Tobit (commentaries on Early Jewish Literature)ISBN 3-11-017574-6FitzmyerJoseph A. <i>Tobit</i> (commentaries on Early Jewish Literature).Walter de GruyterBerlin/New York, 2003, xviii, 347 pp., $88.00
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the other deities were transferred onto Yahweh, with two significant exceptions being those associated with death and sexuality.Characteristic of this new 'monolatry' was a gradual rejection of Canaanite religious practices, such as the use of high places, feeding and consulting the dead and child sacrifice.For reviews of the first edition, see in particular those of Freedman in JBL 110/4 (1991), pp.693-98 (696-98), Hendel in CBQ 54/1 (1992), pp.132-33, and Edelman in Journal of Religion 72/1 (1992), pp.89-90.See also the comments of Dever in BASOR 298 (May 1995), pp.43-44.In contrast to most reviewers, who seem to be intoxicated by Smith's erudite style, Edelman and Dever both provide sobering criticisms of his methods that should be taken into account.As Smith's thesis has not really changed in the years between the first and second editions, the question remains as to the value of this second edition.In addition to correcting errors present in the first edition, Smith has updated the bibliographic data and discussions of primary sources and also included cross-references to his Origins of Biblical Monotheism.Some parts of the text have been revised, particularly the discussions of Yahweh's origins and assimilation into the Canaanite highland pantheon.Perhaps the most significant innovation in this second edition, however, is the provision of a new preface (pp.xii-xli), in which the author gives an account of how research into ancient Israelite religion has developed since the first edition was published in 1990.Sufficient indices are furnished (texts cited, authors and a general index) but, disappointingly, this volume lacks a bibliography, which means one is often forced to comb back through pages of footnotes to find the full reference.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.238 | 0.114 |
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".