The Revised Common Lectionary: Twentieth Anniversary Annotated Edition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Consultation on Common Texts. Foreword by Gordon W. Lathrop: Introduction by Fred Kimball Graham; acknowledgements; full text of the Revised Common Lectionary (1992); new annotations, and 8 appendices. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Softcover edition; e-editions available for Kindle and Google Play.Lectionaries have played a role in week-by-week and season-by-season worship planning for centuries. Church musicians and clergy from many denominations depend on printed or electronic lectionaries to guide planning for worship. On-line versions of lectionaries-for practical or scholarly use-are maintained by several organizations. For example, the Anglican Church of Canada maintains own variant at http://thecommunity.anglican.ca/lectionary/; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America provides the unaltered Revised Common Lectionary at http://www. elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Lectionary.aspx; a listing of various editions of the Ordo Lectionum Missae ( OLM) is found at http://catholic-resources.org/ Lectionary/Editions.htm; a database of ancient Christian and Jewish lectionaries is under development at http://www.dstoekl.webs.com/thaleslectionary database.htm. One of the most accessible electronic versions of the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) is that of Vanderbilt Divinity Library (http://lectionary. library.vanderbilt.edu/). As a measure of this lectionary's role in the 21st-century life of the church, have a look at the Frequently Asked Questions at that site and consider the visitor statistics for 2012: Page views: 4,182,540; Visits: 1,776,262; Unique Visitors: 635,005 (Google Analytics data courtesy of Anne C. Richardson, Digital Projects Librarian, Vanderbilt Divinity Library, via email correspondence of 29 ary 2013;Why an anniversary edition? The compilers, by producing an annotated edition of the RCL, sought to describe its origins and lineage, and to share details related to the deliberations and rationale that laid the foundation for this seminal work (xxv). Lathrop is Professor of Liturgy Emeritus, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and Graham is Assistant Professor of Church Music Emeritus, Emmanuel College of Victoria University in the University of Toronto.The introduction contains an excellent survey of lectionaries in the history of worship and rich background on the principles and thought processes that informed the RCL and immediate predecessors. The aspirations of denominations for normative but non-mandatory sets of readings for Sunday services led to the adoption and adaptation of the OLM by many following 1969 publication. But the diversity of such adaptations seemed to undercut the idea of unity across denominations. Church leaders, recognizing the need to act ecumenically, chose to do so through the Consultation on Common Texts (CCT). Graham compellingly traces the activities of the CCT, with details of the actors, the challenges, and the evolving consensus that resulted in the Common Lectionary of 1983 (CL). The CL was then reviewed by congregations over a complete three-year cycle between 1987 and 1991. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».