MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125526459 · doi:10.15699/jbl.1444.2025.8

Revisiting Sabbath Observance during the Great Jewish Revolt (66–73/74 CE)

2025· article· en· W7125526459 on OpenAlex
Jonathan Bourgel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biblical Literature · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJosephusJudaismSubject (documents)AuthorizationPalestine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In contemporary scholarship, debate persists over whether Mattathias the Hasmonean’s authorization of defensive warfare on the Sabbath to preserve life (1 Macc 2:39–41) constituted a significant halakic innovation, as suggested by Josephus (A.J. 12.277; 14.63–64), and the extent to which this ruling was embraced by the broader Jewish population. In this article, I aim to contribute to this discussion by critically examining how Josephus engages—whether explicitly or implicitly—with questions of Sabbath observance during the Great Jewish Revolt (66–73/74 CE). In particular, I seek to delineate the range of documented Jewish positions on the permissibility of engaging in military activity on the Sabbath during the war, and to offer a systematic analysis of the religious justifications invoked in support of those views. I further argue that Mattathias’s ruling was subject to diverse interpretations and that the principle of preserving life, although central, was not the sole factor considered in decisions to override Sabbath prohibitions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it