'For You One Flesh': Allusions to Genesis 2:4-3:24 and the Construction of Male-Female Relationships in Select Second Temple Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, countless writers have ventured to explore the myriad of questions that arise from the short but deeply enigmatic text of Genesis 1-3. In particular, the Eden narrative of Genesis 2:4b-3:24 has been cited as a major influence over Judeo-Christian understandings of gender and sexuality. Due to its prominent place in western culture, ideas relating the first woman to the origin of sin and the fallen state of mankind are engrained in our psyche, negatively influencing relations between the sexes. However, many of the common assumptions that prevail regarding this text are not to be found in the original Hebrew text itself, and instead, are a culmination of centuries of disparate interpretations arising from particular social, political, and cultural contexts. This thesis is concerned with examining how male-female relations, in particular marital relations, were explained and justified through allusions to Genesis 2-3 in its earliest interpretations, in the late Second Temple period. Four texts will be examined in greater detail; Sirach, Tobit, 4QInstruction, and Ephesians, so as to limit our investigation purely to allusions and references, rather than explicit exegesis or rewritings of the Eden narrative.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".