The Writings: Job–Sirach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WritingsJob–Sirach Michael W. Duggan, Christopher T. Begg, Thomas Hieke, Fred W. Guyette, J. Edward Owens, OSST, and William J. Urbrock Michael W. Duggan Calgary AB, Canada Christopher T. Begg Catholic University of America Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary, Anderson University J. Edward Owens, OSST University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio TX William J. Urbrock University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh 2267. [E. L. Greenstein on the Problem of Evil in the Book of Job] Adrianne Leveen, "Revisiting Edward L. Greenstein's 'The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job,'" Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 833-49 [see #2546]. L. considers Edward Greenstein's treatment of God's negligence vis-à-vis human suffering in the Book of Job in view of Judith Plaskow's theological reflection and Steven Kepnes's reading of Martin Buber on the same issue. L. sets the three authors in dialogue by commenting on the following essays: Edward L. Greenstein, "The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job," in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 333-62; Judith Plaskow, "Wrestling with God and Evil," in Chapters of the Heart (ed. Sue Levi Elwell and Nancy Fuchs Kreimer; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013) 85-93; and Steven Kepnes, "Rereading Job as Textual Theodicy," in Suffering Religion (ed. Robert Gibbs and Elliot R. Wolfson; London: Routledge, 2002) 35-55. In L.'s reading of the three authors, Greenstein commends Job for exposing God's cruelty, Plaskow views the magnificence of creation as compelling humans to act justly in response to their afflictions, while Kepnes views Job as someone who works through pain to create a new future.—M.W.D. Google Scholar 2268. [The Ecology of Death in the Book of Job] Suzanna R. Millar, "The Ecology of Death in the Book of Job," BibInt 30 (3, 2022) 265-93. Ruminations on death recur throughout the Book of Job. Equally, language of the non-human world is prevalent. My article examines the coalescence of these tropes in the [End Page 836] implicit "necro-ecology" of the book. As though observing the decomposition of a corpse, I focus on four Joban images, each expressing human death in non-human terms: maggots colonize the cadaver and scavengers consume it. The body disintegrates into dust, and plants grow and wither in that dust. At each stage, I show how death and life are entangled together, the one requiring and enabling the other. Equally, beings are entangled with each other, challenging the human pretense to self-contained individuality. My article thus fits into a broader trend in the (post)humanities that seeks to cultivate scholarship conducive to multi-species flourishing by showing how Job provides fertile compost for symbiotic inter-species alliances of living and dying together. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] Google Scholar 2269. [The Book of Job in Light of Trauma Research] Manfred Oeming, "Das Hiob-Buch im Lichte der Traumaforschung," Traumaforschung, 197-221 [see #2536]. O. voices a critical note with regard to the helpfulness of trauma research for interpreting the Book of Job. If one examines the Book of Job in the light of trauma research, symptoms do emerge that reflect post-traumatic stress disorder: flashbacks and psychic intrusions, elements of depression, vegetative hyperarousal, and nightmares. In contrast, other points seem to be better explained against the background of alternative psychological interpretations: Job is not silent; Job does not exhibit guilt or shame or loss of self-esteem; Job does not avoid traumatic memories but rather recapitulates these continuously. The chances and limitations of the trauma-theoretical approach with regard to the Book of Job thus become clear, not least when other psychological approaches are taken into consideration. [Translated and adapted from editors' preface—T.H.] Google Scholar 2270. [Job 3–27, 32–37] Michael V. Fox, "What Do Job's Friends Want Him to Do?" Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 765-73...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.039 |
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".