Waters of the Exodus Jewish experiences with water in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how the fluvial environment shaped the writing of Jewish narratives in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (300 BCE – 115 CE). It focuses on four texts that narrate the Exodus story and analyzes them in terms of how water in Egypt is described and how elements of the environment—such as the Nile or the Red Sea—are characterized in their retellings. I argue that the natural environment informed Jewish writings through the incorporation of new fluvial terminology, development of different conceptions of water, and the adoption of positive attitudes towards the environment. These features, found specifically in texts composed in Egypt, demonstrate the power of the environment to shape a foundational Jewish narrative. Previous studies on the Jews of Egypt have examined their lives in political, social, or economic terms, with little acknowledgement of the physical environment and its role in daily and religious life. By focusing on water, this work traces the emergence of distinct practices developed in response to the environment, such as the location of places of worship and emerging employment opportunities. Such characteristics distinguish the communities of Egypt from both other Jews and non-Jews. Additionally, the project speaks to larger trends in the field of Biblical Studies that focus on the materiality of everyday life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".