Integral approach Sample Clauses

Integral approach. I will follow ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ proposal for an integral approach to explore ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ thoughts. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ already criticised approaching ▇▇▇▇▇ by quoting passages from his treatises almost at random to illustrate a point someone wishes to make. Instead of using Philo as quarry, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ emphasised that it is important to have a grasp of the place a certain passage has within a treatise, and what place that treatise has in the whole of ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ oeuvre, to understand what ▇▇▇▇▇ writes about.160 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ further presented ▇▇▇▇▇ as 160 Goodenough, Introduction, p. 20. This approach is comparable to what ▇▇▇▇▇ describes as ‘the contextual approach’ in Runia, ‘Naming and Knowing’, pp. 69–72. Runia distinguishes roughly three approaches towards the description of Philo’s theology. These are: first, the systematic approach, where scholars ‘attempt to put together, on ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ behalf, the systematic presentation of his doctrine of God, which he never managed (or dared) to publish’; second, the historical approach, where ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ theology is mainly described and explained by linking and comparing his ideas and concepts to those of other authors, such as ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇; and third, the contextual approach, where ▇▇▇▇▇ is considered first and foremost an exegete, and where the starting point is taken with the analysis of someone fully integrated and interacting with his cultural surroundings, both on an intellectual and on a more popular level. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not consider ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Jewishness as something separated from this cultural background.161 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ therefore avoided classifying ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ ideas as either belonging to his Jewish or his Hellenistic background and education. It took quite some time for these views to take hold in Philonic research.162 Although picking through ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ works to illustrate a certain point still occurs occasionally, strictly differentiating between Greek or Jewish elements in ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ thinking is hardly done anymore.163 However, one could consider attributing a special character to ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ interaction with the Bible, setting him apart from contemporary intellectuals who explored other authoritative ancient sources, a rudimentary trace of this approach. Still, the current state of affairs in Philonic research in general is that ▇▇▇▇▇ is considered a Jewish thinker fully engaged and interacting with his intellectual, cultural and political environment, and that it is necessary to consider the full context of a passage to interpret wha...