Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231191320c
David Pitts
{"title":"26<sup>th</sup> November: Christ the King: Ezekiel 34.11–16, 20–24 and Psalm 100 or Ezekiel 34.11–16, 20–24 and Psalm 95.1–7a; Ephesians 1.15–23; Matthew 25.31–46","authors":"David Pitts","doi":"10.1177/00145246231191320c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231191320c","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606878","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202114
Cory M. Marsh
{"title":"Public Scholarship on Eschatology","authors":"Cory M. Marsh","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202114","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606557","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202112
Alex W. Muir
enables much of the later discussion about the Transfiguration as a participatory event), his use of the language of glory, his use of the phrase ‘behold two men’ at Luke 9.30 and Acts 1.10 (which may invite readers or hearers to link the Transfiguration with the Ascension, which only Luke narrates), as well as his description of the sleepiness of the disciples and his reference to Peter not knowing what he said. The sub-title of the book is important. It draws attention to its author’s interest in the difference between how people saw things in antiquity, and how they may see them today, and how these different ways of seeing (‘scopic regimes’) are themselves shaped by different understandings of vision. This theoretical framework approach proves fruitful, not least in the way in which it allows Anthony to delineate differences between modern historical-critical and patristic approaches to the Transfiguration. The latter, he notes, begin from what they perceive as the inherent strangeness of the story of the Transfiguration. The former, however, see these accounts as texts that invite readers and hearers who identify as disciples of Jesus to enter into and participate in the narrative and so find it transformative for themselves and for the Church. Anthony writes in full awareness of modern historical-critical approaches, and shows how attention to reception history can contribute to answering contemporary questions about how to understand the New Testament in is historical context, by learning from how it was understood by readers whose cultural world was much closer to that of the gospel writers than is ours today. He also demonstrates how contemporary readers who share their predecessors’ faith in God may gain insights into a wider understanding of the meaning and significance of the Transfiguration than answers to solely historical-critical or nontheological questions could ever reasonably be expected to give. His book is a useful contribution to the history of biblical interpretation and a valuable resource for those interested in the theological reading of Scripture.
{"title":"Extending the Discussion on Paul, Rome, and Elephants","authors":"Alex W. Muir","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202112","url":null,"abstract":"enables much of the later discussion about the Transfiguration as a participatory event), his use of the language of glory, his use of the phrase ‘behold two men’ at Luke 9.30 and Acts 1.10 (which may invite readers or hearers to link the Transfiguration with the Ascension, which only Luke narrates), as well as his description of the sleepiness of the disciples and his reference to Peter not knowing what he said. The sub-title of the book is important. It draws attention to its author’s interest in the difference between how people saw things in antiquity, and how they may see them today, and how these different ways of seeing (‘scopic regimes’) are themselves shaped by different understandings of vision. This theoretical framework approach proves fruitful, not least in the way in which it allows Anthony to delineate differences between modern historical-critical and patristic approaches to the Transfiguration. The latter, he notes, begin from what they perceive as the inherent strangeness of the story of the Transfiguration. The former, however, see these accounts as texts that invite readers and hearers who identify as disciples of Jesus to enter into and participate in the narrative and so find it transformative for themselves and for the Church. Anthony writes in full awareness of modern historical-critical approaches, and shows how attention to reception history can contribute to answering contemporary questions about how to understand the New Testament in is historical context, by learning from how it was understood by readers whose cultural world was much closer to that of the gospel writers than is ours today. He also demonstrates how contemporary readers who share their predecessors’ faith in God may gain insights into a wider understanding of the meaning and significance of the Transfiguration than answers to solely historical-critical or nontheological questions could ever reasonably be expected to give. His book is a useful contribution to the history of biblical interpretation and a valuable resource for those interested in the theological reading of Scripture.","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606676","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202129
Kyle McCracken
reading those texts in the original language. The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament series not only facilitates that task, but it also empowers readers to deepen their reading of the Greek text. In no way are these volumes commentaries in the traditional sense. However, they offer deep insights into the meaning of the Greek text with which commentators must grapple when providing exegetical analysis. Williams’ volume on Mark in this series is no exception in providing such insight, and it maintains the uniform high standard that exists throughout the books published so far in the series. The format is consistent. There is a useful and succinct introduction (pp. 3-15). It covers issues of authorship, the occasion and date of the text, discussion of the structure of the gospel, comments of the style of Greek in the Gospel of Mark, an explanation of the homiletical statements found in the volume, and guidance in regard to recommended traditional commentaries on Mark. In terms of authorship, Williams notes that the gospel would have originally circulated without an attribution of authorship, yet he also observes the early and consistent attribution to Mark from the second century onwards (pp. 3-5). In terms of date and provenance, Williams outline the two major proposals: either Rome in the 60s during the reign of Nero; or Galilee or Syria perhaps reflect the Jewish War and thus closer to 70 or thereafter. While not advocating strongly for either alternative, he appears to lean towards the former. Williams outlines several distinctive features of Mark’s Greek style. He also offers some sensible comments on how a better appreciation of verbal aspect might assist deeper understanding of the meaning of Mark’s Greek text. The structure of the exegetical analysis is constant throughout. For instance, in regard to Mark 1.14-3.35, first there is a short overview of the content and progression of thought in this block of material (p. 29). This large unit is broken into shorter pericopae, each with its own short introduction. Then the bulk of the treatment is focused upon the description and analysis of the Greek text, describing aspects of lexicography, grammar, and syntax. Where appropriate, there are also short comments on issues of textual criticism. The treatment of the text ends at Mark 16.8. While there are good reasons to consider this as being the original ending of the gospel, given the early attestation for Mk 16.9-20 and other endings it would have been helpful to provide an analysis of this material also. This is a splendid treatment of the Greek text of Mark, full of many sparkling insights and providing aids to interpretation. This volume is of great value to students studying Greek, yet also to seasoned scholars. Moreover, unlike so many other books, this one is readily affordable. There is no reason why anybody interested in the Greek text of Mark’s Gospel would not want this book on her or his shelf, or better still, open on the de
{"title":"Thinking After God’s Triune Being","authors":"Kyle McCracken","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202129","url":null,"abstract":"reading those texts in the original language. The Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament series not only facilitates that task, but it also empowers readers to deepen their reading of the Greek text. In no way are these volumes commentaries in the traditional sense. However, they offer deep insights into the meaning of the Greek text with which commentators must grapple when providing exegetical analysis. Williams’ volume on Mark in this series is no exception in providing such insight, and it maintains the uniform high standard that exists throughout the books published so far in the series. The format is consistent. There is a useful and succinct introduction (pp. 3-15). It covers issues of authorship, the occasion and date of the text, discussion of the structure of the gospel, comments of the style of Greek in the Gospel of Mark, an explanation of the homiletical statements found in the volume, and guidance in regard to recommended traditional commentaries on Mark. In terms of authorship, Williams notes that the gospel would have originally circulated without an attribution of authorship, yet he also observes the early and consistent attribution to Mark from the second century onwards (pp. 3-5). In terms of date and provenance, Williams outline the two major proposals: either Rome in the 60s during the reign of Nero; or Galilee or Syria perhaps reflect the Jewish War and thus closer to 70 or thereafter. While not advocating strongly for either alternative, he appears to lean towards the former. Williams outlines several distinctive features of Mark’s Greek style. He also offers some sensible comments on how a better appreciation of verbal aspect might assist deeper understanding of the meaning of Mark’s Greek text. The structure of the exegetical analysis is constant throughout. For instance, in regard to Mark 1.14-3.35, first there is a short overview of the content and progression of thought in this block of material (p. 29). This large unit is broken into shorter pericopae, each with its own short introduction. Then the bulk of the treatment is focused upon the description and analysis of the Greek text, describing aspects of lexicography, grammar, and syntax. Where appropriate, there are also short comments on issues of textual criticism. The treatment of the text ends at Mark 16.8. While there are good reasons to consider this as being the original ending of the gospel, given the early attestation for Mk 16.9-20 and other endings it would have been helpful to provide an analysis of this material also. This is a splendid treatment of the Greek text of Mark, full of many sparkling insights and providing aids to interpretation. This volume is of great value to students studying Greek, yet also to seasoned scholars. Moreover, unlike so many other books, this one is readily affordable. There is no reason why anybody interested in the Greek text of Mark’s Gospel would not want this book on her or his shelf, or better still, open on the de","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606690","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231191321
Ludwig Beethoven J. Noya
This verse is one of the unpopular Sabbathrelated texts. Preachers rarely turn to this verse when they are preaching about the importance of Sabbath rest. Far from being unimportant, the verse can be understood as centering the vulnerable in our Sabbath observance instead. I propose three homiletical maneuvers on how preachers can approach this verse. First, to discuss how it pays attention to the most vulnerable in society. Second, to reflect on how the Sabbath rest is a privilege. Third, to rethink the Sabbath concept beyond securing one day of not working but also providing provision for the vulnerable. For the first maneuver, preachers can compare Exodus 23:12 with similar and more famous Sabbath passages of Exodus 20:8–11 and Deuteronomy 5:12–15. Upon the comparison, a few differences can be observed. First, Exodus 23:12 mentions only the ox, donkey, slave, and resident alien. As Biblical scholar Saul Olyan notes, ‘what the ox, donkey, slave, and resident alien have in common is physical labor done for another (an owner or, in the case of the resident alien, a patron).’1 They represent the most vulnerable in society as they are prone to be overworked and overexploited. Slave and resident alien serves as labor power, as well as ox and donkey that functions not only as load-bearer but also for ground traction. Furthermore, in contrast to two other Sabbath commandments, Exodus 23:12 centers the needs of this laboring group as the motivation for Sabbath rest. This stands in contrast with Deuteronomy 5, which wraps up the passage by going back to the head of the household: ‘rest as you do’. With this in mind, preachers can invite the congregants to reflect on their Sabbath observance to center the vulnerable, as Exodus 23:12 suggests. The second maneuver is by reflecting that not everyone can afford the Sabbath and that the Sabbath commandment is not always working well, even in Christian contexts. There is a period in which the enslavers, who are Christians, force the enslaved persons to work every day, including the Sabbath days. It occurred both in North America, such as Louisiana, and in Central and South America (Brazil and the Caribbean).2 As a South African Biblical scholar, Itumeleng Mosala argues, the goal for liberative biblical hermeneutics will not be successfully performed by “denying the oppressive structures.”3 Being honest about the Worship Resources for November: Exodus 23:12
{"title":"Worship Resources for November: Exodus 23:12","authors":"Ludwig Beethoven J. Noya","doi":"10.1177/00145246231191321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231191321","url":null,"abstract":"This verse is one of the unpopular Sabbathrelated texts. Preachers rarely turn to this verse when they are preaching about the importance of Sabbath rest. Far from being unimportant, the verse can be understood as centering the vulnerable in our Sabbath observance instead. I propose three homiletical maneuvers on how preachers can approach this verse. First, to discuss how it pays attention to the most vulnerable in society. Second, to reflect on how the Sabbath rest is a privilege. Third, to rethink the Sabbath concept beyond securing one day of not working but also providing provision for the vulnerable. For the first maneuver, preachers can compare Exodus 23:12 with similar and more famous Sabbath passages of Exodus 20:8–11 and Deuteronomy 5:12–15. Upon the comparison, a few differences can be observed. First, Exodus 23:12 mentions only the ox, donkey, slave, and resident alien. As Biblical scholar Saul Olyan notes, ‘what the ox, donkey, slave, and resident alien have in common is physical labor done for another (an owner or, in the case of the resident alien, a patron).’1 They represent the most vulnerable in society as they are prone to be overworked and overexploited. Slave and resident alien serves as labor power, as well as ox and donkey that functions not only as load-bearer but also for ground traction. Furthermore, in contrast to two other Sabbath commandments, Exodus 23:12 centers the needs of this laboring group as the motivation for Sabbath rest. This stands in contrast with Deuteronomy 5, which wraps up the passage by going back to the head of the household: ‘rest as you do’. With this in mind, preachers can invite the congregants to reflect on their Sabbath observance to center the vulnerable, as Exodus 23:12 suggests. The second maneuver is by reflecting that not everyone can afford the Sabbath and that the Sabbath commandment is not always working well, even in Christian contexts. There is a period in which the enslavers, who are Christians, force the enslaved persons to work every day, including the Sabbath days. It occurred both in North America, such as Louisiana, and in Central and South America (Brazil and the Caribbean).2 As a South African Biblical scholar, Itumeleng Mosala argues, the goal for liberative biblical hermeneutics will not be successfully performed by “denying the oppressive structures.”3 Being honest about the Worship Resources for November: Exodus 23:12","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135607320","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202130
Paul Foster
the grammar of Trinity dogmatically, so that the content of the doctrine is not lost in recounting its historical maturation. In this respect, this book finds resonance with Katherine Sonderegger’s recent volume on the Trinity, who writes, ‘Trinity, as metaphysical Truth, does not mirror the rise and polemic of the early church.’ (ST II, xix) Butner is interested in reflecting on the divine nature ‘as such’. This is a book for those who are interested in entering the centurieslong enterprise of rational reflection on triunity; those who wish to become acquainted with the philosophical tools that have been taken up in engaging this deep Christian mystery. This is not a book motivated by the political dimensions of the doctrine, either in its formative years or in its various modern appropriations; those looking for a book of that kind will be disappointed. A second commendable feature of Trinitarian Dogmatics is its wide engagement with scripture. Not only does Butner reference the biblical passages which historically played a role in trinitarian debates, analyzing past exegesis, he also places inherited interpretation in discussion with contemporary biblical scholarship. In addition to wrestling with passages that have been used by other theologians in the Christian tradition, Butner shows his ability to mine the scriptures himself and test fresh biblical evidence where relevant. For Butner, faithful speech about the Trinity seriously attends to traditional Christian language and ultimately depends on its resonance with scripture. Finally, Butner intentionally engages majority world theologians. The appearance of such thinkers is fairly sporadic but when they do appear it is because their works are able to clarify or re-imagine ‘traditional’ loci by drawing on contextually-specific concepts. This mode of engagement exemplifies something about Butner’s volume as a whole: He is committed to ‘orthodox’ and ‘traditional’ theology; he believes that such a thing exists (contra, e.g., David Bentley Hart’s Tradition and Apocalypse), that it ought to be corrected where distorted, but should not be considered fundamentally suspect (contrary to much postcolonial theology). Butner’s engagement with majority world theologians is not meant to revolutionize inherited doctrine but to clarify it. To some, this will read as mere appropriation. Others will appreciate Butner’s confidence that the same Spirit is at work in the global church and that its united confession is enriched and tested when heard through a diversity of voices.
{"title":"A New Introduction and Translation of the Apostolic Fathers","authors":"Paul Foster","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202130","url":null,"abstract":"the grammar of Trinity dogmatically, so that the content of the doctrine is not lost in recounting its historical maturation. In this respect, this book finds resonance with Katherine Sonderegger’s recent volume on the Trinity, who writes, ‘Trinity, as metaphysical Truth, does not mirror the rise and polemic of the early church.’ (ST II, xix) Butner is interested in reflecting on the divine nature ‘as such’. This is a book for those who are interested in entering the centurieslong enterprise of rational reflection on triunity; those who wish to become acquainted with the philosophical tools that have been taken up in engaging this deep Christian mystery. This is not a book motivated by the political dimensions of the doctrine, either in its formative years or in its various modern appropriations; those looking for a book of that kind will be disappointed. A second commendable feature of Trinitarian Dogmatics is its wide engagement with scripture. Not only does Butner reference the biblical passages which historically played a role in trinitarian debates, analyzing past exegesis, he also places inherited interpretation in discussion with contemporary biblical scholarship. In addition to wrestling with passages that have been used by other theologians in the Christian tradition, Butner shows his ability to mine the scriptures himself and test fresh biblical evidence where relevant. For Butner, faithful speech about the Trinity seriously attends to traditional Christian language and ultimately depends on its resonance with scripture. Finally, Butner intentionally engages majority world theologians. The appearance of such thinkers is fairly sporadic but when they do appear it is because their works are able to clarify or re-imagine ‘traditional’ loci by drawing on contextually-specific concepts. This mode of engagement exemplifies something about Butner’s volume as a whole: He is committed to ‘orthodox’ and ‘traditional’ theology; he believes that such a thing exists (contra, e.g., David Bentley Hart’s Tradition and Apocalypse), that it ought to be corrected where distorted, but should not be considered fundamentally suspect (contrary to much postcolonial theology). Butner’s engagement with majority world theologians is not meant to revolutionize inherited doctrine but to clarify it. To some, this will read as mere appropriation. Others will appreciate Butner’s confidence that the same Spirit is at work in the global church and that its united confession is enriched and tested when heard through a diversity of voices.","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606556","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202109
Alan H. Cadwallader
{"title":"Handbook to the Historical Paul","authors":"Alan H. Cadwallader","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202109","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606565","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231202121
Nathan Ridlehoover
{"title":"The Lord’s Prayer for the Life of the Church","authors":"Nathan Ridlehoover","doi":"10.1177/00145246231202121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231202121","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135606717","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 : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1177/00145246231191320a
John R. Donahue
{"title":"12<sup>th</sup> November: 24<sup>th</sup> Sunday after Pentecost: Joshua 24.1–3a, 14–25, Psalm 78.1–7, Wisdom of Solomon 6.12–16 or Amos 5.18 –24, and Wisdom of Solomon 6.17–20, Psalm 70; 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 Matthew 25.1–13","authors":"John R. Donahue","doi":"10.1177/00145246231191320a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00145246231191320a","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43287,"journal":{"name":"EXPOSITORY TIMES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135607324","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：