Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eusebius' Onomasticon is not merely a gazetteer of the places named in the Old and New Testaments, but also, as the authors of the more recent of two recently published English translations emphasise, 'the most important book for the study of the Land of Israel in the Roman period'.1 Several entries in the work refer to a place named Λεγἐων where a new city of Maximianopolis was founded during the reign o f Diocletian: hence it might seem a priori that these entries should in some way be relevant to when and how Eusebius composed the Onomasticon and to the question o f what sources he used.However, as strictly a gazetteer of place names which occur in the Bible, the Onomasticon does not allot Legio any entry of its own.As a result there is also no entry for Legio in the site index of the more recent of the two recent English translations, which regrettably fails to compensate for its omission there (or to fulfill the normal expectations of those who consult such a work) by providing a complete index of places named by Eusebius.•2 It may be helpftil, therefore, to collect together the various passages of the Onomasticon where Eusebius had occasion to mention Legio when fixing the precise geographical location of places which are named in the Bible for a contemporary audience: Another Arbela is located on the great plain nine milestones3 distant from Legio (3 7/14.20-21)4R.S. Notley and Z. Safrai, Eusebius ' Onomasticon: The Place Names o f Divine Scripture, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 9 (Boston and Leiden, 2005), xi.The cover o f the volume (though not the title-page) describes it as 'a triglott edition with Notes and Commentary', but it is in fact not an edition at all: the Greek text o f Eusebius and the Latin version by Jerome are reproduced from the standard edition by Ε. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke 3.1.Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig, 1904), apparently without acknowledgement.There is a more reliable translation o f both Eusebius and Jerome in G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville, R.L. Chapman III and J.E. Taylor, Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius o f Caesarea (Jerusalem 2003), 9-98 (by Freeman-Grenville). 2 Notley and Safrai, Eusebius' Onomasticon
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".