Close reading. A close reading of Xxxxx’x texts will achieve such an integral approach to how Xxxxx developed his ideas. The preliminary reading of Spec. I, 235–238 has produced five sub-questions that need to be answered to understand the meaning of divine forgiveness in Xxxxx’x works. These questions all involve themes on which Xxxxx reflects explicitly in his extant works. The approach of the present study will be to analyse sections from Xxxxx’x treatises in which he engages these sub-questions, to ensure we remain as close as possible to Xxxxx’x treatises themselves. Xxxxx advocates the third approach. Although I find the label ‘exegete’ not very informative, I will follow an approach like Xxxxx’x. A somewhat similar approach is followed by Xxxxxxxxxx in his introduction to Xxxxx (see Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx). 161 Xxxxxxxxxx, Introduction, pp. 9, 122. 162 See note 84. 163 Xxxxxx proposed two views that can be taken on the issue of the relation between ‘Greek’ and ‘Jewish’ elements in Xxxxx’x thought. The first view is that Xxxxx has consciously made an effort to synthesise Judaism with Greek intellectualism. This approach assumes a bipolar view regarding the relation between Judaism and Greek philosophy. The second view takes the ‘sharp differentiation between Judaism and Hellenism as a construct of modern historians rather than as part of Xxxxx’x own outlook.’ Xxxxxx made it clear that she belongs to the second class of Philonic scholars (see Xxxxxx, ‘Philo’, pp. 813 and 879, nt. 25). Xxxxx took a similar position: ‘[Xxxxx’x] Ergebnis ist eine Gedankenwelt, die wie eine Synthese aus griechischem und biblischem Gedankengut anmutet, obwohl dies von Xxxxx sicherlich nicht beabsichtigt war’ (Xxxxx, ‘Philo’, pp. 853–854). Xxxxxxx went as far as suggesting that there is ‘no hint of tension between ‘Greek’ and ‘Jewish’ values,’ (Barclay, Jews, p. 161). I agree with Xxxxxx’ position, and would not go as far as Xxxxxxx. Contrary to his view that there is no hint of tension between values in Philo, for example, Xxxxx finds it necessary to defend the custom of circumcision against ridicule (see Spec. I, 2), and he denounces the frivolity of banquets, as celebrated by Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxx, in Cont. 57–63 (see also Xxxxxxx, ‘Hidden Tensions’). the way Xxxxx himself develops his thoughts. Crucial to this analysis will be to recognise the place the relevant passages have within the context of the whole treatise. To identify the place of a passage within the whole of a treatise, each trea...
Close reading. Select one (1) of the two passage below and write a close-reading of the passage analyzing how the author’s use of language (word-choice, imagery, repetition, metaphors and similes, etc.) supports and enriches the meaning of the passage. [1 close reading. 25 points total.] “Who has made the decision that sets in motion these chains of poisonings, this ever-widening wave of death that spreads out, like ripples when a pebble is dropped into a still pond? Who has placed in one pan of the scales the leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles and in the other the pitiful heaps of many-xxx xxxxxxxx, the lifeless remains of the birds that well before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons? Who has decided—who has the right to decide—for the countless legions of people who were not consulted that the supreme value is a world without insects, even though it be also a sterile world ungraced by the curving wing of a bird in flight? (Xxxxxx Xxxxxx. “And No Birds Sing,” Silent Spring.) Xxxxxx Xxxxxx has shown us time and time again that she has the capacity to explain complex ecological theory to the layperson by presenting data alongside anecdotal evidence. Yet in this passage she is instead writing to the emotions of the reader, convincing them that the use of chemical sprays for pest control has terrible effects. She uses words like “death”, “pitiful”, and “bludgeon” that bring out a sense of fear in the reader. She is suggesting that these things are not meant to be the way that they are. You can also tell that she is really trying to drive home a point to the reader because of the number of questions she poses. In this short passage alone, all three sentences are questions. They are clearly rhetorical. She knows the answer and she knows that the reader, based on the countless examples of ecological loss that she has recounted, will also jump to similar conclusions. It is as though she is attempting to make the reader angry about everything that they have read so far, asking “who has the right”. She is asking the reader to find an authority that has made the decisions that have brought about such terrible repercussions and asking them what they’re going to do about it. She doesn’t need to explicitly point fingers at anyone here, the readers can do that for themselves. Her use of particular descriptive language also drives home these questions to the reader. When asking the reader to consider who has xxxxxx about the “chains of poisonings” she descri...
