MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969947244 · doi:10.1163/15700631-15021258

Philo’s Eschatology, Personal and Cosmic

2019· article· en· W2969947244 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Judaism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEschatologyDestiny (ISS module)ParadisePhilosophyNew TestamentDead Sea ScrollsVirtueMessiahContext (archaeology)LiteratureTheologyBiblical studiesHebrew BibleHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although first-century writings in the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the pseudepigrapha are widely recognized for their descriptions of the ultimate destiny of individuals and the world, the views of Philo of Alexandria do not get the same attention. To situate the apocalyptic eschatologies of Jesus, the Qumran sectarians, and Enoch in their context, we must compare them to the eschatology of this contemporary Hellenistic Jew. I demonstrate that Philo’s eschatology is shaped by two convictions: (1) that God is good and can do no evil, and (2) virtue must be developed within people in this life. These convictions entail that the purpose of punishment must be solely for correction, and that God provides unlimited opportunity for souls to improve. Philo held that reincarnation provides just such an ever-improving spiral in which souls finally become wise by honoring God and consequently the world becomes a peaceful, prosperous paradise.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.236 · 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