MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3144632381 · doi:10.1353/neo.2020.0028

The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist by R. Nir

2020· article· en· W3144632381 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barrie A. Wilson

Notice bibliographique

RevueNeotestamentica · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMessiahJosephusJudaismApocryphaPhilosophyBaptismDead Sea ScrollsTheologyEarly ChristianityNew TestamentNarrativeFaithLiteratureExegesisJewish ChristianHistoryReligious studiesArtBiblical studiesHebrew Bible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist by R. Nir Barrie A. Wilson Nir, R. 2019. The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Hardcover. ISBN 978-1910928554. Pp. 342. $90. Rivka Nir is noted for meticulous, careful dissection of ancient texts, having established an excellent reputation with her Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2003) and Joseph and Aseneth: A Christian Book (2012). This book follows in that vein with a detailed literary analysis of Josephus and the relevant biblical texts. Her thesis is straightforward: . . . I have attempted to prove that the figure of John the Baptist, as reflected in all our available sources, is filtered through a Christian prism. He is depicted not as a Jewish prophet, apocalypticist or ascetic but as a Christian who speaks for the ideas and beliefs of Christian theology and its core faith in the messiah Jesus. (258) Her arguments are impressive and well worth consideration in this yet another quest for the historical personage behind a received narrative. She contends that we cannot now know the John the Baptist of history: Christian theology has intervened and John is presented as a Christian witnessing to Jesus. John is not a Jew working out of the conceptual matrix of Second Temple Judaism. So his baptism is not a form of a [End Page 411] Jewish mikvah nor that of the immersion ritual of the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran. His was different. Nir’s methodology is that of detailed historical literary analysis, examining key ideas and situating them in the context of what we know of Second Temple Judaism and emerging Christianity of the late first century, the period that the Gospel writers reflect. Her major evidence has to do with the concept cluster in which the Gospels present John the Baptist. The conceptual landscape is Christian. Ideas such as “repentance,” “kingdom of heaven,” “the coming one,” “baptism,” “forgiveness of sins,” “holy spirit,” “the wrath to come” and “fruit worthy of repentance” are all interpreted in accordance with evolving Christian belief. The Jewish and Christian understanding of these concepts differ and Nir outlines the contrasts clearly. Repentance, in its Jewish sense, for instance, as a return to the covenant with God as expressed in Torah, is just not present in the Gospel accounts of John the Baptist. Similarly Josephus’s description of John the Baptist’s water ritual makes it clear that his ritual is not a Pharisaic baptism but an early Christian one. Nir carefully analyses the text, pointing out that the action is “a collective mass baptism under the administration of one person, which must be preached and proclaimed to be administered.” This along with “its characterization as an initiatory baptism into an elect group” (258) are hallmarks of the Christian rite of baptism. Moreover, John’s baptism “combines physical purification with inner moral spiritual purification, in which the latter constitutes a prerequisite for the former” (258). This contrasts with a Jewish Pharisaic baptism, which is a different ritual in which immersion signifies cleansing the body from various states of impurity. The contexts differ, significantly. This, in turn, argues for the view that Josephus’s account of John the Baptist is “not from the hand of the Jewish historian but a late interpolation written by a Christian or a Jewish Christian” (259). That finding is bound to be controversial but it adds to the suspicion that the passages about Jesus and James, brother of Jesus, have all been inserted into Josephus’s text by later Christian hands. Thus Josephus is not an independent witness to the subject matter of the Gospels. Nir’s meticulous study has implications for the larger question concerning “the parting of the ways.” The distinctions she draws out carefully delineate lines between the beliefs and practices of Second Temple Judaism and its early rabbinic modifications on the one hand and [End Page 412] developing Christian theology on the other hand. There are important boundaries which should not be blurred. Nir’s findings that John the Baptist is portrayed in neither the canonical Gospels nor in Josephus as a mysterious...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,134

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0400,015

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,231
Écart entre enseignants0,206 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNeotestamenticaMême sujetBiblical Studies and InterpretationTravaux en français237 207