MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987043720 · doi:10.1163/157006309x355196

The Ahistorical Nature of 1 Enoch 56:5-8 and Its Ramifications upon the Opinio Communis on the Dating of the Similitudes of Enoch

2008· article· en· W1987043720 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Judaism · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)AllusionBattlePhilosophyBiblical studiesLiteratureJewish studiesHistoryArtClassicsTheologyAncient historyJudaismLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past several decades the hypothesis that 1 Enoch 56:5-8 alludes to the historical Parthian incursion into Palestine in 40 B.C.E. has garnered increasing support, and it is by this alleged allusion that the Similitudes of Enoch are often assigned a Herodian date. In contrast, this article argues that a more fruitful approach to the interpretation of 1 Enoch 56:5-8 would be to understand the text as drawing upon a (proto-)apocalyptic tradition that expects foreign invaders to attempt to wage war against Jerusalem in an eschatological battle. Since other passages containing this tradition (Ezek 38-39; Sib. Or. 3.657-732; Rev 20:7-10; 4 Ezra 13:5-11) are not considered to be rooted in vaticinium ex eventu, the validity of using this text within the historical-allusional method of dating is consequently called into question.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it