Bibliographic record
Abstract
ost scholars think of Jane Schaberg as the sixth woman relevant to Matthean geneaological study.Aside from Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary, the women actually contained in the genealogy, Schaberg has contributed much to the study of these women and the role that they play as foremothers of Jesus.1 Her main proposal holds that each of the above biblical women was party to and participant in a sexual scandal, yet in each case, the scandal was legitimated in some way.This leads to the subsequent legitimization of Jesus's birth, even in light of potential scandal on the part of Mary.Schaberg's thesis is primarily supported by the Hebrew Bible and her reading of various texts in a historical or, more accurately, chronological order; thus, one has a text and then a tradition.In this specific case, there is a sin and then a legitimating of some kind through the tradition.An examination of the LXX and early Jewish traditions, however, blurs her sequential approach.If the LXX presents traditions that remove scandal and this is the primary text, her thesis suffers.Second, if a tradition is strong enough, one cannot assume that texts are read chronologically; one should, instead, assume the reverse: it is not the text that helps one read the tradition but, rather, the tradition that reads the text.In making a strong case for early tradition, one can then support not the legitimization of the women's scandals but their innocence altogether.Schaberg's sexual scandal theory revolves primarily around an interpretation of the Hebrew texts alone, particularly those that relate to the women in question; in interpreting and understanding the stories from this context, Schaberg concludes with merit that all four women themselves outside patriarchal family structures, are wronged or thwarted by that world, and in their sexual activities risk damage to the social order and their own condemnations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".