Pub Date : 2023-10-17DOI: 10.1177/00346373231203871
Caleb O. Oladipo
The challenges presented by the current global culture of violence are baffling. Humanity faces these unprecedented challenges that have origins in sacred texts containing violent events. “Spiritualizing” these events is not the solution to dealing with the problems they present. Christians should be prepared to doubt the texts that promote violence as a part of faithfulness to God. This article suggests the opposite of faith is not only doubt, but also fear. Christians demonstrate a cheap relationship with sacred texts when they fail to challenge traditional interpretations. A more mature approach is to embrace alternative, if unfamiliar, interpretations of sacred texts rather than hold on to orthodoxy that is beloved but unloving. Christians should see the texts that seem to justify violence or encourage war as a message requiring humanity to struggle against such violence to transform the world around them nonviolently. The Church of the twenty-first century has optimal opportunity for building harmonious relationships with people of other faiths, which will require a multifaceted approach to understanding God in a pluralistic age.
{"title":"A word about . . . violence in a pluralistic age: Constraints and opportunities for Christians","authors":"Caleb O. Oladipo","doi":"10.1177/00346373231203871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231203871","url":null,"abstract":"The challenges presented by the current global culture of violence are baffling. Humanity faces these unprecedented challenges that have origins in sacred texts containing violent events. “Spiritualizing” these events is not the solution to dealing with the problems they present. Christians should be prepared to doubt the texts that promote violence as a part of faithfulness to God. This article suggests the opposite of faith is not only doubt, but also fear. Christians demonstrate a cheap relationship with sacred texts when they fail to challenge traditional interpretations. A more mature approach is to embrace alternative, if unfamiliar, interpretations of sacred texts rather than hold on to orthodoxy that is beloved but unloving. Christians should see the texts that seem to justify violence or encourage war as a message requiring humanity to struggle against such violence to transform the world around them nonviolently. The Church of the twenty-first century has optimal opportunity for building harmonious relationships with people of other faiths, which will require a multifaceted approach to understanding God in a pluralistic age.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136033713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-17DOI: 10.1177/00346373231201522
Andrew J. Byers
The Gospel of John challenges the use of violence in both the exercise of power and in resistance to power. This article identifies how power is used in John, discusses who uses it, and examines how power is complicated or inhibited within the narrative. God and the Logos are introduced in the Prologue as the Gospel’s most powerful figures, yet their power is resisted. The Jewish leaders (often co-identified with “the Jews”) hold sociocultural power, though it is limited by Rome. The Empire looms in the background until the passion narrative, in which Roman power is relativized to the power of the empire of God. Cosmic evil co-opts Rome and the Jewish leaders and serves as the most dominant force arrayed against Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, even if constrained. Jesus’s power is superior, yet he exercises self-restraint. The article then explores the resistance practices to dominant power by the Jewish leadership, Peter, then Jesus, focusing on the arrest and (quasi-)trial in John 18. While “the Jews” resort to violence by colluding with Rome, Peter assaults with a sword then denies Jesus. Although greater in power than the arresting party and judicial authorities, Jesus responds to threats with nonviolence, undermining an imperial imagination sustained by ideologies of violence and death.
{"title":"“Put your sword back into its sheath”: A Johannine approach to nonviolent resistance","authors":"Andrew J. Byers","doi":"10.1177/00346373231201522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231201522","url":null,"abstract":"The Gospel of John challenges the use of violence in both the exercise of power and in resistance to power. This article identifies how power is used in John, discusses who uses it, and examines how power is complicated or inhibited within the narrative. God and the Logos are introduced in the Prologue as the Gospel’s most powerful figures, yet their power is resisted. The Jewish leaders (often co-identified with “the Jews”) hold sociocultural power, though it is limited by Rome. The Empire looms in the background until the passion narrative, in which Roman power is relativized to the power of the empire of God. Cosmic evil co-opts Rome and the Jewish leaders and serves as the most dominant force arrayed against Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, even if constrained. Jesus’s power is superior, yet he exercises self-restraint. The article then explores the resistance practices to dominant power by the Jewish leadership, Peter, then Jesus, focusing on the arrest and (quasi-)trial in John 18. While “the Jews” resort to violence by colluding with Rome, Peter assaults with a sword then denies Jesus. Although greater in power than the arresting party and judicial authorities, Jesus responds to threats with nonviolence, undermining an imperial imagination sustained by ideologies of violence and death.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136033703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1177/00346373231198177
Latonya Latrice Agard
In the Gospel of John, readers encounter a community of believers who gather behind locked doors even after they have heard Jesus is alive. What can one make of their actions? Why are they not rejoicing, spreading the good news? Something is amiss. Jesus is alive, but the disciples are terrified and appear uncertain about what to do next. Using a trauma-informed hermeneutic, I interpret the actions, words, and apparent mood of the disciples in John 20: 19–20 as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Jesus’s visible scars testify to his pain and prove that the person in the room is the same person who hung on the cross. In a similar vein, the scars, visible and invisible, of trauma survivors tell stories of unimaginable horror. Many people who survive traumatic events manage to integrate their experiences without prolonged injury to their mental health. For others, however, this is not the case. Fragmentation, not integration, characterizes their post-trauma narratives. Is there any escape for those who live in this prison? For John, the answer, the healing, is in the Risen One. Ultimately, Jesus’s scars speak life and bring hope to a community haunted by loss.
{"title":"After the pain: A sermon on John 20:19–20","authors":"Latonya Latrice Agard","doi":"10.1177/00346373231198177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231198177","url":null,"abstract":"In the Gospel of John, readers encounter a community of believers who gather behind locked doors even after they have heard Jesus is alive. What can one make of their actions? Why are they not rejoicing, spreading the good news? Something is amiss. Jesus is alive, but the disciples are terrified and appear uncertain about what to do next. Using a trauma-informed hermeneutic, I interpret the actions, words, and apparent mood of the disciples in John 20: 19–20 as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Jesus’s visible scars testify to his pain and prove that the person in the room is the same person who hung on the cross. In a similar vein, the scars, visible and invisible, of trauma survivors tell stories of unimaginable horror. Many people who survive traumatic events manage to integrate their experiences without prolonged injury to their mental health. For others, however, this is not the case. Fragmentation, not integration, characterizes their post-trauma narratives. Is there any escape for those who live in this prison? For John, the answer, the healing, is in the Risen One. Ultimately, Jesus’s scars speak life and bring hope to a community haunted by loss.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135243830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1177/00346373231196609
Dorothy A. Lee
In the resurrection narratives of John 20–21, the wounds of the risen Jesus serve a number of important functions. They work as markers of revelation, enabling disciples to recognize the identity of the crucified one in the risen one. They are symbols of colonialism and imperialism, creating solidarity between Jesus and the victims of such abuse and suffering. They are cultic symbols of sacrifice and purification, linked to the Johannine motif of Jesus as the Temple and sacrificial Lamb of God whose death on the cross effects cleansing, taking away the world’s sin. The wounds are also figures of new life and peace, forged ironically through violence and death, signs of triumph and glory. The wounds of the Johannine Jesus thus spell the end of what they embody: suffering and its healing, violence and its peaceful resolution, death and its defeat.
{"title":"The significance of the wounds of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel","authors":"Dorothy A. Lee","doi":"10.1177/00346373231196609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231196609","url":null,"abstract":"In the resurrection narratives of John 20–21, the wounds of the risen Jesus serve a number of important functions. They work as markers of revelation, enabling disciples to recognize the identity of the crucified one in the risen one. They are symbols of colonialism and imperialism, creating solidarity between Jesus and the victims of such abuse and suffering. They are cultic symbols of sacrifice and purification, linked to the Johannine motif of Jesus as the Temple and sacrificial Lamb of God whose death on the cross effects cleansing, taking away the world’s sin. The wounds are also figures of new life and peace, forged ironically through violence and death, signs of triumph and glory. The wounds of the Johannine Jesus thus spell the end of what they embody: suffering and its healing, violence and its peaceful resolution, death and its defeat.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135199544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1177/00346373231195387
Arthur M. Wright
In antiquity, the entire Roman Empire itself was imagined as a household, with its inhabitants obedient children to their symbolic father, the emperor. The language and the literary context of John 14:1–7 suggest significant interplay with this way of conceptualizing the empire. The Fourth Gospel imitates imperial structures with its household imagery, in which God takes the place of “Father” and believers as “children.” The community of believers is thus imagined as an alternative household to Caesar’s empire, one with its own unique values and priorities. In this article, I suggest that Johannine believers are engaged in imperial negotiation by imagining themselves as an alternative household living under threat of imperial violence. Whereas traditional interpretations of John 14 that equate “my Father’s house” with “heaven” suggest an escapist strategy, in which believers will one day be whisked safely out of their imperial context, this interpretation suggests a more nuanced strategy of negotiating imperial power from within. The divine response to the threat of imperial violence is to establish a beloved household of God.
{"title":"A big, big house(hold): John 14:1–7 as a response to Roman imperial violence","authors":"Arthur M. Wright","doi":"10.1177/00346373231195387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231195387","url":null,"abstract":"In antiquity, the entire Roman Empire itself was imagined as a household, with its inhabitants obedient children to their symbolic father, the emperor. The language and the literary context of John 14:1–7 suggest significant interplay with this way of conceptualizing the empire. The Fourth Gospel imitates imperial structures with its household imagery, in which God takes the place of “Father” and believers as “children.” The community of believers is thus imagined as an alternative household to Caesar’s empire, one with its own unique values and priorities. In this article, I suggest that Johannine believers are engaged in imperial negotiation by imagining themselves as an alternative household living under threat of imperial violence. Whereas traditional interpretations of John 14 that equate “my Father’s house” with “heaven” suggest an escapist strategy, in which believers will one day be whisked safely out of their imperial context, this interpretation suggests a more nuanced strategy of negotiating imperial power from within. The divine response to the threat of imperial violence is to establish a beloved household of God.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135244225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1177/00346373231200557
Sherri Brown
John 7–8 narrates Jesus’s dialogues with his opponents and the crowds during the annual Jewish festival of Tabernacles. Through this sensory backdrop, Jesus makes exceptional claims both for himself and for how God’s people should respond (e.g., 8:12). Across John’s narration of Jesus’s public ministry, Jesus challenges mainstream closedness by opening covenantal relationship with God to all those who can respond accordingly to what God as Father is doing in this world through Jesus who is Christ and Son. Such confrontation peaks in John 7–8 through a particularly violent interaction between Jesus’s radical acceptance and the resulting discontent in those who prefer the status quo. At the heart of this conflagration, the intrusive encounter between Jesus and the woman ensnared by the Pharisees (7:53–8:11) models a call for mercy and unity in community amid conflict. Despite the textual instability of its foundation, this passage must be given its due as an alternative of mercy to the violence that surrounds it in the final form of John’s Gospel. The presence of this passage in John’s canonical narrative presents a powerful antidote to the chaotic violence that surrounds it.
{"title":"Jesus and violence during Tabernacles: Wit, mercy, and accountability in John 7–8","authors":"Sherri Brown","doi":"10.1177/00346373231200557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231200557","url":null,"abstract":"John 7–8 narrates Jesus’s dialogues with his opponents and the crowds during the annual Jewish festival of Tabernacles. Through this sensory backdrop, Jesus makes exceptional claims both for himself and for how God’s people should respond (e.g., 8:12). Across John’s narration of Jesus’s public ministry, Jesus challenges mainstream closedness by opening covenantal relationship with God to all those who can respond accordingly to what God as Father is doing in this world through Jesus who is Christ and Son. Such confrontation peaks in John 7–8 through a particularly violent interaction between Jesus’s radical acceptance and the resulting discontent in those who prefer the status quo. At the heart of this conflagration, the intrusive encounter between Jesus and the woman ensnared by the Pharisees (7:53–8:11) models a call for mercy and unity in community amid conflict. Despite the textual instability of its foundation, this passage must be given its due as an alternative of mercy to the violence that surrounds it in the final form of John’s Gospel. The presence of this passage in John’s canonical narrative presents a powerful antidote to the chaotic violence that surrounds it.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135199222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.1177/00346373231195634
Lidija Novakovic
In this article, I examine the declaration, “It is advantageous for you that one man should die for the people and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50), which the high priest Caiaphas makes at the Sanhedrin’s deliberations about the necessity of Jesus’s execution. I argue that despite the narrator’s appreciative comment that Caiaphas “did not say this on his own, but, because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he may also gather into one the scattered children of God” (John 11:51–52), the evangelist does not endorse the argument from expediency that Caiaphas advocates. Jesus’s death in John is beneficial for others not because the reasoning “one for many” is morally justifiable but because Jesus freely lays down his life. This redefinition of the redemptive significance of Jesus’s death on the cross also implies the futility of violence because the execution of Jesus did not bring about the non-violent end that Caiaphas hoped for. After all, the Romans did come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Thus, the death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is beneficial for all God’s people, but this act is not the result of the verdict of the Jewish leaders to put Jesus to death but of Jesus’s own decision to give his life for others.
{"title":"“It is advantageous for you that one man should die for the people and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50): A reassessment of Caiaphas’s argument from expediency","authors":"Lidija Novakovic","doi":"10.1177/00346373231195634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231195634","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I examine the declaration, “It is advantageous for you that one man should die for the people and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50), which the high priest Caiaphas makes at the Sanhedrin’s deliberations about the necessity of Jesus’s execution. I argue that despite the narrator’s appreciative comment that Caiaphas “did not say this on his own, but, because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he may also gather into one the scattered children of God” (John 11:51–52), the evangelist does not endorse the argument from expediency that Caiaphas advocates. Jesus’s death in John is beneficial for others not because the reasoning “one for many” is morally justifiable but because Jesus freely lays down his life. This redefinition of the redemptive significance of Jesus’s death on the cross also implies the futility of violence because the execution of Jesus did not bring about the non-violent end that Caiaphas hoped for. After all, the Romans did come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Thus, the death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is beneficial for all God’s people, but this act is not the result of the verdict of the Jewish leaders to put Jesus to death but of Jesus’s own decision to give his life for others.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135537435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.1177/00346373231199503
Alicia D. Myers
John’s version of Jesus’s temple entrance is remarkable for its depiction of Jesus wielding a whip and driving out animals and people from the precincts. Focusing on the violence of Jesus’s “righteous anger,” some interpreters have used John 2:13–22 to justify violence in God’s name throughout history. Others push back against such readings by mitigating or ignoring the violence of Jesus’s actions. This article seeks to find a middle ground by focusing on ancient understandings of what happens when holiness is profaned. Using 2 Maccabees as a comparison, I argue John 2:13–22 presents Jesus’s arrival in the temple as a clash caused by holiness breaking out. This presentation emphasizes Jesus’s identity as God’s glory made flesh and plays into ancient audience expectations in 2:13–17. In 2:18–22, however, Jesus undercuts these assumptions by predicting his own death and resurrection. Rather than endorsing violence, then, John 2:13–22 is better understood as a type of bait and switch, in which the narrative emphasizes Jesus’s identity, the problem he faces in the world, and the surprising way God responds. Instead of spreading violence, Jesus receives it upon his own body, thus revealing God’s inviolability that results in life for those who will receive it.
{"title":"Revelation through violence? Jesus in the Temple in John 2:13–22","authors":"Alicia D. Myers","doi":"10.1177/00346373231199503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231199503","url":null,"abstract":"John’s version of Jesus’s temple entrance is remarkable for its depiction of Jesus wielding a whip and driving out animals and people from the precincts. Focusing on the violence of Jesus’s “righteous anger,” some interpreters have used John 2:13–22 to justify violence in God’s name throughout history. Others push back against such readings by mitigating or ignoring the violence of Jesus’s actions. This article seeks to find a middle ground by focusing on ancient understandings of what happens when holiness is profaned. Using 2 Maccabees as a comparison, I argue John 2:13–22 presents Jesus’s arrival in the temple as a clash caused by holiness breaking out. This presentation emphasizes Jesus’s identity as God’s glory made flesh and plays into ancient audience expectations in 2:13–17. In 2:18–22, however, Jesus undercuts these assumptions by predicting his own death and resurrection. Rather than endorsing violence, then, John 2:13–22 is better understood as a type of bait and switch, in which the narrative emphasizes Jesus’s identity, the problem he faces in the world, and the surprising way God responds. Instead of spreading violence, Jesus receives it upon his own body, thus revealing God’s inviolability that results in life for those who will receive it.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135537590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-22DOI: 10.1177/00346373231200558
Alicia D. Myers
{"title":"Editorial introduction: Violence and responses to violence in the Gospel of John","authors":"Alicia D. Myers","doi":"10.1177/00346373231200558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231200558","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-15DOI: 10.1177/00346373231196974
Scott C. Ryan
{"title":"Words about books","authors":"Scott C. Ryan","doi":"10.1177/00346373231196974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373231196974","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135396747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：