{"title":"真的有科普特的以诺书吗？","authors":"Liudmila Navtanovich","doi":"10.1163/18177565-bja10072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In 2009, Joost Hagen made a remarkable discovery: he attributed four Coptic fragments from material excavated at Qasr Ibrim to 2 Enoch, since then most scholars no longer refer to this pseudepigraphon as “Slavonic Enoch”. Nevertheless, some works have appeared that question the authenticity of this attribution, the article deals with the problem and provides arguments in favour of Hagen’s identification of the fragments.","PeriodicalId":38562,"journal":{"name":"Scrinium","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There Indeed a Coptic 2 Enoch?\",\"authors\":\"Liudmila Navtanovich\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18177565-bja10072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In 2009, Joost Hagen made a remarkable discovery: he attributed four Coptic fragments from material excavated at Qasr Ibrim to 2 Enoch, since then most scholars no longer refer to this pseudepigraphon as “Slavonic Enoch”. Nevertheless, some works have appeared that question the authenticity of this attribution, the article deals with the problem and provides arguments in favour of Hagen’s identification of the fragments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scrinium\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scrinium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18177565-bja10072\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scrinium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18177565-bja10072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2009, Joost Hagen made a remarkable discovery: he attributed four Coptic fragments from material excavated at Qasr Ibrim to 2 Enoch, since then most scholars no longer refer to this pseudepigraphon as “Slavonic Enoch”. Nevertheless, some works have appeared that question the authenticity of this attribution, the article deals with the problem and provides arguments in favour of Hagen’s identification of the fragments.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
