Katabáseis orphico-pythagoriciennes ou Tours of Hell apocalyptiques juifs ? La fausse alternative posée par la typologie des péchés et des châtiments dans l’ Apocalypse de Pierre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume. — Dans sa celebre monographie Nekyia (1893 ; 1913 2 ), Albrecht Dieterich soutint qu’il fallait rechercher les origines de la representation de l’au-dela de l’ Apocalypse de Pierre , dont on venait de decouvrir et de publier le premier fragment grec, non pas dans les textes de la tradition apocalyptique juive, mais plutot du cote des katabaseis orphico-pythagoriciennes. Quatre-vingt-dix ans plus tard, une telle perspective a ete completement renversee par Martha Himmelfarb dans un ouvrage tout aussi repute, consacre aux Tours of Hell juifs et chretiens (1983). Un nouvel examen de la documentation revele que la question etait, en realite, mal posee et qu’il faudrait y apporter des reponses bien plus nuancees. Au-dela de ce cas de figure, c’est toute la problematique des rapports eventuels entre les mysteres greco-romains et l’esoterisme juif et chretien qu’il faudrait repenser. Abstract . — In his groundbreaking monograph Nekyia (1893; 1913 2 ), Albrecht Dieterich claimed that the roots of the Afterlife depicted in the newly discovered Greek fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter were to be found not in Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic traditions but in the Orphic-Pythagorean katabaseis . Ninety years later, in another highly innovative work on the literary genre of Jewish and Christian Tours of Hell (1983), Martha Himmelfarb expressed the opposite view that such an infernal imagery had developed on purely Jewish ground. Actually, a new examination of the evidence suggests that this is not an either/or question and that, beyond this specific case, it is the entire question of the relations between Greco-Roman mysteries and Jewish and Christian esotericism that should be reconceptualized.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".