Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a programme in historical linguistics with important implications for biblical criticism. Traditionally, grammatical variation in the Bible has been interpreted in light of nineteenth-century historical-literary criticism. In this light, such variation appears erratic and random. To date we have developed a somewhat vague distinction between “early” and “late Biblical Hebrew” (EBH vs LBH). The programme outlined here proposes to let the Hebrew language speak for itself, to let natural diachronic processes explain the distributions independent of the literary paradigm. The results should suggest a new alignment of texts and sources. The paper has two parts. The first, polemical part situates the programme within recent, indeed controversial, departures in biblical studies. The second part works through a problem that has hitherto resisted explanation to showcase the methodology and to indicate the anticipated results. As a first approximation a fivefold stratification is proposed, considerably refining the traditional taxon “early Biblical Hebrew” (EBH). The most interesting conclusion is the priority of Deuteronomy within the five books of Moses. Another result is the sorting of composite books like Psalms by linguistic criteria. The programme is expected to yield a three-volume study: morphology, syntax, lexicon (in that order).
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".