy to use and hard to explain. In plain language, the datum is this: Revelatory claims embedded in specific people, places, and dates create external checkpoints. Read it as a question about the deep structure of explanation, not as a magic word for winning an argument. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), Deism (H-DEISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Revelatory claims embedded in specific people, places, and dates create external checkpoints. This supports public-testability structure modestly, but the direct evidential weight belongs to the concrete historical and textual rows. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Philosophy asks the questions we often smuggle in without noticing: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why trust reason? Why treat goodness as more than preference? This item belongs to that slower, deeper kind of inquiry.

Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and Deism (H-DEISM). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Revelatory claims embedded in specific people, places, and dates create external checkpoints. This supports public-testability structure modestly, but the direct evidential weight belongs to the concrete historical and textual rows.

Background / Context

Read this as philosophy / theology-proper evidence. Its category path is Philosophy / Epistemology / Reason / Public Testability, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Historically testable revelation anchors modestly support revealed-theism structure, capped because concrete archaeology/text rows carry the direct evidence.

H-DEISM (Deism): Deism expects fewer public revelation anchors, but the debit is small because religions can make historical claims under many views.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-GOD-OT: +0.04 log10BF; H-DEISM: -0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Revelation/testability cap: this row addresses public-testability asymmetry between revealed theism and deism; do not treat it as direct proof of Christianity or resurrection.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Blomberg, *The Historical Reliability of the Gospels*.

Bauckham, *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses*.

Explanation: Public, testable revelation predicts multiple anchors.

Explanation: Naturalism can explain some anchors; systematic alignment less expected.


Observation

RNA world evidence begins with nature being stubbornly specific, which is often where the best questions begin. The ordinary-language version is this: Catalytic ribozymes and plausible nucleotide synthesis pathways support RNA-first scenarios. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Catalytic ribozymes and plausible nucleotide synthesis pathways support RNA-first scenarios. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Catalytic ribozymes and plausible nucleotide synthesis pathways support RNA-first scenarios.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Biology / Origins / Natural Mechanisms, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): RNA world evidence (ribozymes, prebiotic pathways) does not clearly separate Deism from nearby theistic or non-theistic readings. It stays neutral because the clue is broad, and it proves neither Deism nor its rivals.

H-GOD (God): RNA world evidence (ribozymes, prebiotic pathways) slightly pressures God because it gives a partial non-theistic explanation for this part of the field. The effect is limited because it does not explain the whole order of reality or disprove God.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): RNA world evidence (ribozymes, prebiotic pathways) slightly pressures God because it gives a partial non-theistic explanation for this part of the field. The effect is limited because it does not explain the whole order of reality or disprove God.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): RNA world evidence (ribozymes, prebiotic pathways) does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: -0.05 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: RNA world evidence (ribozymes, prebiotic pathways) does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Powner, M.W. et al. (2009). Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.

Explanation: Calibrated for Stage‑1 coherence: conservative weight to avoid double counting; sources and assumptions noted.


Sabbath to Sunday Worship Shift

Observation

The map pauses over Sabbath to Sunday Worship Shift because movements, memories, enemies, dates, and public practices all leave different kinds of tracks. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: Early Sunday worship is evidence of downstream community reorientation around Jesus and the remembered resurrection day. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Early Sunday worship is evidence of downstream community reorientation around Jesus and the remembered resurrection day. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

A creed is a compact saying made to be remembered and handed on; its importance is often that it is early, public, and repeatable. Resurrection evidence is connected evidence: creed, burial, witnesses, worship, and alternatives should not be stacked as if they were all strangers to one another.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), and Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Early Sunday worship is evidence of downstream community reorientation around Jesus and the remembered resurrection day. It modestly supports early Christ-identity / worship-practice claims, but it is not direct proof of the resurrection event and must be capped against creed and proclamation evidence.

Background / Context

Read this as resurrection-adjacent evidence under the approved cluster cap. Its category path is History / Early Christian Practice / Worship Practice, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): A costly early reorientation of worship around the first day modestly supports high valuation of Jesus and resurrection-shaped communal identity, while remaining downstream of proclamation evidence.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Regular worship-practice reorientation gives small support to early divine-identity-shaped devotion, capped against early Christology and creed rows.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Early practice change is somewhat less expected under a purely slow-legend model, but the row should not repeat creed or resurrection penalties.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.08 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.04 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Downstream worship/practice row. No direct H-RESURRECTION score; capped against creed, early Christology, and oral-tradition rows.

This item must stay inside the resurrection cluster cap. Creed, burial, empty tomb, women witnesses, martyrdom, Sunday practice, and oral tradition are related clues, not fully independent proofs.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 9:1 (early 2nd century)

Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96 (on Christian gatherings)

Stage 4 practice-level evidence; scoped to Resurrection cluster plus Judaism. Bands set with midpoint log10BF for badge alignment.


Observation

Cynic-like parallels: itinerancy, aphorisms, social inversion asks what kind of memory the ancient evidence has preserved, and how much weight that memory can honestly bear. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Some scholars see Jesus resembling Hellenistic sages with aphoristic teaching and counter-cultural praxis. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Some scholars see Jesus resembling Hellenistic sages with aphoristic teaching and counter-cultural praxis. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Some scholars see Jesus resembling Hellenistic sages with aphoristic teaching and counter-cultural praxis.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / Historical Jesus / Alternatives / Teacher / Sage Models, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Sage parallels can explain some Jesus traditions without divine identity, but Jesus' Jewish prophetic context limits the pressure.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): A merely itinerant-sage frame competes with ontological Logos claims, weakly and with substantial context ambiguity.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Teacher-first framing leaves room for later theological growth, but the parallel is broad and non-specific.

H-SECULAR-HUMANISM (Secular Humanism): Human ethical-teacher readings fit the parallels, though only weakly because the data are not uniquely secular.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: -0.05 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: -0.07 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: +0.05 log10BF; H-SECULAR-HUMANISM: +0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Teacher/sage comparator cap: supports a modest non-divine-teacher reading only for the datum stated; do not stack freely with every alternative row.

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Crossan, J. D. (1991). The Historical Jesus.

Mack, B. (1993). The Lost Gospel: Q and Christian Origins.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS H-ALT-LEGEND H-SECULAR-HUMANISM

Explanation: Conservative competitor enrichment; favors target hypothesis without overstatement.


Observation

Miracle skepticism as later accretion: teacher-first hypothesis asks the reader to listen for the difference between a rumor, a tradition, and a historically anchored claim. The ordinary-language version is this: A teacher-first model treats miracle traditions as later theological elaboration around a charismatic Jewish teacher. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), Secular Humanism (H-SECULAR-HUMANISM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: A teacher-first model treats miracle traditions as later theological elaboration around a charismatic Jewish teacher. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

Resurrection evidence is connected evidence: creed, burial, witnesses, worship, and alternatives should not be stacked as if they were all strangers to one another.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), Secular Humanism (H-SECULAR-HUMANISM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

A teacher-first model treats miracle traditions as later theological elaboration around a charismatic Jewish teacher. This modestly supports naturalistic or secular sage readings and mildly pressures direct Christ-identity inference from miracle material alone, but it does not explain all early Christology or resurrection data.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / Historical Jesus / Alternatives / Teacher / Sage Models, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): A teacher-first account can explain some miracle traditions as later theological elaboration around a charismatic figure, modestly supporting naturalistic historical reconstruction.

H-SECULAR-HUMANISM (Secular Humanism): The sage/teacher model fits ethical-teacher readings of Jesus, while remaining too broad to explain all early Christian data.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): If miracle material is later accretion around a teacher, direct inference to divine identity is mildly weakened, but the item does not address the whole Christology case.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Teacher-first reconstruction competes modestly with Logos ontology, though early high-Christology evidence must be assessed separately.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Later miracle accretion is a form of legendary/theological development, but the broadness of the model keeps the score modest.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-NATURALISM: +0.03 log10BF; H-SECULAR-HUMANISM: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: -0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: -0.04 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: +0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Teacher/sage comparator cap: later-accretion models are modest and capped against resurrection, creed, and early-Christology governance.

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1991)

Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus (2010)

Teacher-first/legend comparator. Does not touch H-RESURRECTION and should be capped with sage, legend, and social-formation items.

H-NATURALISM H-SECULAR-HUMANISM H-CHRIST-IDENTITY H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS H-ALT-LEGEND


Observation

Judaism/Christianity — continuity and transformation of Jewish wisdom tradition asks the reader to take a rival tradition seriously before deciding where it fits in the wider map. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether jewish wisdom literature (Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) shapes New Testament themes (e.g., Logos/Wisdom Christology) fits some explanations better than others. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Judaism (H-JUDAISM), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Jewish wisdom literature (Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) shapes New Testament themes (e.g., Logos/Wisdom Christology). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Judaism (H-JUDAISM), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), and Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Jewish wisdom literature (Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) shapes New Testament themes (e.g., Logos/Wisdom Christology). This matters because it shows continuity and transformation lines that each side (Judaism/Christianity) reads differently for theological identity claims.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Judaism / Wisdom Tradition, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-JUDAISM (Judaism): Wisdom continuity is expected within Judaism and only weakly discriminates.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Wisdom/Logos transformation modestly supports Christian Logos framing, capped because literary development and metaphor remain live.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Continuity gives a tiny Christ-identity nudge only through later Logos/Wisdom interpretation.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-JUDAISM: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Wisdom/Logos cap: this is a low-discrimination continuity row; do not stack freely with Logos, hymn, or prophecy items.

Comparator evidence should be read fairly. It may support its own tradition or pressure Christian claims in a limited way, but similarity or difference alone does not settle the worldview contest.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

James Kugel, *The God of Old*.

Richard Bauckham, *Jesus and the God of Israel*.

John J. Collins, *Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age*.

Explanation: Transformation/fulfillment claim remains plausible.

Explanation: Continuity fits both; low discrimination.

Explanation: Literary development expected.


Observation

Sociological models of charismatic authority without divinity asks what human beings keep doing across cultures, and why that repetition might matter. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that charismatic authority, group dynamics, and ritual practices can produce deep loyalty and elevated teacher-veneration without requiring ontological divinity. Read it as a human-pattern clue: illuminating, suggestive, and easy to misuse if it is turned into either proof of religion or proof that religion is merely projection. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), Secular Humanism (H-SECULAR-HUMANISM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Charismatic authority, group dynamics, and ritual practices can produce deep loyalty and elevated teacher-veneration without requiring ontological divinity. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Anthropology looks at human beings with the lights on: our rituals, fears, songs, sacrifices, longings, authorities, and moral habits. It can show why religion is so human without deciding too quickly whether religion is merely human.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), Secular Humanism (H-SECULAR-HUMANISM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Charismatic authority, group dynamics, and ritual practices can produce deep loyalty and elevated teacher-veneration without requiring ontological divinity. This modestly supports naturalistic and secular social-formation accounts, while only mildly pressuring Christ-identity claims.

Background / Context

Read this as anthropological or culture-pattern evidence. Its category path is Anthropology / Social Formation / Costly Commitment / Authority, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Sociological accounts of charisma, group authority, and ritualized devotion modestly support naturalistic explanations of high veneration without requiring ontological divinity.

H-SECULAR-HUMANISM (Secular Humanism): Teacher-centered and social-formation models fit secular accounts of religious authority, though they do not explain all early Christian claims.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): If charismatic authority can generate high devotion without divinity, that mildly pressures direct Christ-identity inference from devotion alone.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Social formation can explain some exalted language without requiring Logos ontology, but the item does not settle high Christology.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Charismatic-authority models can support later interpretive growth, but the item is not direct evidence of legendary fabrication.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-NATURALISM: +0.04 log10BF; H-SECULAR-HUMANISM: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: -0.04 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: -0.04 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: +0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Charismatic-authority cap: sociological explanation supports non-divine models only modestly and does not disprove event claims or theology by itself.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Max Weber, Economy and Society (1922), on charismatic authority

Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (1996)

Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (1983)

Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory (1950/1992)

Completed as modest anthropology/social-formation evidence. Does not touch H-RESURRECTION and should not be over-stacked with early-Christology or sage-model items.


Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7) — Prophecy & Fulfillment framing

Observation

The first task in Davidic Covenant — Prophecy & Fulfillment framing is to hear the text before turning it into a score. The ordinary-language version is this: 2 Samuel 7 is a Davidic-covenant coherence row. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: 2 Samuel 7 is a Davidic-covenant coherence row. It modestly supports Jesus-as-Davidic-heir and broader canonical synthesis, but it is internal Scripture-to-Scripture evidence and should not be scored as an independent anti-legend proof. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage. Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

2 Samuel 7 records YHWH’s covenant promise to David that his seed and throne would be established. The promise became a keystone for messianic expectation and later Christian readings that identify Jesus as the Davidic heir.

Prophecy (Hebrew Bible)

Prophecy: Davidic covenant promise

Parallel Prophecy: Davidic promise restated

Fulfillment Claims (New Testament)

Fulfillment Claim: Angelic announcement to Mary (Davidic throne/forever)

Fulfillment Claim: Apostolic proclamation (Davidic oath/promise applied to Jesus)

Fulfillment Claim: Davidic descent affirmed

Fulfillment Claim: Messianic/Davidic identity confessed

Relevance

If the Jesus movement is historically grounded, we expect explicit, programmatic "promise→fulfillment" linkages that integrate Israel’s Scriptures. The Davidic covenant text sits at the center of that matrix and the NT repeatedly frames Jesus in those terms.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: A real historical movement centered on Jesus would naturally marshal the Davidic covenant as part of a coherent identity claim.

H-ALT-LEGEND: A purely literary/theological construction could also craft a fulfillment motif post hoc; internal coherence alone does not prove historicity.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be the NT’s sustained, explicit use of 2 Sam 7 in framing Jesus as the Davidic heir (with multiple Fulfillment passages). Under H-CHRIST-IDENTITY, E is slightly more expected as a lived community’s hermeneutic. Under H-ALT-LEGEND, E remains plausible as deliberate literary theology. Because this is **internal** evidence (not external corroboration), assign a small, tightly bounded differential.

Caveats

Canon formation and messianic expectations are debated; the covenant includes near-term referents (Solomon/temple) alongside long-range royal theology; fulfillment claims hinge on broader textual and historical dossiers beyond this single passage.

Explanation: The Davidic covenant is central messianic background and supports Jesus-as-Davidic-heir coherence, but remains an internal canonical frame rather than external proof.

Explanation: The promise-to-fulfillment arc gives small support to canonical Logos synthesis, capped against broader narrative-arc rows.

McKenzie, S. L. (2000). King David: A Biography.

Wright, N. T. (2012). How God Became King.

Collins, J. J. (2005). The Bible after Babel.

Longman, T. (2017). Introducing the Old Testament.

2 Sam 7’s Davidic covenant with clearly labeled Prophecy and NT Fulfillment claims; small, bounded support for a coherent Jesus-as-Davidic-heir identity framing.

Davidic covenant row migrated away from H-ALT-LEGEND proxy scoring. Small internal canonical-coherence support only.


Reader's Orientation

Daniel 9: 'Seventy Weeks' chronology asks the reader to let the passage speak in its own setting before asking what it may become in the wider story. The ordinary-language version is this: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-DAN-9-24-27` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Steinmann, A.E. (2018). Daniel (Concordia Commentary).

Duplicate/context under EV-DAN-9-24-27; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” … “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)…

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-DAN-9-24-27`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Daniel 9: 'Seventy Weeks' chronology (cautious)

Explanation: Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.


Observation

The first task in Dead Sea Scrolls: pre-Christian attestation of key prophetic texts is to hear the text before turning it into a score. The ordinary-language version is this: Qumran manuscripts (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms, Minor Prophets) predate Christianity, anchoring prophetic texts’ availability. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Canon and Textual Reliability (H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Qumran manuscripts (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms, Minor Prophets) predate Christianity, anchoring prophetic texts’ availability. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage. Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Canon and Textual Reliability (H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Qumran manuscripts (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms, Minor Prophets) predate Christianity, anchoring prophetic texts’ availability.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Textual Evidence / Manuscripts / Transmission, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY (Canon and Textual Reliability): DSS attestation of prophetic texts modestly supports pre-Christian availability and textual continuity, but overlaps the Great Isaiah Scroll row.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY: +0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Dependent DSS attestation support-layer row. Capped against E-DSS-ISAIAH and individual textual items; no direct Christology proxy scoring.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Tov, E. (2012). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Flint, P. (2013). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible.


Observation

Passover typology and the Lamb invites a slow reading, because Scripture evidence can be powerful only when original context and later use are both kept in view. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether passover lamb, blood protection, and deliverance form a typological matrix fulfilled in the crucifixion timing and language fits some explanations better than others. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Passover lamb, blood protection, and deliverance form a typological matrix fulfilled in the crucifixion timing and language. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Typology is pattern before it is proof: a later event seems to complete or echo an earlier shape.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Passover lamb, blood protection, and deliverance form a typological matrix fulfilled in the crucifixion timing and language.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Typology / Typological Patterns, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Passover/Lamb typology is a pattern-level Christological coherence row, not a direct prediction.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Passover/Lamb typology is a pattern-level Christological coherence row, not a direct prediction.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.05 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Passover/Lamb typology is a pattern-level Christological coherence row, not a direct prediction.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Goppelt, L. (1982). Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament.

Beale, G.K. (2011). A New Testament Biblical Theology.

Passover typology and the Lamb


Intertextual matrix: OT in the NT (coherence pattern)

Observation

The first task in Intertextual matrix: OT in the NT is to hear the text before turning it into a score. In plain language, the datum is this: The New Testament's dense network of Old Testament quotations, allusions, and typological echoes modestly supports Christ-identity and Logos-shaped canonical coherence, while remaining capped for authorial crafting and... Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus' Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: The New Testament's dense network of Old Testament quotations, allusions, and typological echoes modestly supports Christ-identity and Logos-shaped canonical coherence, while remaining capped for authorial crafting and selection effects. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Typology is pattern before it is proof: a later event seems to complete or echo an earlier shape. Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus' Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

The NT repeatedly reuses and reframes key OT texts and motifs (king, servant, son of man, new covenant), producing a cross-linked matrix of quotations, allusions, and type fulfillments. Examples include:

These links operate at multiple levels (lexical echoes, narrative patterns, thematic trajectories) and across authors.

Method & Controls

Responsible identification of allusions considers verbal parallels, unique phrasing, thematic fit, authorial intent, audience competence, and density of echoes (cf. standard criteria in intertextual studies). The goal is to avoid pareidolia by weighing multiple converging indicators rather than single word matches.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: If the identity claims are historically embedded within Second Temple Judaism, extensive OT re-use is expected as the community interprets Jesus within Israel's scriptures.

H-ALT-LEGEND: Later authors could craft a compelling tapestry by literary skill and theological agenda; coherence can arise without a strong historical core.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be the multilayered OT->NT intertextual matrix. Under H-CHRIST-IDENTITY, E is slightly more likely because a historically rooted movement naturally metabolizes Israel's scriptures into its identity narrative. Under H-ALT-LEGEND, crafted coherence is possible but requires sustained, cross-author design. Given selection/crafting possibilities, assign a small, tightly bounded weight.

Caveats

Authorial crafting and theological agendas can produce high coherence; risk of over-identifying echoes; later redactional shaping; audience competence varies; this evidence targets coherence/backdrop, not event verification.

Explanation: Dense OT-to-NT intertextuality modestly supports historically embedded Christ-identity interpretation, but authorial crafting and selection effects cap the value.

Explanation: The intertextual matrix gives small support to Logos/canonical synthesis as a pattern, not a standalone proof.

Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (2016).

G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007).

Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New (2001).

Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (1975/1999).

Dense OT->NT quotation/allusion network creates a coherent intertextual matrix; small, bounded support for historically embedded identity claims over pure legend.

Intertextual matrix row migrated away from H-ALT-LEGEND proxy scoring. Treat as capped synthesis/coherence evidence.


Observation

Isaiah 35 healings as messianic signs in the Gospels asks the reader to let the passage speak in its own setting before asking what it may become in the wider story. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Isaiah 35's restoration imagery includes the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame leaping, and the mute singing. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Isaiah 35's restoration imagery includes the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame leaping, and the mute singing. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Isaiah 35's restoration imagery includes the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame leaping, and the mute singing. The Gospels use this healing cluster as a messianic-sign pattern for Jesus, but future scoring must discount for original context and retrospective application.

Background / Context

Read this as typology / resonance rather than a stand-alone prediction. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Prophecy / Fulfillment / Messianic Prophecy, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Isaiah 35 healing imagery coheres with Gospel messianic-sign usage, but the restoration-context and retrospective-application caveats keep the score modest.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): The healing/restoration pattern gives small support to canonical synthesis around Jesus as restorer, not direct proof of divine identity.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.05 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

No Bayes factors applied. Future scoring lane: prophecy/fulfillment or messianic-sign pattern under approved prophecy policy.

Original context, translation, genre, and New Testament reuse all matter. This row should not be treated as if every resonance were a direct prediction, and it should remain capped against other prophecy items.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Keener, C.S. (1999). A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Batch 2 full-item completion: article now identifies Isaiah 35 restoration/healing imagery, Gospel messianic-sign usage, original-context caution, and retrospective-application caution. BF review still requires prophecy-policy approval.

Messianic-sign pattern, not detached prediction. Scored modestly with original-context and retrospective-application discounts.


Reader's Orientation

Isaiah 52–53: Suffering Servant pattern should be read with both eyes open: one on the ancient text, and one on the later claim being made from it. In plain language, the datum is this: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-ISA-53` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ), c. 2nd–1st c. BCE.

Childs, B.S. (2001). Isaiah; Goldingay, J. (2014). The Theology of Isaiah.

Duplicate/context under EV-ISA-53; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-ISA-53`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Isaiah 52–53: Suffering Servant pattern


Observation

Isaiah 7:14: Immanuel sign invites a slow reading, because Scripture evidence can be powerful only when original context and later use are both kept in view. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Isaiah 7:14 describes a sign given in the middle of political crisis: “The young woman will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel” (“God with us”). Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Isaiah 7:14 describes a sign given in the middle of political crisis: “The young woman will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel” (“God with us”). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Isaiah 7:14 describes a sign given in the middle of political crisis: “The young woman will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel” (“God with us”). For King Ahaz, this was reassurance that God had not abandoned Judah, even when foreign powers threatened. The Hebrew word ‘almah means a young woman of marriageable age; the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) chose parthenos (“virgin”), and that choice would shape how later generations read the verse. At the surface level, the passage gave hope to people facing real danger in their own time. But as Scripture was read and translated across centuries, its meaning.

Background / Context

Read this as typology / resonance rather than a stand-alone prediction. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Prophecy / Fulfillment / Messianic Prophecy, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Immanuel receives a tiny dual-horizon/translation-sensitive score; almah/parthenos and Ahaz-context cautions dominate.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Immanuel receives a tiny dual-horizon/translation-sensitive score; almah/parthenos and Ahaz-context cautions dominate.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Immanuel receives a tiny dual-horizon/translation-sensitive score; almah/parthenos and Ahaz-context cautions dominate.

Original context, translation, genre, and New Testament reuse all matter. This row should not be treated as if every resonance were a direct prediction, and it should remain capped against other prophecy items.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

The Immanuel sign, with dual horizon (near and messianic), aligns tightly with Christian claims of prophecy fulfillment. The Septuagint’s 'virgin' reading predating Christianity increases likelihood under Christian hypothesis compared to rivals.

Fitzmyer, J. (1970). The Virginal Conception in the New Testament.

Summary:
Isaiah 7:14 describes a sign given in the middle of political crisis: “The young woman will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel” (“God with us”). For King Ahaz, this was reassurance that God had not abandoned Judah, even when foreign powers threatened. The Hebrew word ‘almah means a young woman of marriageable age; the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) chose parthenos (“virgin”), and that choice would shape how later generations read the verse.

At the surface level, the passage gave hope to people facing real danger in their own time. But as Scripture was read and translated across centuries, its meaning stretched beyond the immediate. By the time of the New Testament, Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. The same promise — God with us — carried through, from a near-term crisis sign to a messianic horizon.

Isaiah 7:14: Immanuel sign (young woman/virgin)


Observation

With Isaiah 9:6–7: royal child and divine titles, the Signal is asking how a textual clue functions inside a much larger argument about identity, promise, and fulfillment. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: A specific OT text is cited as foreshadowing NT claims about the Messiah. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Judaism (H-JUDAISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: A specific OT text is cited as foreshadowing NT claims about the Messiah. Cross‑text coherence modestly raises Christianity’s likelihood over Naturalism when the text is independently dated and the correspondence is specific. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage. Naturalism, in this project, means explaining reality without supernatural agency; a natural mechanism may support it in one place without settling the whole worldview.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Judaism (H-JUDAISM), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

A specific OT text is cited as foreshadowing NT claims about the Messiah. Cross‑text coherence modestly raises Christianity’s likelihood over Naturalism when the text is independently dated and the correspondence is specific.

Background / Context

Read this as direct fulfillment claim with original-context and retrospective-application caveats. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Prophecy / Fulfillment / Messianic Prophecy, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Royal and divine-title language gives a modest bridge to messianic identity, capped by translation and original-context debates.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): The divine-title reading weakly to modestly supports high Christology if the translation and Christian application are accepted.

H-JUDAISM (Judaism): The source text remains Jewish scripture with strong original-context readings, so this item is neutral toward Judaism rather than anti-Judaism.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Cross-text resonance is only very weakly less expected under purely natural development because translation and application debates remain significant.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.08 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.09 log10BF; H-JUDAISM: 0.00 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Isaiah 9 royal-child/divine-title text; values remain capped for royal-context and translation/title debates.

Original context, translation, genre, and New Testament reuse all matter. This row should not be treated as if every resonance were a direct prediction, and it should remain capped against other prophecy items.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS H-JUDAISM H-NATURALISM

Explanation: Coherent anticipation modestly favors Christianity.

Explanation: Retrospective reading remains an alternative.


Observation

The first task in Jonah sign typology is to hear the text before turning it into a score. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether jonah’s three-day motif is linked by Jesus to his death and resurrection timetable fits some explanations better than others. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Jonah’s three-day motif is linked by Jesus to his death and resurrection timetable. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Typology is pattern before it is proof: a later event seems to complete or echo an earlier shape. Resurrection evidence is connected evidence: creed, burial, witnesses, worship, and alternatives should not be stacked as if they were all strangers to one another.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Jonah’s three-day motif is linked by Jesus to his death and resurrection timetable.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Typology / Typological Patterns, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Jonah sign typology receives only tiny resonance weight and no direct H-RESURRECTION score.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Jonah sign typology receives only tiny resonance weight and no direct H-RESURRECTION score.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.02 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Jonah sign typology receives only tiny resonance weight and no direct H-RESURRECTION score.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

France, R.T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew.

Jonah sign typology (three days)


Observation

The first task in Leviticus 16: Day of Atonement typology is to hear the text before turning it into a score. The ordinary-language version is this: Scapegoat and sacrificial blood patterns illuminate the NT’s high-priest Christology (Hebrews). Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Scapegoat and sacrificial blood patterns illuminate the NT’s high-priest Christology (Hebrews). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Typology is pattern before it is proof: a later event seems to complete or echo an earlier shape. Sacrifice language is about gift, cost, cleansing, reconciliation, and substitution; it can be culturally powerful without proving a doctrine by itself.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Scapegoat and sacrificial blood patterns illuminate the NT’s high-priest Christology (Hebrews).

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Typology / Typological Patterns, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Day of Atonement typology supports canonical atonement coherence, not standalone proof.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Day of Atonement typology supports canonical atonement coherence, not standalone proof.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.05 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Day of Atonement typology supports canonical atonement coherence, not standalone proof.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Milgrom, J. (2001). Leviticus 1–16.
Attridge, H. (1989). Hebrews.

Leviticus 16: Day of Atonement typology


Luke 24:44 — Law, Prophets, and Psalms (canonical scope)

Observation

Luke 24:44 — Law, Prophets, and Psalms invites a slow reading, because Scripture evidence can be powerful only when original context and later use are both kept in view. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Luke 24:44 is an internal canonical-scope claim. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Luke 24:44 is an internal canonical-scope claim. It gives tiny support to Scripture-wide Christological coherence, but it is not external verification and should not be used as anti-legend proxy scoring. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage. Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Luke reports Jesus saying that everything written about him in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

This frames a tripartite scriptural corpus (Torah–Nevi'im–Ketuvim, with Psalms as a metonym for the Writings) as the matrix of messianic fulfillment claims.

Background & Context

Second Temple usage evidences both twofold and threefold ways of referring to Israel’s Scriptures. Canon-formation timelines are debated, but Luke’s rhetoric assumes a recognized three-part scope and positions Jesus’ mission within it. This verse functions as an internal programmatic claim rather than external verification.

Relevance to Coherence Claims

If the NT self-consciously reads Israel’s Scriptures as a coherent narrative climaxing in Jesus, we expect statements that unify Law–Prophets–Writings around messianic fulfillment. This verse provides that unifying lens and dovetails with the broader OT→NT intertextual matrix (citations, allusions, typology).

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: A historically grounded identity claim predicts internal canonical-coherence signals (like Luke 24:44) that guide how the community reads the OT around Jesus.

H-ALT-LEGEND: A purely late literary construction can insert such programmatic statements too; coherence can be authored post hoc without strong historical anchoring.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be Luke’s explicit tripartite-canon fulfillment claim. Under H-CHRIST-IDENTITY, E is slightly more expected as a natural articulation of a real movement’s scriptural self-understanding. Under H-ALT-LEGEND, E remains possible as literary theology. Because this is an internal claim (not external corroboration), assign a small, tightly bounded differential and interpret E in concert with broader intertextual data.

Caveats

Internal programmatic statement; does not by itself verify specific prophecies or events; canon-formation chronology and textual reception are debated; must be weighed alongside actual OT–NT intertextual patterns.

Explanation: Luke 24:44 is an internal programmatic claim that slightly supports canonical Christ-identity coherence, not external verification.

Explanation: The Law/Prophets/Psalms scope gives tiny support to broad Logos/canonical synthesis, capped by internal-source status.

Luke 24:44 (text reference)

Luke 24:44 asserts a Law–Prophets–Psalms scope and positions Jesus as its fulfillment—an internal coherence signal; small, bounded support when read with broader OT→NT patterns.

Internal canonical-scope row migrated away from H-ALT-LEGEND proxy scoring. Small internal coherence only.


Reader's Orientation

Malachi 3:1: messenger prepares the way should be read with both eyes open: one on the ancient text, and one on the later claim being made from it. That means the reader should begin here: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `E-MAL-3-1` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Beale, G.K. & Carson, D.A. (2007). Commentary on the NT Use of the OT.

Duplicate/context under E-MAL-3-1; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `E-MAL-3-1`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Malachi 3:1: messenger prepares the way

Explanation: Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.


Reader's Orientation

The first task in Micah 5:2: Bethlehem origins is to hear the text before turning it into a score. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-MIC-5-2` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Waltke, B. (2007). A Commentary on Micah.

Collins, J.J. (2010). The Scepter and the Star.

Duplicate/context under EV-MIC-5-2; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-MIC-5-2`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Micah 5:2: Bethlehem origins


Observation

Numbers 21: Bronze serpent typology should be read with both eyes open: one on the ancient text, and one on the later claim being made from it. In plain language, the datum is this: The lifted serpent as healing sign prefigures the Son of Man being lifted up (John 3). Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: The lifted serpent as healing sign prefigures the Son of Man being lifted up (John 3). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Typology is pattern before it is proof: a later event seems to complete or echo an earlier shape.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

The lifted serpent as healing sign prefigures the Son of Man being lifted up (John 3).

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Typology / Typological Patterns, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Bronze-serpent typology is an explicit intertextual pattern, not a direct prediction.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Bronze-serpent typology is an explicit intertextual pattern, not a direct prediction.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Bronze-serpent typology is an explicit intertextual pattern, not a direct prediction.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Carson, D.A. (1991). The Gospel According to John.

Numbers 21: Bronze serpent typology


Reader's Orientation

Zechariah 11: thirty pieces of silver invites a slow reading, because Scripture evidence can be powerful only when original context and later use are both kept in view. The ordinary-language version is this: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-000469` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Boda, M.J. (2016). Zechariah.
France, R.T. (2007). Matthew.

Duplicate/context under EV-000469; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-000469`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Zechariah 11: thirty pieces of silver (cautious)


Observation

Zechariah 13:7: strike the shepherd should be read with both eyes open: one on the ancient text, and one on the later claim being made from it. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Applied by Jesus to his arrest; flock scattered motif fits Passion night. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Applied by Jesus to his arrest; flock scattered motif fits Passion night. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Applied by Jesus to his arrest; flock scattered motif fits Passion night.

Background / Context

This row is best read as typology / resonance rather than a stand-alone prediction. It sits in Scripture / Text / Prophecy / Fulfillment / Messianic Prophecy. The article gives the public reader the minimum context needed to see what is being claimed before any numerical weight is considered.

Prophecy / Source Text

Fulfillment / New Testament Use

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Strike-the-shepherd row is a small passion-pattern fit, not a major proof text.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Strike-the-shepherd row is a small passion-pattern fit, not a major proof text.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.03 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Strike-the-shepherd row is a small passion-pattern fit, not a major proof text.

Original context, translation, genre, and New Testament reuse all matter. This row should not be treated as if every resonance were a direct prediction, and it should remain capped against other prophecy items.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Boda, M.J. (2016). Zechariah.
Keener, C.S. (1999). Matthew.

Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’” … And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’”

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” declares the LORD of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones.

Zechariah 13:7: strike the shepherd


Reader's Orientation

The first task in Zechariah 9:9: King on a donkey is to hear the text before turning it into a score. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-000471` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Boda, M.J. (2016). The Book of Zechariah.

Duplicate/context under EV-000471; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” … And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!”

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-000471`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Zechariah 9:9: King on a donkey


Observation

Selection effects & confirmation limits asks how a measured feature of nature should be read once competing explanations are allowed into the room. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Anthropic selection can explain survivorship but can also mask real fine-tuning; careful Bayesian handling required. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Anthropic selection can explain survivorship but can also mask real fine-tuning; careful Bayesian handling required. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended. A Bayes factor is just a disciplined way of asking, "Should this clue raise or lower our expectation?"

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Anthropic selection can explain survivorship but can also mask real fine-tuning; careful Bayesian handling required.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Selection Effects, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Selection effects & confirmation limits does not clearly separate Deism from nearby theistic or non-theistic readings. It stays neutral because the clue is broad, and it proves neither Deism nor its rivals.

H-GOD (God): Selection effects & confirmation limits nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Selection effects & confirmation limits nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Selection effects & confirmation limits does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Selection effects & confirmation limits does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and Evolution (Bayesian caution).

Selection effects & confirmation limits

Explanation: Calibrated for Stage‑1 coherence: conservative weight to avoid double counting; sources and assumptions noted.