Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Pages | 92-117 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
Title | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 1988 |
Publication Place | Leiden |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain |
Volume | 112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Pages | 92-117 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"]}
Title | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 1988 |
Publication Place | Leiden |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain |
Volume | 112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"]}