Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we think of “natural law” we may think of Thomas Aquinas, the Greco-Roman philosophers, or the rabbinic Noahide law. I show that in the Second Temple period Jews had their own way of talking about natural law. Their approach precedes Aquinas and the rabbis, and it is contemporary with the Stoic philosophers. They used Adam and Eve to formulate concepts concerning moral knowledge and moral agency including natural law. Aside from the opening chapters of Genesis, the Hebrew Bible shows little interest in Adam and Eve. By comparison, Second Temple Jewish literature developed various interpretive traditions concerning the primordial pair. In one tradition God endowed Adam and Eve with wisdom, law, or commands. In this “Adam’s wisdom” tradition, when Adam and Eve (i.e., humanity) receive wisdom they know their moral obligations. This tradition occurs in a variety of early Jewish literature (ca. 300 BCE–200 CE), and it articulated diverse ideas of revelation, moral knowledge, and moral agency. This project compares Adam’s wisdom in four texts—Sirach, the Qumran Thanksgiving Psalms (i.e., 1QHodayota), Paul’s letter to the Romans, and 4 Ezra. This comparison illumines the diverse configurations of moral knowledge and moral ability in early Judaism. Of special interest is a literary tradition that blends Adam’s wisdom with Israel’s reception of the law at Sinai. This interweave of scriptural threads forms a tapestry of natural law. Adam’s wisdom and Israel’s law is a prominent and repeated literary feature of Sirach, Romans, and 4 Ezra, and this project shows the varied argumentative, rhetorical, and formative purposes for which it was deployed. Adam’s wisdom and Israel’s law also illuminates how Jews of the Greco-Roman period negotiated Jewish and gentile identities in light of God’s revelation to Adam (i.e., humanity) and God’s revelation at Sinai. While the Hodayot do not interweave Adam’s wisdom and Israel’s law, they provide a counterbalance to the other texts. Instead of universal moral knowledge, the Hodayot use Adam to portray universal moral ignorance and inability, and Adam’s wisdom signifies the esoteric knowledge possessed exclusively by the Qumran community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".