La passion selon saint Matthieu: Matthieu 26–28. Edited by Olivier-Thomas Venard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volumes on Philippians and Hosea have already appeared in the series La Bible en ses traditions, based at L’École biblique, Jerusalem, a series which uses a gloriously handsome folio format. This one on the passion according to St Matthew is the fruit of a decade of painstaking work, overseen and to a large degree executed by the Dominican scholar Venard, and it deserves to be viewed as programmatic for the project as a whole. What is on display is the Bible couched in the tradition (incorporating a variety of traditions) of interpretation so that the approach to exegesis may work with a wider, more inclusive field, embracing more genres and types of people. The Gospels’ literary form calls for but also calls to literary-artistic reception, which includes the liturgical one. These forms of reception from Bach’s Passion to the poetry of Nerval are not critically evaluated: on balance, those that get selected seem to be approved of, even rejoiced in. In the introduction to the volume, the accent at times lies on those who have bucked the trend of anti-Semitic gospel reading, Paul Claudel for instance who was aware of the amount of indebtedness of the Church to the Jews. Perhaps it would have been less disingenuous to have referred to the debate during Benedict’s papacy about removing this from the Good Friday liturgy. Instead, and arguably more edifyingly, Louis XIV’s Cardinal Bossuet (in his third sermon on Good Friday) is quoted to the effect that it is for Catholics themselves to confess to deicide, even while linking that blood to the ‘blood of the New Covenant’ of Matt. 26:28.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.011 |
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".