Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10046
Francesco Bianchini
Abstract In this contribution the author will proceed in three steps. First, he will raise questions about the various rhetorical approaches one might follow in order to study the argumentative development of Galatians, considering the different methodological options. Second, he will offer a survey of existing rhetorical research on Galatians. Then he will seek to outline the argumentative structure and development of Galatians, in order to understand what is really at stake in this Pauline letter. At the end it will be proven that the literary rhetorical approach in studying Galatians is highly useful for a deep understanding of the text of the letter and its aim: Paul wants to re-evangelise the addressees.
{"title":"Τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ (Gal 1:11)","authors":"Francesco Bianchini","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this contribution the author will proceed in three steps. First, he will raise questions about the various rhetorical approaches one might follow in order to study the argumentative development of Galatians, considering the different methodological options. Second, he will offer a survey of existing rhetorical research on Galatians. Then he will seek to outline the argumentative structure and development of Galatians, in order to understand what is really at stake in this Pauline letter. At the end it will be proven that the literary rhetorical approach in studying Galatians is highly useful for a deep understanding of the text of the letter and its aim: Paul wants to re-evangelise the addressees.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135886579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10056
Hector M. Patmore
Abstract A consensus of opinion exists among scholars that Paul appears to contradict himself in 1 Cor 10:17–22: on the one hand, he makes clear that idols have no existence beyond the material objects themselves ; on the other hand, he appears to warn the Corinthians that they are exposing themselves to a dangerous metaphysical reality, namely demons (i.e., evil supernatural beings), by taking part in pagan cults. This supposed non sequitur is generally resolved by claiming that Paul adheres to two Jewish traditions simultaneously. The Jewish witnesses, however, do not support such a conclusion. In fact, the Jewish sources offer an alternative solution to this supposed problem, namely that Paul uses the word δαιμόνια to designate foreign gods to which he attributes no metaphysical reality. In short, there are no demons involved. As such, he maintains a biblical position : even if the idols are nothing but wood and stone, idolatry is forbidden.
{"title":"Les démons étaient-ils vraiment le problème à Corinthe ?","authors":"Hector M. Patmore","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10056","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A consensus of opinion exists among scholars that Paul appears to contradict himself in 1 Cor 10:17–22: on the one hand, he makes clear that idols have no existence beyond the material objects themselves ; on the other hand, he appears to warn the Corinthians that they are exposing themselves to a dangerous metaphysical reality, namely demons (i.e., evil supernatural beings), by taking part in pagan cults. This supposed non sequitur is generally resolved by claiming that Paul adheres to two Jewish traditions simultaneously. The Jewish witnesses, however, do not support such a conclusion. In fact, the Jewish sources offer an alternative solution to this supposed problem, namely that Paul uses the word δαιμόνια to designate foreign gods to which he attributes no metaphysical reality. In short, there are no demons involved. As such, he maintains a biblical position : even if the idols are nothing but wood and stone, idolatry is forbidden.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135886573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10049
UnChan Jung
Abstract Pauline scholars have long analysed the Jerusalem collection described in 1 Cor 16:1–4, 2 Cor 8–9 and Rom 15:25–29 to unveil Paul’s motivations, but only recently have they considered the economic implications and ramifications of the long-distance gift. Some have tried to associate the long-distance gift with several socio-economic contexts, such as economic inequality, prevalent poverty, patronage and/or gift exchange. This article, however, brings economic fluctuations to the fore to explicate 2 Cor 8:1–15 (esp. vv. 10–15), arguing that Paul’s chief rhetorical inducement to the Corinthians is the practical benefit of increasing their long-term resilience and survivability against the mutable economies facing most ordinary people through balanced exchanges among those of various economic statuses.
{"title":"Reciprocity and High Resilience against Economic Fluctuations","authors":"UnChan Jung","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10049","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Pauline scholars have long analysed the Jerusalem collection described in 1 Cor 16:1–4, 2 Cor 8–9 and Rom 15:25–29 to unveil Paul’s motivations, but only recently have they considered the economic implications and ramifications of the long-distance gift. Some have tried to associate the long-distance gift with several socio-economic contexts, such as economic inequality, prevalent poverty, patronage and/or gift exchange. This article, however, brings economic fluctuations to the fore to explicate 2 Cor 8:1–15 (esp. vv. 10–15), arguing that Paul’s chief rhetorical inducement to the Corinthians is the practical benefit of increasing their long-term resilience and survivability against the mutable economies facing most ordinary people through balanced exchanges among those of various economic statuses.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135886578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10054
Sigurd Grindheim
Abstract The near consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Philo needs to be reevaluated. Even though there are no obvious cases of borrowing, the cumulative weight of the evidence indicates a more linear relationship than what may be accounted for by situating them both within Hellenistic Judaism. A number of parallels are sufficiently detailed to suggest direct dependence. These parallels are of a formal character, such as the metaphor of the dagger and the particular use of the terms ὑπόστασις, ἀρχηγός, τελειόω, ἄθλησις, τεχνίτης , and δημιουργός , as well of a material nature, concerning the development of key ideas, such as the eternal nature of the Son, his Melchizedekian high-priesthood, and the perception of the heavenly sanctuary.
《希伯来书》作者没有受到斐罗的直接影响这一近乎一致的观点需要重新评估。尽管没有明显的借用案例，但证据的累积重量表明，两者之间的线性关系比将两者置于希腊化的犹太教中所能解释的更为明显。许多相似之处足够详细，足以表明它们之间有直接的依赖关系。这些相似之处具有形式特征，例如匕首的比喻和术语的特殊使用，如:ο πόστασις， τ ρ η ης， τελει ω， τ θλησις， τεχν ς和δημιο ργ ο ς，以及物质性质，涉及关键思想的发展，如圣子的永恒本性，他的麦基洗德式的大祭司，以及对天堂圣所的感知。
{"title":"Direct Dependence on Philo in the Epistle to the Hebrews","authors":"Sigurd Grindheim","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10054","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The near consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Philo needs to be reevaluated. Even though there are no obvious cases of borrowing, the cumulative weight of the evidence indicates a more linear relationship than what may be accounted for by situating them both within Hellenistic Judaism. A number of parallels are sufficiently detailed to suggest direct dependence. These parallels are of a formal character, such as the metaphor of the dagger and the particular use of the terms ὑπόστασις, ἀρχηγός, τελειόω, ἄθλησις, τεχνίτης , and δημιουργός , as well of a material nature, concerning the development of key ideas, such as the eternal nature of the Son, his Melchizedekian high-priesthood, and the perception of the heavenly sanctuary.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135886571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10052
J. M. Hubbard
Mark’s only direct reference to the reader of his Gospel (Mark 13:14) has long fascinated interpreters. But what kind of reading event is presumed in this authorial aside? This essay compares Mark 13:14 to similar interpretive asides from the commentarial traditions of ancient schools. Through analysis of relevant material from Epictetus, the author of this essay demonstrates that a reader’s comprehension of authoritative texts was a primary objective of ancient education. He further shows that the practice of drawing a reader’s attention to particular interpretive conundrums is well evidenced in ancient commentaries like Origen’s Commentary on Matthew and the commentaries of Philo. The author argues that this evidence from pedagogical reading events can fruitfully illuminate Mark 13:14, and can help us to theorize better about the social setting of Mark’s Gospel.
{"title":"“Let the Reader Understand”","authors":"J. M. Hubbard","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10052","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Mark’s only direct reference to the reader of his Gospel (Mark 13:14) has long fascinated interpreters. But what kind of reading event is presumed in this authorial aside? This essay compares Mark 13:14 to similar interpretive asides from the commentarial traditions of ancient schools. Through analysis of relevant material from Epictetus, the author of this essay demonstrates that a reader’s comprehension of authoritative texts was a primary objective of ancient education. He further shows that the practice of drawing a reader’s attention to particular interpretive conundrums is well evidenced in ancient commentaries like Origen’s Commentary on Matthew and the commentaries of Philo. The author argues that this evidence from pedagogical reading events can fruitfully illuminate Mark 13:14, and can help us to theorize better about the social setting of Mark’s Gospel.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47371795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10050
H. Houghton, A. Myshrall
As part of work towards the Editio Critica Maior of Galatians, the use of the tools of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method and the MrBayes phylogenetic software has led to the identification of three Greek New Testament manuscripts which are direct copies (Abschriften) of surviving documents. This article provides the evidence that GA 1930 is a copy of GA 1978, GA 1935 is a copy of GA 1987, and GA 1959 is a copy of GA 467. No conclusive proof has yet been identified to confirm whether or not GA 2423 is a copy of GA 1730, GA 506 is a copy of GA 203, GA 1837 is a copy of GA 326, GA 1988 is a copy of GA 1984, or GA 1753 is a copy of GA 2279. However, it appears that neither GA 254 and GA 1523 nor GA 0150 and GA 2110 are directly related. The conclusion offers further observations on the identification of Abschriften.
{"title":"Three Direct Copies and Other Closely Related Manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles","authors":"H. Houghton, A. Myshrall","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10050","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000As part of work towards the Editio Critica Maior of Galatians, the use of the tools of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method and the MrBayes phylogenetic software has led to the identification of three Greek New Testament manuscripts which are direct copies (Abschriften) of surviving documents. This article provides the evidence that GA 1930 is a copy of GA 1978, GA 1935 is a copy of GA 1987, and GA 1959 is a copy of GA 467. No conclusive proof has yet been identified to confirm whether or not GA 2423 is a copy of GA 1730, GA 506 is a copy of GA 203, GA 1837 is a copy of GA 326, GA 1988 is a copy of GA 1984, or GA 1753 is a copy of GA 2279. However, it appears that neither GA 254 and GA 1523 nor GA 0150 and GA 2110 are directly related. The conclusion offers further observations on the identification of Abschriften.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43752477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10047
Manuel Nägele
The lexeme νοῦς has received little attention in Pauline exegesis. The few relevant studies on Paul’s use of νοῦς rely solely on Josephus’ use of the term. In order to overcome this one-sidedness, this article understands νοῦς against both a Jewish-Hellenistic and a Graeco-Roman horizon by grasping the range of its meaning in terms of a semantic frame. From there it becomes clear that Paul uses the word in the sense of a psychic faculty and not in the sense of a single thought—a conclusion that is quite different from those of former approaches, which contend that he means both at the same time. These insights will be illustrated by Paul’s use of the lexeme in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians.
νο ο ς这个词在保罗的注释中很少受到关注。关于保罗使用νο ο ς的少数相关研究完全依赖于约瑟夫斯对该术语的使用。为了克服这种片面性，本文通过从语义框架的角度把握νο ο ς的意义范围，从犹太-希腊化和希腊-罗马两种视域来理解νο ο ς。从这里我们可以清楚地看出，保罗使用这个词是在一种精神能力的意义上，而不是在一个单一的思想的意义上——这一结论与之前的方法有很大的不同，后者认为他同时意味着这两种能力。这些见解将通过保罗在哥林多前书开头几章中对词素的使用来说明。
{"title":"Paul’s Usage of the Anthropological Term νοῦς","authors":"Manuel Nägele","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10047","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The lexeme νοῦς has received little attention in Pauline exegesis. The few relevant studies on Paul’s use of νοῦς rely solely on Josephus’ use of the term. In order to overcome this one-sidedness, this article understands νοῦς against both a Jewish-Hellenistic and a Graeco-Roman horizon by grasping the range of its meaning in terms of a semantic frame. From there it becomes clear that Paul uses the word in the sense of a psychic faculty and not in the sense of a single thought—a conclusion that is quite different from those of former approaches, which contend that he means both at the same time. These insights will be illustrated by Paul’s use of the lexeme in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45301509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10051
M. W. Martin, J. Whitlark
This study interprets the numerous veiled references of Hebrews 13:7–14 against the general problem addressed in the body of the speech, namely, the temptation to apostasy posed by the idolatrous, imperial culture. Specifically, the authors of this study argue that Heb 13:9 warns against idolatry and allegiance to pagan, imperial power broadly, and that the whole of 13:7–14 is a summons to embrace suffering by rejecting such identification in view of God’s promised future. Βρώματα, the authors argue, is shorthand for foods associated with pagan tables and imperial largesse. βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν is an expression commonly used to depict literal nourishment, and in contexts where hunger was a real threat. Due to the perennial problems of food scarcity and chronic hunger, and to the critical role that foods derived from pagan and imperial sources played in alleviating these problems, the recipients of Hebrews likely were tempted to eat of these foods.
本研究解释了希伯来书13:7-14中许多隐晦的参考文献，以反对演讲正文中提到的一般问题，即拜偶像的帝国文化所带来的叛教诱惑。具体地说，本研究的作者认为，希伯来书13:9警告人们不要盲目崇拜偶像，要广泛地效忠异教和皇权，整个13:7-14都是在召唤人们接受苦难，拒绝这种认同，因为上帝应许的未来。作者认为，Βρώματα是与异教徒的餐桌和帝国的慷慨有关的食物的缩写。βεβαιο ο ο ο σθαι τ ν καρδ榆树αν是一个通常用来描述字面上的营养的表达，在饥饿是一个真正的威胁的情况下。由于长期存在的食物短缺和长期的饥饿问题，以及来自异教和帝国的食物在缓解这些问题方面发挥的关键作用，希伯来书的接受者很可能被诱惑吃这些食物。
{"title":"Strengthened by Grace and Not by Foods","authors":"M. W. Martin, J. Whitlark","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10051","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This study interprets the numerous veiled references of Hebrews 13:7–14 against the general problem addressed in the body of the speech, namely, the temptation to apostasy posed by the idolatrous, imperial culture. Specifically, the authors of this study argue that Heb 13:9 warns against idolatry and allegiance to pagan, imperial power broadly, and that the whole of 13:7–14 is a summons to embrace suffering by rejecting such identification in view of God’s promised future. Βρώματα, the authors argue, is shorthand for foods associated with pagan tables and imperial largesse. βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν is an expression commonly used to depict literal nourishment, and in contexts where hunger was a real threat. Due to the perennial problems of food scarcity and chronic hunger, and to the critical role that foods derived from pagan and imperial sources played in alleviating these problems, the recipients of Hebrews likely were tempted to eat of these foods.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46080330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341730
Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer
{"title":"Der Erste Petrusbrief, written by Christoph Gregor Müller","authors":"Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer","doi":"10.1163/15685365-12341730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341730","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42625989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10044
J. Coogan
The second-century philosopher Celsus disparaged Christians who “alter the original text of the Gospel three or four or many times” (Cels. 2.27). Scholars have understood this passage as a critique of multiple distinct Gospels, but Celsus’ invective is better explained by comparison with elite second-century polemics (e.g., Gellius, Lucian, Galen) against readers who lack discernment and arbitrarily alter manuscripts. For Celsus, Christians’ irresponsible textual practices reveal their cultural inferiority. The complaint is about varying copies of what Celsus thinks to be the same work: “the Gospel.” Christian thinkers in the second and third centuries—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and the author(s) of the Little Labyrinth—also participate in this discourse about good and bad readers. This article thus illuminates the wider ancient Mediterranean politics of reading in which early Christian textuality emerged.
{"title":"Meddling with the Gospel","authors":"J. Coogan","doi":"10.1163/15685365-bja10044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-bja10044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The second-century philosopher Celsus disparaged Christians who “alter the original text of the Gospel three or four or many times” (Cels. 2.27). Scholars have understood this passage as a critique of multiple distinct Gospels, but Celsus’ invective is better explained by comparison with elite second-century polemics (e.g., Gellius, Lucian, Galen) against readers who lack discernment and arbitrarily alter manuscripts. For Celsus, Christians’ irresponsible textual practices reveal their cultural inferiority. The complaint is about varying copies of what Celsus thinks to be the same work: “the Gospel.” Christian thinkers in the second and third centuries—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and the author(s) of the Little Labyrinth—also participate in this discourse about good and bad readers. This article thus illuminates the wider ancient Mediterranean politics of reading in which early Christian textuality emerged.","PeriodicalId":19319,"journal":{"name":"Novum Testamentum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47322496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：