TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction

T2 - Tantlevskij et al. network analysis of the interaction between different religious and philosophical movements in early judaism. (Philosophies 2021, 6, 2)

AU - Tantlevskij, Igor R.

AU - Gromova, Ekaterina V.

AU - Gromov, Dmitry

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

PY - 2021/12

Y1 - 2021/12

N2 - The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows: (1) Adding the sentences in Section 5. “Graph-Theoretic Interpretation and Formalization of Relations between Judaean Sects” (modifying the last paragraph of this section): Original text: “Later, pressure from the Roman Empire started to play an increased role in the political life of Judaea. This led to the appearance of a new movement, Zealots, who were utterly opposed to direct Roman rule. This movement joined parts of both the Pharisees and Essenes and thus it enjoyed relatively good relations with both sides. On the other hand, the relations between the Essenes and Sadducees continued to worsen. The structure of relations at the first half of the 1st century CE is presented in Figure 4c. We note that the resulting structure is completely balanced. We might also conjecture that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations between Zealots and Sadducees should be rather negative, than positive. However, there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” Updated text: “Later, pressure from the Roman Empire started to play an increased role in the political life of Judaea. This led to the appearance of a new movement, Zealots, who were utterly opposed to direct Roman rule. This movement joined parts of both the Pharisees and Essenes and thus it enjoyed relatively good relations with both sides. However, when the Zealots arose, they were initially seen simply as a radical wing of the Pharisees, who were treated with caution by the Qumranites/Essenes. Hence, we estimate that the respective relationship was negative. However, from somewhere in the 40s and 50s onwards there was a convergence and in some respects a unification of anti-Roman forces—the Zealots proved to be real God worshippers and fighters for the liberation of Judaea. Hence, the respective relationship improved and became neutral. On the other hand, the relations between the Essenes and Sadducees continued to worsen. The structure of relations in the first half of the 1st century CE is presented in Figure 4c. We note that the resulting structure is completely balanced if the relationship between Essenes and Zealots is considered as negative and marginally balanced if we consider this relationship as neutral. This shows that the nature of relations between different religious movements is rather complex and cannot easily be described by a single model.” (2) Replacing two words with each other in Section 5 “Graph-Theoretic Interpretation and Formalization of Relations between Judaean Sects” on page 11 (last paragraph). FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 3 Original text: “We might(2) Replacingalso conjecturetwo wordsthat—aswith eachtheothertheoryin Sectionof social5 “Graph-Theoreticbalance predicts—theInterpre-tation Zealotsand Formalizationand Sadduceesof RelationsshouldbetweenratherJudaeannegative,Sects” onthanpage 11positive.(last paragraph).However, there relations between Original text: is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” “We might also conjecture that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations betweentext:Zealots and Sadducees should be rather negative, than positive. However, Updated there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” “We mightUpdatedalsotext:infer that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations between Zealots“WeandmightSadduceesalso infer that—asshouldthebetheoryviewedof socialas positivebalance predicts—therather thanrelationsnegative.be-However, not enoughZealots andhistoricalSadduceesevidenceshould betoviewedconcludeas positivethis withrathercertainty.”than negative. How-there istween ever, there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” (3) Authors would like to change the sign of the relation between Z (Zealots) and E (Essenes)(3) Authorsin wouldFigurelike4cto(fromchange “1”the signto “−1(0)”),of the relationsobetweenneedZ (Zealots)to replaceand E (Es-senes) in Figure 4c (from “1” to “−1(0)”), so we need to replace the original Figure 4: the original Figure 4:.

AB - The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows: (1) Adding the sentences in Section 5. “Graph-Theoretic Interpretation and Formalization of Relations between Judaean Sects” (modifying the last paragraph of this section): Original text: “Later, pressure from the Roman Empire started to play an increased role in the political life of Judaea. This led to the appearance of a new movement, Zealots, who were utterly opposed to direct Roman rule. This movement joined parts of both the Pharisees and Essenes and thus it enjoyed relatively good relations with both sides. On the other hand, the relations between the Essenes and Sadducees continued to worsen. The structure of relations at the first half of the 1st century CE is presented in Figure 4c. We note that the resulting structure is completely balanced. We might also conjecture that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations between Zealots and Sadducees should be rather negative, than positive. However, there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” Updated text: “Later, pressure from the Roman Empire started to play an increased role in the political life of Judaea. This led to the appearance of a new movement, Zealots, who were utterly opposed to direct Roman rule. This movement joined parts of both the Pharisees and Essenes and thus it enjoyed relatively good relations with both sides. However, when the Zealots arose, they were initially seen simply as a radical wing of the Pharisees, who were treated with caution by the Qumranites/Essenes. Hence, we estimate that the respective relationship was negative. However, from somewhere in the 40s and 50s onwards there was a convergence and in some respects a unification of anti-Roman forces—the Zealots proved to be real God worshippers and fighters for the liberation of Judaea. Hence, the respective relationship improved and became neutral. On the other hand, the relations between the Essenes and Sadducees continued to worsen. The structure of relations in the first half of the 1st century CE is presented in Figure 4c. We note that the resulting structure is completely balanced if the relationship between Essenes and Zealots is considered as negative and marginally balanced if we consider this relationship as neutral. This shows that the nature of relations between different religious movements is rather complex and cannot easily be described by a single model.” (2) Replacing two words with each other in Section 5 “Graph-Theoretic Interpretation and Formalization of Relations between Judaean Sects” on page 11 (last paragraph). FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 3 Original text: “We might(2) Replacingalso conjecturetwo wordsthat—aswith eachtheothertheoryin Sectionof social5 “Graph-Theoreticbalance predicts—theInterpre-tation Zealotsand Formalizationand Sadduceesof RelationsshouldbetweenratherJudaeannegative,Sects” onthanpage 11positive.(last paragraph).However, there relations between Original text: is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” “We might also conjecture that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations betweentext:Zealots and Sadducees should be rather negative, than positive. However, Updated there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” “We mightUpdatedalsotext:infer that—as the theory of social balance predicts—the relations between Zealots“WeandmightSadduceesalso infer that—asshouldthebetheoryviewedof socialas positivebalance predicts—therather thanrelationsnegative.be-However, not enoughZealots andhistoricalSadduceesevidenceshould betoviewedconcludeas positivethis withrathercertainty.”than negative. How-there istween ever, there is not enough historical evidence to conclude this with certainty.” (3) Authors would like to change the sign of the relation between Z (Zealots) and E (Essenes)(3) Authorsin wouldFigurelike4cto(fromchange “1”the signto “−1(0)”),of the relationsobetweenneedZ (Zealots)to replaceand E (Es-senes) in Figure 4c (from “1” to “−1(0)”), so we need to replace the original Figure 4: the original Figure 4:.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121832962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/philosophies6040104

DO - 10.3390/philosophies6040104

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85121832962

VL - 6

JO - Philosophies

JF - Philosophies

SN - 2409-9287

IS - 4

M1 - 104

ER -