Method:Exegetical Issues

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

Introduction

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, verbal semantics, and/or phrase-level semantics. The following guidelines are not meant to show how to work out exegetical issues—this knowledge is assumed—but rather how to present exegetical issues on the wiki.

Steps

1. Identify Top 3 Exegetical Issues

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 the "Top 3 Exegetical Issues" videos, however, we limit ourselves to the three most important issues. To determine which three 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.

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.