MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002921839 · doi:10.1093/jts/flp136

The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Montreal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006. Edited by LORENZO DITOMMASO and LUCIAN TURCESCU.

2009· article· en· W2002921839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Teal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Theological Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryClassicsBrillTheologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles Kannengiesser is a most significant patristic scholar, and this Festschrift for his eightieth birthday includes a careful and inspiring introduction to his life and work. The list of his publications in the appendix adds 28 pages to an already large volume, providing conclusive proof—should it be needed—that Professeur Kannengiesser fully deserves a major collection of papers in his honour. Festschriften are, however, often very difficult to evaluate in terms of a coherent connecting theme. Here, all of the articles explore aspects of the impact and means of interpreting Scripture in late antiquity, yet it is the diversity of this collection that is to be celebrated—as welcome for its breadth as it is appropriate for a scholar who has expertise in many different specialist areas. The collection includes papers on diverse characters: Maximus the Confessor (pp. 17–36); a particularly interesting paper on Augustine’s writing as ‘social art’ by Pamela Bright, who is, of course, pivotal to Charles Kannengeisser’s life and work as his wife of 18 years (pp. 55–64); two papers on Origen—the notion of ‘the eternal gospel’ as an eschatological exegetical endeavour (pp. 193–226), and an exploration of the literal in Origen’s allegorical reading of the text in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, which is a particularly powerful evaluation of secondary material on this subject (pp. 287–315); Athanasius’ and Marcellus’ approaches to Asterius (pp. 337–67); Gregory Nyssen’s hermeneutics in De Opificio Hominis; and on diverse texts: an outstanding and most worthwhile contribution by Tony Chartand-Burke on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its relation to Luke rather than to a ‘gnostic’ milieu (pp. 101–19); an exploration of the motif of the tree from Matthew and Luke in Manichaean texts (pp. 121–44); post-biblical apocalyptic (pp. 145–61); late antique apocryphal literature (pp. 429–39); pseudepigraphy in late antiquity (pp. 467–90); 1 Corinthians 7 in ascetic debates (pp. 163–91); hermeneutical presuppositions about the Jewish Bible in the Hypostasis of the Archons (pp. 369–91); the interpretation of Scripture in Palestinian monasticism (pp. 393–417); themes of light and darkness in the Manichaean Kephalaia (pp. 419–27); early Rabbinic exegesis (pp. 441–66); and Marian apocrypha (pp. 491–510), together with an introductory paper by R. L. Wilken (‘The Novelty and Inescapability of the Bible in Late Antiquity’, pp. 3–14) and an interesting (and somewhat moving) reflection by Kannengiesser himself (‘Scripture as a Legacy of the Fathers’, pp. 529–41). There is an excellent index of references to ancient sources including all biblical references (in the Hebrew Bible, LXX, and New Testament) and Rabbinic, Nag Hammadi, Manichaean, as well as patristic and medieval Christian texts—in itself a really helpful tool for checking particular texts and themes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.005

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Theological StudiesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207