id: EA-HK-REVFIRST-01/questions rule: A question carries the record that poses it, its body, what it bears on, what to read first, how to ask it, and what result would advance or retreat the framework. questions: - id: Q1-anchor question: Is there an external or material anchor for the composition of any Pauline letter, or for the received form of Revelation? posed_in: record: rec:1735 axn: AXN:0BE9.GENERATIVE.βŠ•πŸ—οΈπŸŽΊβ†™οΈβ›³β–³ record_sha256: 96218bdc5498a32f8e8ae62380d0389531ef57d943f9aa274d75930a4ed96923 exact: Absolute priority is defeated by an external or material anchor located_in: text body: D bears_on: - claim:rf-1735-absolute - fw:current-consensus-chronology read_first: - 1735 - site:ladder-priority - site:ladder-dating how_to_ask: search named corpora (epigraphic, papyrological) for an object that dates a composition, a letter or the book itself (the dates of persons are another object); declare the corpora searched advances_if: an independent anchor fixes Revelation's received form before the earliest anchored Pauline composition retreats_if: an independent anchor places a Pauline composition before the earliest plausible date of Revelation's received form unchanged_if: 'a bounded search finds no anchor for either: absolute priority stays priced at the Acts correlation; the null weakens only the specific anchoring claims searched for, and promotes neither framework' status: open commons: open - id: Q2-collection question: Did a sevenfold Pauline church collection circulate before Revelation? posed_in: record: rec:1735 axn: AXN:0BE9.GENERATIVE.βŠ•πŸ—οΈπŸŽΊβ†™οΈβ›³β–³ record_sha256: 96218bdc5498a32f8e8ae62380d0389531ef57d943f9aa274d75930a4ed96923 exact: Corpus priority is defeated by evidence of a sevenfold Pauline church collection demonstrably circulating before Revelation located_in: text body: C bears_on: - claim:rf-1735-corpus read_first: - 1735 - site:ladder-corpus - 1740 how_to_ask: read the collection histories (Trobisch, Gamble) for a dated sevenfold form; read the early receptions of the Pauline seven advances_if: an independent early witness, beside the Muratorian Fragment, reads the Pauline seven as arranged after John's retreats_if: a sevenfold Pauline collection is demonstrated before Revelation, or Revelation's architecture is shown to depend on one unchanged_if: 'no earlier collection is evidenced: the archetypal claim stands as established (first attested, treated as the model in reception); the historical-generation claim stays the economical reading, undemonstrated; the temporal relation of the letters to Revelation is not settled by this' status: open commons: open - id: Q3-markedness question: Does the crown-of-life markedness finding survive a wider sweep? posed_in: record: rec:1735 axn: AXN:0BE9.GENERATIVE.βŠ•πŸ—οΈπŸŽΊβ†™οΈβ›³β–³ record_sha256: 96218bdc5498a32f8e8ae62380d0389531ef57d943f9aa274d75930a4ed96923 exact: Its defeat would remove one arrow, not the programme. located_in: text body: G bears_on: - claim:rf-1735-arrow - claim:rf-1416-smyrna read_first: - 1735 - 1416 - 1414 how_to_ask: 'run the arrow procedure (transform_procedure): sweep the seated corpora for the formula before Revelation; test James''s promise-anaphora for genericity under the declared rules' advances_if: a wider sweep keeps the cluster marked in Revelation, elaborated elsewhere, without an equally economical common source retreats_if: a securely earlier attestation, or a generic anaphora, removes this arrow unchanged_if: 'the sweep is inconclusive: the arrow stays at its present grade; one arrow''s state decides nothing of the rest' status: open commons: open - id: Q4-direction question: Which way does the work–toil–endurance triad run between Rev 2.2 and 1 Thess 1.3? posed_in: record: site:ladder-corpus url: https://www.revelationfirst.com/ladder/corpus/ page_sha256: 64a370ad5d1f7d0e88989a58f6326b368223fdd071f3f2c34a48b1dd243c9c50 exact: Direction cannot be inferred from compression alone located_in: text body: C bears_on: - claim:rf-site-direction read_first: - site:ladder-corpus - 1735 how_to_ask: apply a direction test independent of the chronology under examination advances_if: a direction test favours expansion from Revelation retreats_if: a direction test favours abbreviation from Paul unchanged_if: 'the test does not discriminate: four explanations stay available (site rung III); direction is not inferred from compression' status: open commons: open - id: Q5-replication question: Does Revelation 12 realize the frozen operator under substrate-blind replication? posed_in: record: rec:1495 axn: AXN:060A.PHILOLOGICAL.βž—πŸŒΏπŸ’šπŸŒ±πŸ•πŸŽ» record_sha256: 9317cc19628a346a9533bc7a7cc8d92db9de0a7d769b05d71d062cce6036695e exact: Single adjudicator (TACHYON), single scoring pass located_in: text body: G bears_on: - claim:rf-1495-sentence - hk:historical-logos read_first: - 1494 - 1495 - 1511 how_to_ask: hand the clauses and the scoring rule to independent substrates with the target unnamed advances_if: independent scores meet the pre-set threshold retreats_if: independent scores fall below it unchanged_if: 'the replications split: the record stays one witness''s careful count with its negatives' status: open commons: open - id: Q6a-order-fit question: What ordering of the material Matthew and Luke share does the Apocalypse explain, and what remains unexplained? posed_in: record: rec:1747 axn: AXN:0C2A.MPAI.πŸ§±πŸ§Šβž•β›΅πŸ¦…πŸ§ͺ record_sha256: 221d905c7f391e83ff476ab591938d32de77481bcf577b4c15963a44eca84dbf exact: Of eight requirements, three are met, one is met on the held date, three are partly met, and one is not met. located_in: text body: G bears_on: - claim:rf-1747-grades read_first: - 1747 - 1746 - 1744 - site:unfolding how_to_ask: set the order of the shared material in Matthew and in Luke beside the Apocalypse's sequence; derive what the declared transform steps reach, and show the residue advances_if: the declared transform steps derive part of the shared order from the Apocalypse's sequence, with the residue shown retreats_if: the shared order stands where no declared transform from the Apocalypse reaches it, and a common written source explains it more economically unchanged_if: 'the order is not derived: the requirement stays not met, and the grade stays as recorded (three met, one on the held date, three in part, one not)' status: open commons: open - id: Q6b-order-standing question: On what warrant does the source theory grant Q the capacity to explain that shared order? posed_in: record: rec:1746 axn: AXN:0C29.GENERATIVE.πŸŒ‰πŸ°πŸšͺβš“πŸŒ‰πŸ’₯ record_sha256: 2b27242c2bebc2d25036c044a37664420205c0ec0a40fbc7aa69d1da50ca098a exact: since Luke sets that material in other places and another order, and lacks Matthew's additions to Mark, most critics hold that neither used the other and that both drew on a common written source, Q. located_in: text body: R bears_on: - claim:rv-1746-powers - fw:current-consensus-chronology read_first: - 1746 - 1744 how_to_ask: read where each source theory sets Q's order (Luke's order taken as Q's; a reconstruction's order) and on what witness; declare the theories read advances_if: Q's order is shown to be assigned by the reconstruction that posits it and attested of no text retreats_if: an attested property, independent of the reconstruction, gives Q its order unchanged_if: the warrant is read and stated as the source theory states it. A result here audits Q's standing; it does not move Q6a's grade, which only a derivation can move status: open commons: open - id: Q7-economy question: Do the phenomena rung V explains have a more economical explanation in ordinary multiple authorship? posed_in: record: site:ladder-heteronyms url: https://www.revelationfirst.com/ladder/heteronyms/ page_sha256: 3eeb999bc8a0ace393c805a0ef194731c4986b324302cde805435e4bb7e1d890 exact: not primarily defeated by evidence but by explanatory redundancy located_in: text body: H bears_on: - claim:rf-site-contingent - fw:current-consensus-chronology read_first: - site:ladder-heteronyms - 203 - 1226 - 1217 how_to_ask: state the phenomena; state each account's cost for each advances_if: the author-function reading is cheaper on a phenomenon retreats_if: multiple authorship is cheaper on every phenomenon; rung V is dropped and I–IV stand unchanged_if: 'the costs are not stated for both: rung V stays an available reading, contingent' status: open commons: open - id: Q8-historiography question: Is there a sustained modern historical-critical treatment that distinguishes and tests the three levels of priority? posed_in: record: rec:1735 axn: AXN:0BE9.GENERATIVE.βŠ•πŸ—οΈπŸŽΊβ†™οΈβ›³β–³ record_sha256: 96218bdc5498a32f8e8ae62380d0389531ef57d943f9aa274d75930a4ed96923 exact: The historiographic claim is defeated by identification of a sustained modern historical-critical treatment that explicitly distinguishes and tests these three levels. located_in: text body: R bears_on: - claim:rf-1735-historiographic read_first: - 1735 - 1741 - 1740 how_to_ask: search the dating literature for a treatment that keeps absolute, corpus and generative priority apart; declare the literature searched advances_if: a bounded search confirms the absence across the declared literature retreats_if: one is found, which the record calls 'a welcome correction' unchanged_if: 'the search is not run or not bounded: the claim stands at ''so far as I have been able to determine'' (#1735 Β§I)' status: open commons: open