MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885030683 · doi:10.7202/1050508ar

Six Viable Readings from Isaiah 1–39 in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)

2018· article· en· W2885030683 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter W. Flint

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTextual criticismHebrew BibleLiteratureHebrewContext (archaeology)ScrollCharacter (mathematics)Dead Sea ScrollsBiblical studiesOrder (exchange)Reading (process)HistoryPhilosophyArtLinguisticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to illustrate the contribution of the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa) to textual criticism, this paper presents six viable readings for Isaiah 1–39, i.e. variants that most likely represent the original Hebrew text. In assessing the cases of Isaiah 3 : 24 ; 9 : 16 [English 9 : 17] ; 18 : 7 ; 19 : 18 ; 21 : 8 ; 23 : 10, the author takes into account the textual character of the manuscript, the scribal habits of the copyist, the work of scholars and commentaries on the Book of Isaiah, recent translations of Isaiah, as well as the context and the overall sense of the passage. In all six instances — with the possible exception of Isa 19 : 18 — the reading in 1QIsaais found to be compelling. These readings and similar ones should therefore be included as part of the main text of Isaiah (not the apparatus) in future editions of the Hebrew Bible, and part of the main text of Isaiah in future translations (not the footnotes).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207