<i>New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures</i> , volume 2: A panel review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The canonical texts of the New Testament are well known and studied, but the variety and number of extant early Christian noncanonical texts, also known as New Testament Apocrypha, have not been as widely recognized. Thanks to the stellar work of numerous translators and the editorial work of Tony Burke, many more of these texts are now available with introductions in English translation through two volumes (soon to be three) of New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. In the series of articles in this special section of Studies in Religion, three early Christian scholars (Ronald Charles, Sean Hannan and Mona Tokarek LaFosse) review the second volume of the series, published by Eerdmans in 2020, which is followed by a detailed response by Tony Burke. The reviews and response were originally presented at a joint session at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies and Canadian Society of Patristic Studies/Association canadienne des études patristiques in May 2022. The reviews and response encourage scholars of religion to consider how these ancient texts might contribute to larger contemporary conversations around coloniality, diversity, pedagogy and storytelling, demonstrating the value of collaborative scholarship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".