Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors of The Ways That Never Parted made an understandable choice to omit the problem of Christian origins from its reassessment of Jewish-Christian relations. This essay aims to demonstrate how subsequent developments in the fields of New Testament and ancient Mediterranean religion have rendered the first two centuries more amenable to the sort of approaches and insights the volume encouraged. It first makes a case for localizing the discursive dynamics of interest to several The Ways That Never Parted contributors to a specific social context: competition among self-authorized religious experts, including Paul and his “Judean” rivals but equally later self-identifying Christians. It then takes the profound reconfiguration of Paul’s relationship to Judaism in the last three decades as an impetus to reexamine the vilification of Ioudaioi in other New Testament sources seemingly written with knowledge of his letters. Because parting of the ways scholarship tended to attribute Christianity’s divergence from Judaism to some inflection point (e.g., the Judean War), it has fallen out of fashion with the paradigm to connect these elements to a specific event or historical climate. And yet, whatever the character and diversity of Jewish–Christian relations prior to the fourth century, depictions of Ioudaioi as persecutors in the Gospels and Acts remain an explanandum. Evaluating these images not as evidence of a fissure between two religious groups but as strategic acts of differentiation among individuals claiming a common form of expertise changes entirely their scope and consequence. It also invites reconsideration of what sociohistorical pressures might have made this strategy expedient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".