# Article Integration Map

## Purpose

This file maps where the epistemology / institutional prejudice framework should enter articles and books.

It is meant to prevent the theme from being forgotten or used only in scattered remarks.

## Primary uses

### 1. Methodology sections
Use this track early in major essays or books to explain that disputes are not only about evidence, but also about frameworks.

### 2. Transitional sections
When objections arise, use this track to explain that some objections reflect prior judgments about what kinds of evidence are allowed to count.

### 3. Conclusion sections
Use this track to help readers connect scholarly filtering with the ordinary institutional prejudice they already recognize in daily life.

## Strongest article targets

### A. Articles on canon and authority
Use this track to explain:
- why “not canon” is often treated as the end of discussion
- why authority and use are more complicated than that
- how institutional assumptions pre-sort texts into acceptable and unacceptable categories

### B. Articles on Enoch in relation to the New Testament
Use this track to explain:
- why conceptual dependence is often minimized
- why anomalies are downgraded
- why some uses of Enochic tradition are treated as incidental instead of substantive

### C. Articles on inspiration and hermeneutics
Use this track to explain:
- why crude models of inspiration distort reading
- why texts must be read on their own terms
- why inherited doctrinal packaging can obscure what is actually present

### D. Articles on comparative material
Use this track to explain:
- why parallels with ANE or Second Temple sources often trigger defensive reactions
- why similarity is not automatically corruption
- why institutional fear of contamination can impair honest reading

## Book-level integration

## Early chapter
Include a methodology chapter covering:
- assumptions
- testimony
- authority
- paradigms
- anomaly management
- institutional filtering

## Mid-book reminders
Use short reminders when a major anomaly appears and is likely to be resisted for institutional rather than textual reasons.

## End-of-book reflection
Show readers that the issue is not only textual interpretation but epistemic permission:
what readers are allowed to see, ask, and conclude.

## Reusable themes

- evidence is not self-interpreting
- institutions rank credibility in advance
- anomalies are often managed before they are evaluated
- “serious scholarship” can sometimes function as a gatekeeping label rather than a neutral description
- people inherit frameworks before they inherit arguments

## Notes for future drafting

This framework should remain balanced.
Do not use it as a shortcut around evidence.
Use it to explain how evidence is filtered, not to replace close argument.
