MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038615202 · doi:10.1177/000842980703600206

A Jew in Celsus' True Doctrine? An examination of Jewish Anti-Christian polemic in the second century C.E

2007· article· en· W2038615202 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lincoln H. Blumell

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismDoctrineScholarshipChristianityPeriod (music)PhilosophyReligious studiesLiteratureHistoryTheologyLawArtAestheticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major obstacles to presenting a more balanced assessment of Jewish-Christian relations in the 2nd century C.E. is the virtual absence of Jewish literary sources for the period. Though Jews figure prominently in the writings of the 2nd century Church Fathers and later Christian Apologists, it is becoming increasingly evident in scholarship that these texts portray Jews in a tendentious manner, often reveal more about Christian self-definition than they do about either Jews or Judaism, and tend to talk at Jews more than they talk with Jews. Nevertheless, there is one oft-neglected work that might help to remedy these problems and contribute to a better understanding of Jewish perceptions of Christianity in the 2nd century. There is reason to believe that embedded within Celsus' True Doctrine are authentic Jewish arguments against Christianity. This article presents a source-critical analysis of Celsus, analyzing the nature of Celsus' debt to 2nd-century Jewish sources and their significance for Jewish-Christian relations at that time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207