Expressions of Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Aramaic Fragments and First Impressions of the Nag Hammadi Codices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Speaking of Pseudepigraphy …The past is never strictly past tense.On the one side of the spectrum looking back, source criticism and redaction criticism have taught us that, not unlike an archaeological site, ancient literature has layers.On the other end looking ahead, reception history and studies in scribal culture have reminded us that those layers are not sedimentary accretions that turn up on their own with the tides of time.Communities, scribes, authors-and yes, real, live peoplecultivated, circulated, and performed traditions.They did so in view of everchanging cultural, political, and religious contexts, which, in turn, enabled the continued development of traditions.The production of texts, then, was neither a one-shot deal nor isolated from larger networks of traditions.While the canons of Judaism and Christianity have enshrined selective snapshots of ancient traditions, discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Codices have revealed a diversity and development of both the literatures and socio-religious makeup of groups and movements behind them.The literature left behind in both collections attests to what were until very recently forgotten, or at least marginalized, forms of Judaism and Christianity.Both groups/movements clearly had a lot to say and had many fresh ideas.Yet, most often, they anchored their thought and literatures in traditions and lore inherited from the past.The topic of pseudepigraphy, then, provides an interesting space for a comparative study or, at least, a conversation starter.Despite continued misuse in some areas, our understanding of the term "pseudepigraphy" has come a long way from descriptions of writings as "falsely attributed," which implies both a value statement on the literature produced and caricatures scribes as perpetrators against, rather than participants in, developing traditions.1While there is some precedent for a pejorative use of 2 Stuckenbruck, for example, noted the report of Serapion, bishop of Antioch, dismissing the Gospel of Peter as "pseudepigrapha" ("Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse," 295-326, regarding Euseb.Hist.eccl.6.12.2). 3 Reed, "The Modern Invention of 'Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,'" 403-36.In the end, Reed noted that, "like all categories, 'the Old Testament pseudepigrapha' has both a specific history and a shifting semantic field" (434).As VanderKam commented, in common usage the term "pseudepigrapha" has often become a "catch-all" for anything outside the Bible, Philo, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (An Introduction to Early Judaism, 58).This problem is perpetuated by its continued imprecise use, for example, in the recent volume Bauckham, Davila, and Panayotov, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures.As one reviewer critiqued, "The title is, of course, unavoidably problematic (each word requires some qualification)" (Collins, review of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures).4 In this sense, I find Bernstein's earlier proposal of "authoritative pseudepigraphy" to be the most helpful in his initial exploration of the levels, roles, and functions of pseudepigraphy as a compositional strategy in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Bernstein, "Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls," 1-26).For recent studies focusing on the voicing techniques of the Aramaic texts in particular, and their relation to composition techniques in Qumran Hebrew materials, see Fröhlich, "From Pseudepigraphic to Sectarian," 395-406; and Stuckenbruck, "Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse."5 Lange, "In the Second Degree," 40.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».