Cited by 19Biblical Studies and InterpretationReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, ChristianityLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis

Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Schiffman, Lawrence H.·1994·Dead Sea Discoveries

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156851794x00121

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There were differences in interpretation of halakhah among the various sects of the Second Temple period.

    “There were differences in interpretation of halakhah among the various sects of the Second Temple period (Schiffman 1994, p. 99).”

    From Nomos and the Dispute in Galatians 2: A Case of Conflicting By-Laws (2023) · cites this paper as Schiffman 1994, p. 99

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schiffman, L. H.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Schiffman, Lawrence H.
Venue
Dead Sea Discoveries
Published
1994
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
285-299
ISSN
  • 0929-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1568-5179
OpenAlex
W2080542355
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Dead Sea Discoveries (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Religion, Theology, History, Judaism, Christianity
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Keywords
Pharisees, Sadducees, Jewish law, Dead Sea Scrolls, Second Temple Judaism, Qumran

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review