Prayer as Divine Experience and Empathetic Identification in 2 Baruch: 2 Baruch 48:1–25 as a Test case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First, in this essay I will summarize research in the field of neuroscience, which describe the cognitive processes that allow a person to empathize with another person’s emotional experience. Second, I will provide evidence that implies the author of the late first-century Jewish Apocalypse, 2 Baruch, wished to portray that the seer, Baruch, was in God’s presence as he prayed. Finally, I will discuss the emotions potentially aroused by the language of one the seer’s prayers (2 Baruch 48:2–24). Reverence for God, hope, confidence, and humility all are expressed by the words of his prayer. I will propose that reading or hearing these emotions could have allowed an ancient reader or listener to share and understand Baruch’s emotional states that are reflected in his prayer. Consequently, this process may have provided the reader or listener with a sense of the tangible presence of God that is consistent with the experience described as occurring to Baruch while offering his prayer in the divine presence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".