Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231191176
Logan Williams
This article asks why Jesus in Mk 2.10 interprets the authority (ἐξουσία/שלטן) of the Son of Man in Dan. 7.14 as the authority to forgive sins. I approach this question by looking at 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Drawing on a constellation of texts pertaining to jubilee (Lev. 25, Isa. 61.1, Dan. 9.24–27), 11QMelchizedek portrays Melchizedek as forgiving Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of ‘liberty (דרור)’ (II 6). In light of similar intertextual moves being made in Mark, I suggest that Mk 2.10—‘the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land (ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)’—invokes the language of the jubilee legislation in Lev. 25.10: ‘you will declare forgiveness on the land (διαβοήσετε ἄϕεσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς).’ I conclude that this interpretation of ‘authority’ in Dan. 7.14 stems from an assumed conflation between the Son of Man of Dan. 7.13–14 with the herald messiah of Isa. 61.1, as well as an interpretation of Isa. 61.1 in which the messiah enacts the eschatological forgiveness of Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of liberty.
这篇文章问为什么耶稣在马可福音2:10中把但以理书7:14中人子的权柄(ο ο ο σ末路α/)解释为赦罪的权柄。我通过看11q麦基洗德(11Q13)来解决这个问题。根据与禧年有关的一系列文本(利未记25章，赛61.1章，但9:24 - 27章)，11章麦基洗德将麦基洗德描绘成赦免以色列人的罪，通过他禧年的“自由”宣言(第二章6节)。根据马可福音中类似的互文动作，我建议Mk 2.10 -“人子有权柄赦免地上的罪(ς ας ς π ς τ τ ς γ γ ς)”-引用利未记25.10中禧年立法的语言:“你将宣布宽恕土地(διαβοήσετεἄϕεσινἐπὶτῆςγῆς)。我的结论是，但7:14中对“权威”的这种解释源于一种假设，即但7:13 - 14的人子与以赛亚书61.1的先驱弥赛亚之间的混淆，以及对以赛亚书61.1的解释，弥赛亚通过他禧年的自由宣言来实现对以色列罪的末世宽恕。
{"title":"Melchizedek, the Son of Man, and Eschatological Jubilee: The Sin-Forgiving Messiahs in 11QMelchizedek and Mark","authors":"Logan Williams","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231191176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231191176","url":null,"abstract":"This article asks why Jesus in Mk 2.10 interprets the authority (ἐξουσία/שלטן) of the Son of Man in Dan. 7.14 as the authority to forgive sins. I approach this question by looking at 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Drawing on a constellation of texts pertaining to jubilee (Lev. 25, Isa. 61.1, Dan. 9.24–27), 11QMelchizedek portrays Melchizedek as forgiving Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of ‘liberty (דרור)’ (II 6). In light of similar intertextual moves being made in Mark, I suggest that Mk 2.10—‘the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the land (ἀϕιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)’—invokes the language of the jubilee legislation in Lev. 25.10: ‘you will declare forgiveness on the land (διαβοήσετε ἄϕεσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς).’ I conclude that this interpretation of ‘authority’ in Dan. 7.14 stems from an assumed conflation between the Son of Man of Dan. 7.13–14 with the herald messiah of Isa. 61.1, as well as an interpretation of Isa. 61.1 in which the messiah enacts the eschatological forgiveness of Israel’s sins by his jubilean declaration of liberty.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135729719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-15DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231191941
Jimmy Myers
One of the puzzles facing scholarship on gospel relationships is explaining the high yet varying degree of verbatim agreement among the Synoptics. On antiquity’s compositional spectrum, this high but inconsistent verbatim agreement appears anomalous to many. Some scholars point to the Synoptists’ scribal education to make sense of the data. This article highlights the fact that the Chronicler’s use of Samuel-Kings exhibits a similar dynamic, a phenomenon that has received little attention from scholars investigating the use of sources among ancient authors. Given this compositional overlap, I propose that the Synoptists, having been immersed for years in the warp and weft of sacred Jewish texts in a Greek-speaking synagogal school, took note of and ultimately imitated the Chronicler’s redaction of Samuel-Kings in composing their gospels. After presenting the evidence of the Chronicler’s varying compositional technique, the study concludes with implications and indicates further how attention to the Chronicler’s redaction of Samuel-Kings sheds light on the question of the feasibility of scribal reordering of sources in antiquity.
{"title":"Synoptic Singularity? The Chronicler’s Redaction of Samuel-Kings and Gospel Composition","authors":"Jimmy Myers","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231191941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231191941","url":null,"abstract":"One of the puzzles facing scholarship on gospel relationships is explaining the high yet varying degree of verbatim agreement among the Synoptics. On antiquity’s compositional spectrum, this high but inconsistent verbatim agreement appears anomalous to many. Some scholars point to the Synoptists’ scribal education to make sense of the data. This article highlights the fact that the Chronicler’s use of Samuel-Kings exhibits a similar dynamic, a phenomenon that has received little attention from scholars investigating the use of sources among ancient authors. Given this compositional overlap, I propose that the Synoptists, having been immersed for years in the warp and weft of sacred Jewish texts in a Greek-speaking synagogal school, took note of and ultimately imitated the Chronicler’s redaction of Samuel-Kings in composing their gospels. After presenting the evidence of the Chronicler’s varying compositional technique, the study concludes with implications and indicates further how attention to the Chronicler’s redaction of Samuel-Kings sheds light on the question of the feasibility of scribal reordering of sources in antiquity.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"205 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135396671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-07DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231191945
Lily R. Reed
This article offers a new reading of the story of the woman with the flow of blood in Mk 5:25–34 that focuses on the intersection of gender and social status. Moving away from gynaecological analysis, I use the representation of the anus ebria (drunken old woman) figure in Greco-Roman literature, drama, and art to explore how ancient readers might have responded to her conduct. Using this material, I argue that many readers would have understood the woman’s behaviour as conforming to this ancient type. The distinction is important, I contend, because, unlike widows, the anus ebria was an unsympathetic figure in ancient drama. This more intersectional reading of the woman’s social status, in turn, sharpens our reading of the revolutionary character of Jesus’s ministry in Mark.
{"title":"Was the Woman with the Flow of Blood Drunk? An Exploration of the Possibility that She Was Viewed as an Anus Ebria","authors":"Lily R. Reed","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231191945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231191945","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a new reading of the story of the woman with the flow of blood in Mk 5:25–34 that focuses on the intersection of gender and social status. Moving away from gynaecological analysis, I use the representation of the anus ebria (drunken old woman) figure in Greco-Roman literature, drama, and art to explore how ancient readers might have responded to her conduct. Using this material, I argue that many readers would have understood the woman’s behaviour as conforming to this ancient type. The distinction is important, I contend, because, unlike widows, the anus ebria was an unsympathetic figure in ancient drama. This more intersectional reading of the woman’s social status, in turn, sharpens our reading of the revolutionary character of Jesus’s ministry in Mark.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42734743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/0142064X231190088
Alfredo Delgado Gómez
In Mark, Herod Antipas orders John the Baptist’s execution by a σπεκουλάτωρ. Thus, Mark becomes the first witness to the use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ in Greek. The Latin word speculator was used in the first century mainly in respect of the praetorian speculatores soldiers who acted as the emperor’s personal guard in Rome and who were involved in the events of the civil war in the years 68–70 CE. Mark’s use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ (along with other factors) points to the city of Rome as the gospel’s origin, since the vast majority of attestations of the word speculator occur in the city of Rome, where these soldiers mainly carried out their duties.
在马可福音中，希律·安提帕命令施洗约翰用σπεκο ο λ τωρ处死。因此，马克成为第一个在希腊语中使用σπεκο ν λ τωρ这个词的见证人。拉丁语单词speculator在一世纪主要是指在罗马担任皇帝私人护卫的禁卫军，他们参与了公元68-70年的内战事件。马可使用σπεκο ο(连同其他因素)这个词指出罗马城是福音的起源，因为绝大多数关于投机者这个词的证明都发生在罗马城，这些士兵主要在那里履行他们的职责。
{"title":"Mark’s σπεκουλάτωρ and the Origin of His Gospel","authors":"Alfredo Delgado Gómez","doi":"10.1177/0142064X231190088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X231190088","url":null,"abstract":"In Mark, Herod Antipas orders John the Baptist’s execution by a σπεκουλάτωρ. Thus, Mark becomes the first witness to the use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ in Greek. The Latin word speculator was used in the first century mainly in respect of the praetorian speculatores soldiers who acted as the emperor’s personal guard in Rome and who were involved in the events of the civil war in the years 68–70 CE. Mark’s use of the word σπεκουλάτωρ (along with other factors) points to the city of Rome as the gospel’s origin, since the vast majority of attestations of the word speculator occur in the city of Rome, where these soldiers mainly carried out their duties.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"46 1","pages":"79 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45177442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/0142064X231190083
Madison N. Pierce
The “Word of God” plays an important role in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses spoken quotations to recontextualize Scripture for the contemporary age (e.g., Heb. 2.12–13) and appeals to divine speech acts that alter the course of history (e.g., Heb. 6.14; 8.5). One such speech act is his creation of the world by the word of God, which the author claims we understand “by faith” (Heb. 11.3). But what claim is the author making with respect to creation? This article will argue that the identification of the “Word of God” in Hebrews as the Son in Hebrews 11.3 is a viable reading and then show that this reading affects other passages in Hebrews. To accomplish this, I will (1) provide an overview of some relevant interpretive issues with Hebrews 11.3; (2) discuss how intermediaries (e.g., Word; Wisdom) related to creation in early Jewish literature; (3) demonstrate how the presentation of creation in Hebrews relates to those concepts in early Jewish literature; (4) provide a reading of Heb. 11.3 in light of that synthesis; and (5) offer some suggestions regarding how other passages in Hebrews might be read to highlight Christ as the Word.
{"title":"The World Spoken Through the Son: Divine Speech and Creation in the Epistle to the Hebrews","authors":"Madison N. Pierce","doi":"10.1177/0142064X231190083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X231190083","url":null,"abstract":"The “Word of God” plays an important role in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses spoken quotations to recontextualize Scripture for the contemporary age (e.g., Heb. 2.12–13) and appeals to divine speech acts that alter the course of history (e.g., Heb. 6.14; 8.5). One such speech act is his creation of the world by the word of God, which the author claims we understand “by faith” (Heb. 11.3). But what claim is the author making with respect to creation? This article will argue that the identification of the “Word of God” in Hebrews as the Son in Hebrews 11.3 is a viable reading and then show that this reading affects other passages in Hebrews. To accomplish this, I will (1) provide an overview of some relevant interpretive issues with Hebrews 11.3; (2) discuss how intermediaries (e.g., Word; Wisdom) related to creation in early Jewish literature; (3) demonstrate how the presentation of creation in Hebrews relates to those concepts in early Jewish literature; (4) provide a reading of Heb. 11.3 in light of that synthesis; and (5) offer some suggestions regarding how other passages in Hebrews might be read to highlight Christ as the Word.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"46 1","pages":"37 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43788352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-26DOI: 10.1177/0142064X231191188
M. Bockmuehl
While praise of the righteous is endemic in both Jewish and Christian Scripture, its application to named individuals is remarkably rare throughout. In the New Testament, it is reserved for pre-Christian saints and especially for Jesus himself—most clearly in Acts. Responding to the suggestion (by Richard Hays and others) that ‘the Just’ was specifically a messianic title, the article shows instead that its application to figures like James the brother of Jesus and Simon the son of Onias II documents part of a development toward the rabbinic usage of the Tzaddiq. The Just is a typically retrospective honorific designating a rare observant and pious person, possibly suffering and persecuted but divinely vindicated and endowed with charismatic qualities, who facilitates mediation between God and human beings and helps sustain the world.
{"title":"Jesus ‘the Just’","authors":"M. Bockmuehl","doi":"10.1177/0142064X231191188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X231191188","url":null,"abstract":"While praise of the righteous is endemic in both Jewish and Christian Scripture, its application to named individuals is remarkably rare throughout. In the New Testament, it is reserved for pre-Christian saints and especially for Jesus himself—most clearly in Acts. Responding to the suggestion (by Richard Hays and others) that ‘the Just’ was specifically a messianic title, the article shows instead that its application to figures like James the brother of Jesus and Simon the son of Onias II documents part of a development toward the rabbinic usage of the Tzaddiq. The Just is a typically retrospective honorific designating a rare observant and pious person, possibly suffering and persecuted but divinely vindicated and endowed with charismatic qualities, who facilitates mediation between God and human beings and helps sustain the world.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"46 1","pages":"19 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45442591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-17DOI: 10.1177/0142064X231190086
Olegs Andrejevs
On Markan priority, Mt 9.2 and Lk 5.18 contain a famous minor agreement against Mark, with the paralytic being brought to Jesus ἐπὶ κλίνης (as opposed to Mark’s κράβαττος). As the story unfolds, Matthew sustains the use of κλίνη in Mt 9.6, while Luke switches to κλινίδιον in Lk 5.19, 24. This leads to another minor agreement, whereby κλίνη (Matthew) and κλινίδιον (Luke) sustain the joint rejection of Mark’s κράβαττος. Michael Goulder (1978, 1989, 1993) and Mark Goodacre (2002) have proposed that Luke envisioned κλίνη as a raised bed. They follow the scholars who take the diminutive suffix of κλινίδιον to refer to a small bed (stretcher, etc.). On their hypothesis, Luke mechanically copied κλίνη from Matthew in 5.18, subsequently correcting himself to κλινίδιον in 5.19, 24. Our article corrects the frequent misconception of κλινίδιον as a functional diminutive. It is shown that κλίνη and κλινίδιον were interchangeable in a number of contexts, with referents ranging from a household bed/couch to a litter. Examples of the expression ἐπὶ κλίνης in contexts similar to the story of the paralytic are provided. It is suggested that Luke committed no error in using both terms to describe the paralytic’s vehicle.
{"title":"KΛINH / KΛINIΔION: A Note on Two Minor Agreements (Mt 9.2, 6 / Lk 5.18, 24)","authors":"Olegs Andrejevs","doi":"10.1177/0142064X231190086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X231190086","url":null,"abstract":"On Markan priority, Mt 9.2 and Lk 5.18 contain a famous minor agreement against Mark, with the paralytic being brought to Jesus ἐπὶ κλίνης (as opposed to Mark’s κράβαττος). As the story unfolds, Matthew sustains the use of κλίνη in Mt 9.6, while Luke switches to κλινίδιον in Lk 5.19, 24. This leads to another minor agreement, whereby κλίνη (Matthew) and κλινίδιον (Luke) sustain the joint rejection of Mark’s κράβαττος. Michael Goulder (1978, 1989, 1993) and Mark Goodacre (2002) have proposed that Luke envisioned κλίνη as a raised bed. They follow the scholars who take the diminutive suffix of κλινίδιον to refer to a small bed (stretcher, etc.). On their hypothesis, Luke mechanically copied κλίνη from Matthew in 5.18, subsequently correcting himself to κλινίδιον in 5.19, 24. Our article corrects the frequent misconception of κλινίδιον as a functional diminutive. It is shown that κλίνη and κλινίδιον were interchangeable in a number of contexts, with referents ranging from a household bed/couch to a litter. Examples of the expression ἐπὶ κλίνης in contexts similar to the story of the paralytic are provided. It is suggested that Luke committed no error in using both terms to describe the paralytic’s vehicle.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"46 1","pages":"59 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43558745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231175962
Now in its fourth edition, Biblical Exegesis continues to offer a highly readable and comprehensive introduction, aimed at undergraduates and seminarians coming into the world of critical analysis for the first time. This edition builds substantially on the format set out in the original 1982 edition, together with the chapters subsequently added in 1987 and 2006. But the entire work has been thoroughly re-edited and updated by Carl Holladay, following the death of John Hayes in 2013. Chapter 11 of the 2006 edition has been fully rewritten, all the bibliographies have been updated and reorganised, and an extremely useful new chapter, coyly dubbed an appendix, has been added on the growing array of digital resources now widely available to students. All in all, this book seems to succeed admirably in its stated aim of providing an accessible guide for ‘beginners who are learning about exegesis for the first time’ (p. ix). The key focus in the book is on helping students not just to look at Old and New Testament texts but to see them—a theme which is worked through in a concluding new chapter by Holladay. Echoing perhaps the Johannine distinction between sight and insight, all of the essays in this book set out to introduce students to the kind of critical questions being asking across the field of biblical studies, from textual criticism and the numerous sub-genres of the Historical Critical method, through to the postmodernist world of gender identity and postcolonial advocacy. There is also a chapter on the practical skills needed to integrate these different perspectives, those noticeably less of the ‘how to do it’ checklist approach found in some other introductory textbooks. All in all, therefore, this refreshed edition should continue to serve the contemporary student every bit as well as its predecessors.
{"title":"1. New Testament General","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231175962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231175962","url":null,"abstract":"Now in its fourth edition, Biblical Exegesis continues to offer a highly readable and comprehensive introduction, aimed at undergraduates and seminarians coming into the world of critical analysis for the first time. This edition builds substantially on the format set out in the original 1982 edition, together with the chapters subsequently added in 1987 and 2006. But the entire work has been thoroughly re-edited and updated by Carl Holladay, following the death of John Hayes in 2013. Chapter 11 of the 2006 edition has been fully rewritten, all the bibliographies have been updated and reorganised, and an extremely useful new chapter, coyly dubbed an appendix, has been added on the growing array of digital resources now widely available to students. All in all, this book seems to succeed admirably in its stated aim of providing an accessible guide for ‘beginners who are learning about exegesis for the first time’ (p. ix). The key focus in the book is on helping students not just to look at Old and New Testament texts but to see them—a theme which is worked through in a concluding new chapter by Holladay. Echoing perhaps the Johannine distinction between sight and insight, all of the essays in this book set out to introduce students to the kind of critical questions being asking across the field of biblical studies, from textual criticism and the numerous sub-genres of the Historical Critical method, through to the postmodernist world of gender identity and postcolonial advocacy. There is also a chapter on the practical skills needed to integrate these different perspectives, those noticeably less of the ‘how to do it’ checklist approach found in some other introductory textbooks. All in all, therefore, this refreshed edition should continue to serve the contemporary student every bit as well as its predecessors.","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135003316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231175959
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231175959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231175959","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135003319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/0142064x231176436
{"title":"14. Philippians & Thessalonians","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/0142064x231176436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x231176436","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44754,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Study of the New Testament","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135003329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：