Historical Books: Joshua–2 Kings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical BooksJoshua–2 Kings Christopher T. Begg, Richard A. Taylor, J. Edward Owens, OSST, Fred W. Guyette, Michael W. Duggan, Brian J. Meldrum, Thomas Hieke, and William J. Urbrock Christopher T. Begg Catholic University of America Richard A. Taylor Dallas Theological Seminary J. Edward Owens, OSST University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio TX Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary, Anderson University Michael W. Duggan Calgary AB, Canada Brian J. Meldrum Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz William J. Urbrock University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh 2175. [Deuteronomy–2 Kings; Jeremiah; The Scope and Literary Structure of the "Deuteronomistic Composition"] Gershon Galil, "The Deuteronomistic Composition: Scope and Literary Structure," Beit Mikra 67 (1, 2022) 172-94 (Hebrew). The so-called Deuteronomistic History (which I prefer to call the "Deuteronomistic Composition" [DC]), was composed in Babylonia ca. 560 b.c.e. by a single author, the Deuteronomist (Dtr). In my opinion, the Book of Deuteronomy is the preface to the DC, while the Book of Jeremiah serves to conclude it. In Deuteronomy, the path is charted and the norms fixed. In the main body of the composition, the Books of Joshua–Kings, a detailed account of the relationship between God and Israel is presented, from the conquest of the land to the destruction of the Temple and the loss of the good land. The Book of Jeremiah, as the conclusion of the composition, discusses at length the decline and fall of Judah, analyzes the sins that led to the destruction, and at the same time conveys good news to the exiles. Like Moses who predicted exile but also repentance and salvation, Jeremiah [End Page 805] is thus a prophet of destruction, but also of redemption. "Dtr" examines the past in accordance with the principles of the "Torah of Moses" (Deuteronomy) and delineates the future in light of God's word in the mouth of his prophets, of whom Moses and Jeremiah are the primary representatives. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] Google Scholar 2176. [Moses like David: Prototypes in Dtr] Alison L. Joseph, "Moses like David: Prototypes in the Deuteronomistic History," HUCA 90 (2019) 141-62. The historiographical style of the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr) has often been characterized as unique within the Hebrew Bible. One of the tendencies of Dtr is to construct characters who fit into specific prototypes. This is quite clear in the Book of Kings where the kings of Israel and Judah, good as well as bad, are cast in the model of David and Josiah. This is also true of the prophetic figures in Dtr. In Deut 18:15-22, the Dtr establishes a "prophetic prototype" in the likeness of Moses, but this is not, however, employed in the continuation of his work. My article explores the use of the Davidic and prophetic prototypes in Dtr and suggests a reason why Dtr does not make further use of the prophetic model presented by him in Deuteronomy 18. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] Google Scholar 2177. [Nostalgia in the Deuteronomistic History] Paul Korchin, "Looking Backward to It: Nostalgia in the Deuteronomistic History," Zimhat Jah: A Tribute to Jo Ann Hackett, MAARAV 25 (1-2, 2021) 153-81. The social function of the Deuteronomistic History (DH) remains a consistent point of discussion in scholarship on this corpus. In his contribution …, K. seeks, in part, to answer this question by employing a social psychological lens to explore the use of nostalgia in the DH. He argues that the DH evokes nostalgia for its main characters at select critical junctures in its narrative. K. further contends that the DH employs the nostalgic gaze intentionally in order to bolster Israelite collective self-identity in the face of external threats by intuitively leveraging nostalgia's psychological benefits. [Adapted from editors' introduction, p. 10—C.T.B.] Google Scholar 2178. [The Prophet Joshua] Jonathan J. Routley, "The Prophet Joshua? The Neglected Ministry of the Prophet of the Conquest," JETS 65 (2022) 47-59. "Although the book of Joshua is considered among the writings of the 'former prophets' of Israel, the prophetic role of Joshua during the conquest...
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.025 |
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".