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 OpenAlexaff
Ted M. Erho

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.034
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of JudaismSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207