Late Antiquity Revisited: Angelika Neuwirth's View on the Story of Prophet Abraham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article sheds light on Angelika Neuwirth’s perspective on the Late Antiquity of Prophet Abraham in the Qur’an. Neuwirth examines the connections between the Qur’anic, Jewish, Christian, and pagan traditions, considering the development of religions and the collapse of the Roman civilisation in Europe during the Late Antiquity. She aims to foster dialogue between scriptures, highlighting the shared history of the Qur’an with other scriptures as part of the Abrahamic religion during that era. Using a critical study approach, this article analyses Neuwirth’s ideas and compares them with Islamic literature to critique her thoughts. The results indicate that Neuwirth employs literary and historical criticism through microstructure analysis and intertextual studies to interpret Quranic verses. She starts by distinguishing between the two manifestations of the Qur’an: oral transmission (Qur’ān) and written form (Kitāb). Neuwirth then deconstructs the revelation, treating the Qur’an as an invisible text to facilitate its literal and historical study. Her method resembles a hermeneutic development when studying Qur’anic verses and focuses on a diachronic reading between the Qur’an and the Bible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".