Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serge Frolov’s article, The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism, argues that 34 exposes source criticism as it stands today as This concludes his attempt to respond to Philip Yoo’s argument that all four Pentateuchal sources can be found in the final chapter of the book of Deuteronomy. Yoo’s argument is based on the Documentary Hypothesis; using his knowledge of each of the separate sources within the Pentateuch up to that point, Yoo is able to separate the works of the J, E, P, and D sources in the culminating chapter. Frolov refers to Yoo’s method as exemplary of deductive reasoning, as indeed it is. In contrast, Frolov seeks to demonstrate that inductive reasoning would lead to the opposite conclusion: that in fact, Deuteronomy 34 is a unified “master narrative.” But finding a unified passage – especially in Deuteronomy – where others see multiple sources hardly seems cause enough to characterize the entire source critical enterprise as self-contradictory. Frolov’s emphasis on method is to be commended, as a basic understanding of methodology in source critical study is sorely lacking in our field. Unfortunately Frolov’s method of reading the text inductively and the conclusions he derives only serve to further muddy the waters concerning what the documentary hypothesis is, and what source critics do.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".