Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the interpretive possibilities associated with 2 Kgs 23:26, with special attention to the key adverb אך (“but/nevertheless” and/or “surely/indeed”). Frank Moore Cross’s well-known double-redaction theory suggests that Josiah’s reform, as described in 2 Kgs 23, constituted the rhetorical climax of the preexilic text, which was subsequently updated by an exilic author who had come to view that reform as a failure. As a result, the books of 1 and 2 Kings preserve an irresolvable tension best explained as a matter of the text’s compositional diachrony. By contrast, the present article argues that the text’s palimpsestuous canonical form permits the reader to view Josiah’s purge as a typological success—an important signpost en route to the exilic judgment through which YHWH brings about Israel’s transformation of heart. Specifically, the key adverb’s asseverative-emphatic dimension and the strong, lexical correspondences between 2 Kgs 23 and 25 open the door to this intriguing possibility. The article concludes by identifying two areas of theological interpretation—the homiletical value of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23 and the significance of Jehoiachin’s release in 2 Kgs 25—where scholarly conversation on this topic might continue to develop.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".