Method:Top 3 Exegetical Issues

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search

(Disclaimer: The following guidelines are not meant to show how to work out exegetical issues but rather how to present this information both on the wiki and in video format. The actual working-out of these issues happens at the individual layers.)

Steps

1. Identify Top 3 Exegetical Issues

The "Top 3 Exegetical Issues" are issues that any interpreter of the psalm, whether they’re reading the text in Hebrew or looking at a number of translations, is likely to encounter. These issues usually involve textual criticism, grammar, lexical semantics, and/or phrase-level semantics. There will often be more than three exegetical issues in a psalm, and these should be worked out in the relevant layers. For the purpose of these videos, however, we limit ourselves to the three most important issues. To determine which issues are most important, ask the following questions:

  • Do modern translations show significant disagreement on this issue? The more widespread the disagreement, the more need there is to treat the issue.[1]
  • Do we take a minority position on this issue? If our view is not well represented in modern translations, then it may require additional justification. We will need to show why more popular views are inadequate and why our view is preferable.
  • To what extent does the issue affect the interpretation of the psalm as a whole? If our interpretation of a psalm as a whole hangs on our understanding of a particular word, phrase, or grammatical construction, then this issue is more likely to be included among the Top 3 exegetical issues.

2. Summarise Issues on the Wiki

In addition to creating videos for "Top 3 Exegetical Issues," we will create wiki pages that contain the same basic information in different form. The purpose of having a static presentation of the same material is two-fold:

  1. The wiki page will be the basis on which the video is created. The person working out the exegetical issues and the person creating the videos will not always be the same person. The wiki summary, then, becomes the means by which the exegete communicates the relevant information to the video creator, who will base his/her video on the information in the wiki page.
  2. The wiki page will provide an additional way for users to access the material. Those who prefer a static presentation to a video presentation can view the wiki page. At the same time, those who have already watched a video can refer to the relevant wiki pages for a brief summaries of each issue.


Here are two examples of exegetical issues summarised on the wiki:[2]

2.1. Create wiki page

Log in to the wiki and create one new page for each exegetical issue. To create a page, type the name of the page you wish to create into the "Search" bar. When given the option to "Create the page "X" on this wiki!" click the link ("X"). Copy and paste the following text onto the wiki page: [[Category:Argument maps]] [[Chapter::X]]:[[Verse::X]] and fill in the chapter/verse numbers. This text should remain at the very bottom of the wiki page.

  • Use Proper capitalisation when naming the page (e.g., "The Division of Ps. 11:5" and not "The division of Ps. 11:5).
  • If it is necessary to use Hebrew text, use English transliteration.[3]

2.2. Outline wiki page

Copy and paste the following text onto the wiki page:

=Introduction=

=Argument Map(s)=

=Conclusion=

=Research=

==Translations==

===Ancient===

===Modern===

==Secondary Literature==

=References=

[[Category:Argument maps]]

[[Chapter::X]]:[[Verse::X]]

All exegetical issue pages should follow this basic outline. Within this outline, however, there is room for variation. For example, some issues will have multiple argument maps, in which case each argument map should receive its own sub-section within the section titled ("Argument Maps").[4] Depending on the nature and complexity of the issue, the "Research" section may also have additional sub-sections, and those sub-sections may in turn have their own sub-sections.

2.3. Research

In the "Research" section, list ancient and modern translations of this verse which are relevant to the discussion (see e.g., Psalm 11:5). In addition to these, you might quote and cite any relevant secondary literature (e.g., Ps. 11:5), though this is not necessary. The goal is not to be comprehensive, but thorough and useful. You can find links to several open-access Psalms commentaries on CDBR's Zotero.

2.4. Introduction

Write a brief introduction to the issue at the top of the page, within the section titled "Introduction." The introduction should include the following elements:

  1. The Hebrew text of the line/verse in question, copied from OSHB.
  2. Two or three modern translations of the text whose differences illustrate the issue.
  3. A brief explanations of the exegetical issues which underly the differences in the translations.


See e.g.,

2.5. Argument Map(s)

An argument map is a visual representation of the logical structure of an argument. As a tool, argument mapping forces us to be both rigorous and transparent in arriving at conclusions. Each exegetical issue should have at least one accompanying argument map. Each argument map should have a single main point with reasons and evidence supporting (or refuting) that main point.

E.g., 


[Main point]: State main point here.
 + <Supporting reason 1>: Give reasoning here.
  + [Evidence 1]: Cite evidence here.
 + <Supporting reason 2>: Give additional reasoning here.
  + [Evidence 2]: Cite evidence here.


Argument Mapn0Main pointState main point here.n1Evidence 1Cite evidence here.n3Supporting reason 1Give reasoning here.n1->n3n2Evidence 2Cite evidence here.n4Supporting reason 2Give additional reasoning here.n2->n4n3->n0n4->n0


Argument maps may be small or large depending on the complexity of the issue. For example, the issue of text division and grammar in Ps. 11:5 has two argument maps. The first one presents an argument for one view, and it is rather large. The second one presents an argument for a different view, and it is smaller and simpler.

Some exegetical issues may require several argument maps. For example, the issue of the interpretation of Ps. 11:1b, which involves textual criticism, grammar, and semantics, has seven argument maps.

How to create an argument map

  • Copy and paste the following tags into the wiki page: <argdown> </argdown> Typing within these tags will allow you to create an argument map using argdown.
  • To learn how to type in argdown, you can study the guide on the argdown website, or you can go to an existing argument map (e.g., Ps. 11:5) and toggle back and forth between the "Source" and the "Map" to see how the syntax translates into a visual presentation.
  • The following is a template of an argument map to copy and paste onto your wiki page.

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Main point title]: Main point.
 + <Supporting argument title>: Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page :C:).
  + <Supporting statement title>: Type supporting statement here (Author Date:Page :G:).
   + [Supporting evidence title]: List supporting evidence here.
  <_ <Undercutting statement title>:Type undercutting statement here (Author Date:Page :C:).#dispreferred
  - <Refuting statement title>:Type refuting statement here (Author Date:Page :C:; Author Date:Page :A:).#dispreferred


Argument Mapn0Main point titleMain point.n1Supporting evidence titleList supporting evidence here.n3Supporting statement titleType supporting statement here (Author Date:Page 🄶).n1->n3n2Supporting argument titleType supporting argument here (Author Date:Page 🄲).n2->n0n3->n2n4Undercutting statement titleType undercutting statement here (Author Date:Page 🄲).n4->n2n5Refuting statement titleType refuting statement here (Author Date:Page 🄲; Author Date:Page 🄰).n5->n2


If an argument map is very wide (i.e., has many propositions at the same level), it may be necessary to adjust the presentation so that the flow of the argument is horizontal instead of vertical. This can be done by adding "rankdir: LR" to "graphVizSettings." E.g., 


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Main point title]: Main point.
 + <Supporting argument title>: Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page :C:).
  + [Supporting evidence title]: List supporting evidence here.
  <_ <Undercutting statement title>:Type undercutting statement here (Author Date:Page :C:).#dispreferred
  - <Refuting statement title>:Type refuting statement here (Author Date:Page :C:; Author Date:Page :A:).#dispreferred
 + <Supporting argument title 2>: Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page :C:).
 + <Supporting argument title 3>: Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page :G:).
 - <Refuting argument title>: Type refuting argument here (Author Date:Page :G:).


Argument Mapn0Main point titleMain point.n1Supporting evidence titleList supporting evidence here.n2Supporting argument titleType supporting argument here (Author Date:Page 🄲).n1->n2n2->n0n3Undercutting statement titleType undercutting statement here (Author Date:Page 🄲).n3->n2n4Refuting statement titleType refuting statement here (Author Date:Page 🄲; Author Date:Page 🄰).n4->n2n5Supporting argument title 2Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page 🄲).n5->n0n6Supporting argument title 3Type supporting argument here (Author Date:Page 🄶).n6->n0n7Refuting argument titleType refuting argument here (Author Date:Page 🄶).n7->n0


Key to Symbols:

  • A = article
  • C = commentary
  • D = dictionary
  • G = grammatical resource
  • L = lexical resource
  • M = monograph

Prose introductions to argument maps

Each argument map on the page should be introduced with a brief introduction. Each introduction should state/summarise the conclusion which is to be presented in the following argument map. The brief introduction might also cite any translations or notable secondary sources which reflect this conclusion.

See, e.g.,

2.6. Conclusion

In the conclusion section, begin by stating your conclusion to the problem. Next, briefly summarise the content of the above argument map(s) in support of your conclusion. Finally, briefly explain the significance of your preferred interpretation.

3. Create Slides and Script

Writing a Script

Once the wiki pages have been created (three for each Exegetical Issue), begin writing a script for a video. This can be done in a google doc.

What to keep in mind when writing a script for a video:

  • Formatting
    • bullet point format is helpful as each bullet point can correspond to one slide. So, make sure to keep the information on each bullet point limited to an aspect of the argument that will not overload each slide.
    • keep in mind the flow of the argument as it will be seen on the slide
  • Order of slides
    • begin by introducing the three issues of the psalm and where they appear in the whole context of the Psalm
    • with each issue it may be helpful to think about what kind of issue is being discussed (ex.text critical, grammatical, etc...)
    • present a variety of textual variants and where helpful discuss relevant passage that appear elsewhere in the psalm or the rest of the bible
    • have in mind the use of the visual resources already created for the psalm (ex. grammatical diagrams) and discuss them in the script when necessary.
    • each issue may differ in length and some passages may have multiple types of issues (ex. both grammatical and semantic)

Saving to the Drive

Save the script in 4. Psalms Project > Video scripts

Create slides

Use the slide template found here. Further comments and suggestions can be found on the template.

Make your slides in Google slides.

  • Formatting
    • each bullet point should be a separate slide
    • insert your psalm number and make sure it appears in the proper place on each slide
    • Choose icons from the noun project for each of the issues and for the psalm as a whole
      • Any icons used should be put in the images folder on the drive
      • If icons need to be created/modified figma is a good resource to edit svg files
      • there are some icon creators that are preferred (for example Adrien Coquet)
    • balance the texts with visuals and infographics. For infographics there are free packages online that can be cited (some options for arrows are provided on the last slide of the template)
    • Follow SBL formatting for fonts and follow the CDBR brand style guide available in the shared google drive 3.CDBR employee > Branding > Brand Style Guide

Saving to the Drive

Save the slides you have created in 4. Psalms Project > Video Slides

4. Record Video

  1. Using Zoom, share your screen and then put the google slideshow you made in full screen. Begin to record your screen
  2. Edit your video in iMovie

Review

At an open session read through your script (look at this as an informal draft of your video)

Upload Video

Send video to be uploaded by sarah.milton@cdbr.org

  • Title within YouTube
    • Psalm #: Exegetical Issues
  • Description within YouTube
    • This is the Exegetical Issues video of Psalm #, which explores three difficult and important exegetical issues interpreters of the Psalm are likely to encounter. The three issues covered in this video are:
x:xx - First issue (timestamp for video -- link directly if possible, e.g. youtube.com/xoiusdf?n=32) (https://psalms.cdbr.org/w/The_Verbal_Semantics_of_Psalm_9:4)
x:xx - Second issue (link-to-argument-map)
x:xx - Third issue (link-to-argument-map)
This video is part of the Psalms: Layer by Layer project, run by Cambridge Digital Bible Research (https://www.cdbr.org). This Psalm also has an Overview video (LINK-TO-OVERVIEW) and a Poetic Features video (LINK-TO-POETIC-FEATURES).
  • Subtitles
    • Add the script as English subtitles to the video. (Automated subtitles are not sufficient for our purposes: in the past it has turned 'lyres and lutes' into 'liars and loots'!)

References

  1. ↑ For some issues, there may be significant disagreement among commentators and relatively widespread agreement among translations. Because our audience is more likely to notice an issue in a modern translation than in a commentary, differences among translations should be given greater weight than differences among commentators.
  2. ↑ Not every issue needs to be treated as thoroughly as the examples listed here. The depth of treatment will depend both on the nature of the issue and the time the exegete has to work on it.
  3. ↑ Follow the SBL conventions for the simple system of transliteration.
  4. ↑ Make "Map(s)" singular or plural depending on the number of argument maps used.