Bibliographic record
Abstract
he comparative analysis of texts from the Qur'an and the Bible is not a new endeavour.Yet a recent surge of western scholarly interest in this area seems to be evident.The fall of 2003 saw the publication of an excellent collection of essays, edited by John Reeves, entitled Bible and Qur'an: Essays in Scriptural Intertextuality.Many of the scholars represented in that volume also participated in the inaugural session of the Qur'an and Biblical Literature Consultation of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta in November, 2003.At about the same time John Kaltner's book, Inquiring of Joseph: Getting to Know a Biblical Character Through the Qur'an, was published.In this essay, I propose to explore this recent interest in comparing the Qur'an and the Bible, and to place it within the theoretical framework of intertextuality.The approaches of two scholars in particular will serve as illustrative examples.First is Reuven Firestone, whose Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis, published in 1990, was only the beginning of a series of publications on, among other things, the historical interaction of biblical and qur'anic materials.Second is the aforementioned John Kaltner, whose recent book on Joseph in the Qur'an and Bible continues, and fills a major gap in, his previous work Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to the Qur'an for Bible Readers, published in 1999.As will be seen, each of these scholars represents a distinct approach in the field of comparative qur'anic and biblical studies.As already mentioned, the comparison of what seem to be many features and narratives common to the Bible and the Qur'an is not new.In fact, such comparison began soon after the beginnings of Islam in the seventh century C.E., although it was not well developed until later.2Our concern, however, is with modern scholarly comparison, that is, the "critical but nonpolemical methods [that] began in earnest only in the nineteenth century," following a long history of especially Christian denigration and dismissal of the Qur'an (Firestone 2003, 6).On the one hand, non-Muslim western scholarly
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".