The Berean Codex™Scripture Research Project
Research library · Reception history · Dependency analysis

Evidence audit — John Wesley Luke 15 reception record

A reusable research record with provenance and relationships kept separate from the presentation layer.

INTERPRETATION_AUDITAUDIT_HISTINT_LUK_15_WESLEY_NOTES
Interpretation Dependency Profile

Reception History Only

Premises mapped: 4 · Development threads: 2

Curated chronology: 1755 and later editions · Earliest In Curated Corpus Only

This date identifies this curated reception witness, not the historical origin of its ideas. This is not a historical-origin claim.

Open complete dependency profile

Chronology boundary: “Earliest in the curated Codex corpus” is not a claim of historical origin. Missing earlier records cannot be treated as evidence that a premise did not exist.
Interpretive Evidence Audit

Documented Reception Only · Curated Pass As Reception History

Audited target: Wesley — one reception-of-sinners theme; elder son represents Pharisees and scribes

Inference depth: Direct

Original-meaning weight: No Automatic Weight From Reception

Support review

Textual: {"rating":"NOT_THE_PRIMARY_AUDIT_QUESTION","notes":["The target record claims what the interpreter argued, not that the interpretation is Luke’s original meaning."]}

Literary: {"rating":"NOT_THE_PRIMARY_AUDIT_QUESTION","notes":["Literary merits of the interpreter’s reading require a separate current interpretive claim if promoted beyond reception history."]}

Historical Context: {"rating":"HIGH_FOR_HISTORICAL_ATTRIBUTION","notes":["The primary notes document Wesley’s unified reception-of-sinners theme and his elder-son association with Pharisees and scribes."]}

Dependencies

Type: TRADITIONAL_AUTHORITY_PREMISE

Note: Explicitly rejected as an evidentiary shortcut: historical influence or ecclesial/traditional location cannot establish original meaning.

Inferential steps

Verify the interpreter/work attribution.
Verify the cited passage-specific reading in the primary work or identified translation.
Publish it as reception history only.
Require a separate evidence audit if the reading is promoted into a current original-meaning claim.

Counterevidence review

Historical documentation can be secure even when the interpretation’s exegetical merits remain disputed.

Strongest competing case

The strongest competing case is not another historical interpreter by vote count; it is whichever current reading best explains the Scripture and contextual evidence.

Audit conclusion

The immediate audience connection is independently testable, but Wesley’s concise notes do not substitute for a full linguistic/historical argument.

What this audit does not establish

This audit establishes reception history, not doctrinal or exegetical correctness.
Age, fame, church office, denomination, or influence adds no truth weight.

What this does not establish

This audit establishes reception history, not doctrinal or exegetical correctness.
Age, fame, church office, denomination, or influence adds no truth weight.
Release Introduced
v55
Status
CURATED_PUBLIC