The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature By NicholasEllis. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, II, 396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Pp. xiii + 275. Paper, Є79.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a revision of a doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Oxford. Ellis examines the question of testing in the Letter of James, or what he calls a “theology of probation.” James 1:2–14 makes a number of statements about what has been translated as “testing,” “trials,” “tribulation,” and “temptation.” How are we to understand the nature of this probation, especially in light of James’ insistence that God does not “test” anyone (Jas 1:13)? Ellis engages in careful study of comparative Jewish materials on testing in light of these writings’ understandings of the “cosmic drama,” or depictions of both supernatural agents and human objects of testing. He then examines how this drama affects these texts’ interpretations of biblical testing, specifically the cases of Adam's temptation, Abraham's binding of Isaac, and the suffering of Job. He concludes that the Letter of James, which engages these biblical examples, aims to depict a perfect and tested human who remains faithful to a perfect and tested God in spite of “demonically inspired” accusations that God is malevolent. It would be interesting to see what difference more engagement with Greco-Roman sources would have made to the argument, but to be fair, such engagement was beyond the scope of the study. The book is an important contribution that assists in understanding a puzzling question within the Letter of James, and furnishes a enlightening discussion of the topic of probation within ancient Jewish literature.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".