The Writings: Job–Sirach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The WritingsJob–Sirach Michael W. Duggan, Christopher T. Begg, Thomas Hieke, Fred W. Guyette, J. Edward Owens, OSST, and William J. Urbrock Michael W. Duggan Calgary AB, Canada Christopher T. Begg Catholic University of America Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary, Anderson University J. Edward Owens, OSST University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio TX William J. Urbrock University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh 2267. [E. L. Greenstein on the Problem of Evil in the Book of Job] Adrianne Leveen, "Revisiting Edward L. Greenstein's 'The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job,'" Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 833-49 [see #2546]. L. considers Edward Greenstein's treatment of God's negligence vis-à-vis human suffering in the Book of Job in view of Judith Plaskow's theological reflection and Steven Kepnes's reading of Martin Buber on the same issue. L. sets the three authors in dialogue by commenting on the following essays: Edward L. Greenstein, "The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job," in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 333-62; Judith Plaskow, "Wrestling with God and Evil," in Chapters of the Heart (ed. Sue Levi Elwell and Nancy Fuchs Kreimer; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013) 85-93; and Steven Kepnes, "Rereading Job as Textual Theodicy," in Suffering Religion (ed. Robert Gibbs and Elliot R. Wolfson; London: Routledge, 2002) 35-55. In L.'s reading of the three authors, Greenstein commends Job for exposing God's cruelty, Plaskow views the magnificence of creation as compelling humans to act justly in response to their afflictions, while Kepnes views Job as someone who works through pain to create a new future.—M.W.D. Google Scholar 2268. [The Ecology of Death in the Book of Job] Suzanna R. Millar, "The Ecology of Death in the Book of Job," BibInt 30 (3, 2022) 265-93. Ruminations on death recur throughout the Book of Job. Equally, language of the non-human world is prevalent. My article examines the coalescence of these tropes in the [End Page 836] implicit "necro-ecology" of the book. As though observing the decomposition of a corpse, I focus on four Joban images, each expressing human death in non-human terms: maggots colonize the cadaver and scavengers consume it. The body disintegrates into dust, and plants grow and wither in that dust. At each stage, I show how death and life are entangled together, the one requiring and enabling the other. Equally, beings are entangled with each other, challenging the human pretense to self-contained individuality. My article thus fits into a broader trend in the (post)humanities that seeks to cultivate scholarship conducive to multi-species flourishing by showing how Job provides fertile compost for symbiotic inter-species alliances of living and dying together. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] Google Scholar 2269. [The Book of Job in Light of Trauma Research] Manfred Oeming, "Das Hiob-Buch im Lichte der Traumaforschung," Traumaforschung, 197-221 [see #2536]. O. voices a critical note with regard to the helpfulness of trauma research for interpreting the Book of Job. If one examines the Book of Job in the light of trauma research, symptoms do emerge that reflect post-traumatic stress disorder: flashbacks and psychic intrusions, elements of depression, vegetative hyperarousal, and nightmares. In contrast, other points seem to be better explained against the background of alternative psychological interpretations: Job is not silent; Job does not exhibit guilt or shame or loss of self-esteem; Job does not avoid traumatic memories but rather recapitulates these continuously. The chances and limitations of the trauma-theoretical approach with regard to the Book of Job thus become clear, not least when other psychological approaches are taken into consideration. [Translated and adapted from editors' preface—T.H.] Google Scholar 2270. [Job 3–27, 32–37] Michael V. Fox, "What Do Job's Friends Want Him to Do?" Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 765-73...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».