Unmuzzling the Ox: Should Torah be Normative for Gentile Christians?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on recent directions in theology and New Testament studies, scholars such as Michael Wyschogrod, Mark Kinzer, and David Rudolph, have forcefully argued that Jewish followers of Jesus as Messiah should continue to observe Torah. 2 We hope to push in this direction yet further, arguing that gentile Christians should reopen the first major intra Christian debate and consider making Torah normative for Christian behavior.What follows is divided into four sections: (1) Alexander, Aquinas, and the Unity of the Law, (2) Justin's Dialogue and the Quartodecimans, (3) Paul and the Muzzled Ox, and (4) Natural Law and the Noachide.Throughout, we will be pursuing two strands of thinking in Christian history that are introduced and related to each other in section one, Alexander, Aquinas, and the Unity of the Law.The two strands of thinking concern natural law and the troubling Christian teaching that those who observe Torah as law after Christ's passion are committing mortal sin.Thirteenth century theologian Thomas Aquinas thoroughly wrestles with these issues in his Treatise on Law, one part of his much larger and well-known Summa Theologica.Examination of the Treatise reveals that Aquinas' highly influential interest in natural law is deeply connected to issues around the lasting authority of the Torah.Furthermore, an insistence on the unity of what Christians have often called the Old and New Testaments leads Aquinas to treat such questions at length under the rubric of -Old Law‖ and -New Law.‖Aquinas' discussion of Torah observance as mortally sinful is crucial and arises out of his reverence for the fourth and fifth century theologians Jerome and Augustine.While a variety of thinkers have recently assessed the importance of Christological questions to Christian-Jewish antagonism, less attention has been given to the importance of Torah observance in such assessments.In section two, Justin's Dialogue and the Quartodecimans, attention to the position of Justin Martyr's interlocutor in the Dialogue with Trypho reveals that the question of law is most pertinent.We will briefly follow the discussion as Trypho or Tarphon 1 Early drafts of large portions of this work have been reviewed and commented on by a variety of people whom we would like to thank including Warren Smith, Stanley Hauerwas, Randi Rashkover, David Novak, Daniel Colucciello Barber, Richard Hays, and Marc Goodman.Continuing conversation over the years with Holly Taylor Coolman has been invaluable.2
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".