Users Guide: Exegetical Issues
User's Guide Contents
Exegetical Issues
Introduction: Tough Questions in the Psalms
In our Exegetical Issues pages we walk you through the tough questions that bible translators and scholars disagree on.
Take for example Psalm 100:3, comparing the ESV, JPS and NIV with the NASB, NKJV, and Septuagint.
| We belong!This reads the text with the Qere (וְל֣וֹ in parentheses). | |
|---|---|
| MT | דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ ולא (וְל֣וֹ) אֲנַ֑חְנוּ |
| ESV | Know that the LORD, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his... |
| JPS | ... and we are His... |
| NIV | ... and we are his... |
| God, not us!This reads the text with the Kethiv ולא. | |
|---|---|
| MT | דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ ולא (וְל֣וֹ) אֲנַ֑חְנוּ |
| NASB | Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves... |
| NKJV | ... and not we ourselves... |
| Septuagint (NETS) | It is He who has made us, and not we... |
These translations have completely different meanings, which can change how you read the psalm as a whole. In the ESV, JPS and NIV, the people celebrate that they belong to God, as his people. But in the NASB, NKJV, and Septuagint the people are declaring that it is God, not us ourselves, who made us. We are not our own creators!
This is an exegetical issue, a tough question that needs an answer, whether you are translating, researching, performing, or just reading the psalm!
Range of Issues
We cover many kinds of exegetical issues.
Obvious exegetical issues appear when translations differ from each other. Many issues involve textual criticism and the Grammar and Semantics layers of analysis. However, issues can arise in any layer of analysis, or combine multiple layers. Examples of exegetical issues include:
- Does the end of Psalm 2 say “kiss the son,” “give sincere homage,” or “kiss his feet”?
- Does the word אֱלֹהִים in Ps 8:6 mean “God, angels, or the gods”?
- Were Psalm 9 and 10 originally one psalm?
- How best to divide the poetic lines of Ps 11:5?
- Is Ps 100 inviting Israel or all nations to “enter his courts with praise”?
- Was the stone of Ps 118 a cornerstone, a capstone, or something else?
Overview of Resources
For each psalm we identify the top three exegetical issues, which are listed on psalm’s Exegetical Issues page . This page contains a video walk-through of the psalm’s three Exegetical Issues, followed by a brief written summary of each issue and a link to the individual page for that issue.
Each individual page is split into four sections:
- Introduction: Here we present what the issue is, what the main interpretations are, and why it matters for understanding the psalm.
- Argument maps: Here we lay out in detail the arguments for and against each view, and explain our preferred interpretation in detail. For how to read Argument Maps, see below.
- Conclusion: Here we summarize the main arguments for our preferred interpretation, and revisit the significance of the issue for the psalm. We also rate our confidence in our interpretation from A (highest) to D (lowest).
- Research: In this final section we list out ancient translations (e.g. LXX, Jerome, Peshitta, Targum) and modern translations, as well as a bibliography of secondary literature.
How to Read Argument Maps
- Introduction
- Five Main Elements
- Conclusion Boxes
- Preferred/Dispreferred Colors
- Argument Boxes
- Relation Arrows
- Evidence Boxes
Introduction
Argument maps are structured, visual diagrams, which show how different arguments are built and relate to each other. They are an excellent tool for seeing clearly all the different elements of an interpretation, with its arguments and evidence, and for weighing carefully the validity of that interpretation.
Below is a tutorial teaching you the basics of Argument Maps. The tutorial will use the issue from Ps 100:3 (“we are his” vs. “not we/us”) as the main example, so you may want to have that page open alongside this tutorial.
Each argument map corresponds to one interpretation of the exegetical issue. For Ps 100:3 there are two argument maps, one representing the “not we/us” interpretation (known as the Ketiv"The Aramaic terms כְּתִיב ketiv 'written' and קְרֵי qere 'read' are used in the medieval Tiberian Masoretic sources to refer, respectively, to the biblical consonantal text and the reading tradition reflected by the vocalization signs" (Kahn 2013). In other words, there will be a reported difference between the consonantal text and how the Masoretic scribes suggest the text should be pronounced out loud in synagogue, according to their historical reading tradition. For a detailed list of different variations in Ketiv/Qere differences see Gordis 1971, 82-158. argument), and one representing the “we are his” interpretation (the Qere argument). Each argument map has a brief prose introduction above the argument map.
Five Main Elements
To read argument maps, you must learn about the five main elements used to create the maps: (1) conclusion boxes, (2) argument boxes, (3) evidence boxes), (4) relation arrows, and (5) dispreferred colors.
1. Conclusion Boxes
Conclusion boxes look like this.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]: The conclusion of the argument map is presented as a white box with a colored outline.
2. Preferred/Dispreferred Colors
The conclusion boxes for the two argument maps of Ps 100:3 are as follows:
===
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
===
[Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us", following the Ketiv. The text therefore emphasizes God's creative work over and against 'self-creation'. #dispreferred
===
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
===
[Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his (lit. to him)", following the Qere.
Colors: Notice that one has an orange outline and one a green outline. The green represents our preferred interpretation, and the orange is dispreferred.
3. Argument Boxes
Arguments are presented as colored boxes. As you can see here arguments supporting the conclusion are the same color as the conclusion. Arguments against the conclusion take the opposite color.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]: The conclusion of the argument map is presented as a white box with a colored outline.
+ <Supporting argument>: Arguments are presented as colored boxes. If an argument supports the preferred conclusion, then it is green. If it supports a dispreferred conclusion, then it is orange. The green arrow connecting this argument to the conclusion shows that the argument supports the conclusion.
<_ <Undercutting argument>: This is an undercutting argument. To undercut a claim is to say, "Yes, that may be true, but it does not support your argument because..." In other words, undercutting arguments do not refute the claim being made; instead, they undermine the claim of its supporting value. #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument>: This argument is connected to the conclusion with a red arrow because it refutes the conclusion. In other words, this argument says, "The conclusion is not true, because..." This argument is orange because it does not align with the preferred conclusion. #dispreferred
4. Relation Arrows
There are three kinds of relations boxes can have to other boxes:
- The green arrows indicate supporting arguments, they strengthen the box they point to (whether the conclusion or another argument box).
- The red arrows are for refuting arguments, which contradict the box they point to.
- The purple arrows indicate undercutting arguments, which challenge but do not refute the box to which they point.
Smaller argument maps are vertical, with the conclusion box at the top.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]:
+ <Supporting argument>:
<_ <Undercutting argument>: #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument>: #dispreferred
Larger more complex argument maps are horizontal, with the conclusion box on the right.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]:
+ <Supporting argument 1>:
<_ <Undercutting argument for 1>: #dispreferred
+ <Supporting argument 2>:
+ <Supporting argument 2a>:
+ <Supporting argument 2b>:
+ <Supporting argument 3>:
+ <Supporting argument 4>:
<_ <Undercutting argument for 4>: #dispreferred
+ <Supporting argument 5>:
- <Refuting argument 1>: #dispreferred
+ <Refuting argument 1a>: #dispreferred
+ <Refuting argument 1b>: #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument 2>: #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument 3>: #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument 4>: #dispreferred
Let’s now look at condensed versions of the Argument Maps from Ps 100:3. Here you can see our preferred conclusion is the Qere reading (we are his), so the conclusion box is green. Therefore, the supporting arguments are also green, and refuting and undercutting argument boxes are orange.
The map shows three supporting arguments for the “We are his” reading, based on Ketiv/Qere precedent, ancient witnesses, and parallel verses with similar content. There is one refuting argument to do with tautology. Two undercutting arguments also appear, with evidence of other ancient witnesses undercutting the second supporting argument about ancient witnesses, and a point about poetic repetition undercutting the argument about tautology.
Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his"
Some argue for reading the Qere (לוֹ) as the most original text. This leads, for example, to the translation "It is he who made us, and we are his (ESV).
===
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
===
[Qere: וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "and we are his (lit. to him)," following the Qere.
+ <Ketiv/Qere Precedent>: There are multiple clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where only the Qere לוֹ is plausible (BDB :L:; Gordis 1971, 150-154 :M: Ognibeni 1989, 232 :M:).
+ <Ancient Witness>: Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).
<_ <Disagreement>: Ancient versions, however, are not unanimous. LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). #dispreferred
+ <Parallel Verses>: Ps 95:7 contains a very similar expression that expresses a similar meaning. In Ps 95:7 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (ה֤וּא אֱלֹהֵ֗ינוּ "he is our God"). So too in Ps 100:3 there is a statement about being God's people and flock, preceded by a statement about covenantal relationship to God (לוֹ אֲנַחְנוּ "We are his") (Hossfeld-Zenger 2005, 493 :C: Delitzsch 1877, 106 :C: ). See also the close parallel of Ps. 79:13.
- <Tautology>: Reading "we are his" here is tautological insofar as the same idea is repeated multiple times in the following clause: עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ (...his people and the sheep of his pasture) (Tate 1998, 534 :C:). #dispreferred
<_ <Poetic Repetition>: In Hebrew poetry, especially throughout the psalms, seemingly 'tautological' repetition is very common as a poetic and rhetorical device (Watson 2005, 275-282 :M:).
Let’s compare this with a condensed version of the other argument map, for the “Not we/us” reading. This position is dispreferred, so the conclusion box is orange. Therefore all the remaining colors are also switched, with supporting boxes in orange and counter/undercutting arguments in green.
The color of the relation arrows never change, but the color of the boxes do change according to whether the argument as a whole is preferred or dispreferred. This allows the user to follow the green boxes through all argument maps on the page to follow our preferred interpretation throughout all the maps.
Here we can see three supporting arguments for this position, based on Ketiv/Qere precedent, ancient witnesses, and precedent for self-creation. Then we have the refuting argument of lack of indication in context.
Notice also that the ancient witness arguments are flipped here. In the first map, it was Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum who supported, with the undercutting evidence of LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta. In this second map, the positions switch.
Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us"
Some argue for preserving the Ketiv (לֹא) as the most original text. This leads, for example, to the translation, "It is He who made us, and not we ourselves (NASB).
===
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
===
[Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us", following the Ketiv. The text therefore emphasizes God's creative work over and against 'self-creation.' #dispreferred
+ <Ketiv/Qere Precedent>: There are a few clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where the Ketiv לֹא is probably the more plausible text (Gordis 1971, 150-154 :M: Ognibeni 1989, 232 :M:). #dispreferred
+ <Ancient Witness>: LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). #dispreferred
<_ <Disagreement>: Ancient versions, however, are not unanimous. Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).
+ <Precedent for Self-creation>: Polemics against 'self-creation' are present elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, for example in Ezek 29:3. #dispreferred
- <Lack of Indication in Context>: There is no suggestion of self-creation in the context of Ps 100 (Howard 1997, 131-132 :M:). Instead of focusing on YHWH's creation vs. Israel or humanity's self-creation, the focus is more broadly on worshipping YHWH as the one true God.
5. Evidence Boxes
The final element is evidence boxes. These are added to provide evidence for an argument. They are presented as white boxes with the same color outline as the argument they support.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]: The conclusion of the argument map is presented as a white box with a colored outline.
+ <Supporting argument>: Arguments are presented as colored boxes. If an argument supports the preferred conclusion, then it is green. If it supports a dispreferred conclusion, then it is orange. The green arrow connecting this argument to the conclusion shows that the argument supports the conclusion.
+ [Evidence for supporting argument]: Evidence is presented as a white box with a colored outline. This piece of evidence supports an argument which supports the conclusion.
<_ <Undercutting argument>: This is an undercutting argument. To undercut a claim is to say, "Yes, that may be true, but it does not support your argument because..." In other words, undercutting arguments do not refute the claim being made; instead, they undermine the claim of its supporting value. #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument>: This argument is connected to the conclusion with a red arrow because it refutes the conclusion. In other words, this argument says, "The conclusion is not true, because..." This argument is orange because it does not align with the preferred conclusion. #dispreferred
+ [Evidence for refuting argument]: This is evidence for the refuting argument. It has a green arrow because it supports the refuting argument. It has an orange outline because it is being used to support a view that is not preferred. #dispreferred
Now let’s look at the same Ketiv argument map as above, but with evidence boxes added:
Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us"
Some argue for preserving the Ketiv (לֹא) as the most original text. This leads, for example, to the translation, "It is He who made us, and not we ourselves (NASB).
===
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
===
[Ketiv: וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ]: The earlier form of the text reads וְלֹא אֲנַחְנוּ "and not we/us", following the Ketiv. The text therefore emphasizes God's creative work over and against 'self-creation.' #dispreferred
+ <Ketiv/Qere Precedent>: There are a few clear examples where the Ketiv is לֹא and the Qere is לוֹ, where the Ketiv לֹא is probably the more plausible text (Gordis 1971, 150-154 :M: Ognibeni 1989, 232 :M:). #dispreferred
+ [Prov 26:2]: כַּצִּפּ֣וֹר לָ֭נוּד כַּדְּר֣וֹר לָע֑וּף כֵּ֥ן קִֽלְלַ֥ת חִ֝נָּ֗ם תָבֹֽא׃ Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight. #dispreferred
+ [Job 41:4]:לא־(לֽוֹ)־אַחֲרִ֥ישׁ בַּדָּ֑יו וּדְבַר־גְּ֝בוּר֗וֹת וְחִ֣ין עֶרְכּֽוֹ׃ "I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. #dispreferred
+ <Ancient Witness>: LXX, Symmachus, and Peshitta all support reading the Ketiv (לֹא). #dispreferred
<_ <Disagreement>: Ancient versions, however, are not unanimous. Aquila, Jerome, and the Targum all support reading the Qere (לוֹ).
+ <Precedent for Self-creation>: Polemics against 'self-creation' are present elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, for example, in Ezek 29:3. #dispreferred
+ [Ezek 29:3]: דַּבֵּ֨ר וְאָמַרְתָּ֜ כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה הִנְנִ֤י עָלֶ֨יךָ֙ פַּרְעֹ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֔יִם הַתַּנִּים֙ הַגָּד֔וֹל הָרֹבֵ֖ץ בְּת֣וֹךְ יְאֹרָ֑יו אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָמַ֛ר לִ֥י יְאֹרִ֖י וַאֲנִ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽנִי׃ speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD:
“Behold, I am against you,
Pharaoh king of Egypt,
the great dragon that lies
in the midst of his streams,
that says, ‘My Nile is my own;
I made it for myself.’ #dispreferred
- <Lack of Indication in Context>: There is no suggestion of self-creation in the context of Ps. 100 (Howard 1997, 131-132 :M:). Instead of focusing on YHWH's creation vs. Israel or humanity's self-creation, the focus is more broadly on worshipping YHWH as the one true God.
Explore Further
With these five concepts, you should be ready to begin reading full argument maps. Click here to see the full page of the Psalm 100:3 issue, and you may find it helpful to start with the video at the top.
===
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
===
[Conclusion]: The conclusion of the argument map is presented as a white box with a colored outline.
+ <Supporting argument>: Arguments are presented as colored boxes. If an argument supports the preferred conclusion, then it is green. If it supports a dispreferred conclusion, then it is orange. The green arrow connecting this argument to the conclusion shows that the argument supports the conclusion.
+ [Evidence for supporting argument]: Evidence is presented as a white box with a colored outline. This piece of evidence supports an argument which supports the conclusion.
<_ <Undercutting argument>: This is an undercutting argument. To undercut a claim is to say, "Yes, that may be true, but it does not support your argument because..." In other words, undercutting arguments do not refute the claim being made; instead, they undermine the claim of its supporting value. #dispreferred
- <Refuting argument>: This argument is connected to the conclusion with a red arrow because it refutes the conclusion. In other words, this argument says, "The conclusion is not true, because..." This argument is orange because it does not align with the preferred conclusion. #dispreferred
+ [Evidence for refuting argument]: This is evidence for the refuting argument. It has a green arrow because it supports the refuting argument. It has an orange outline because it is being used to support a view that is not preferred. #dispreferred
At the top (or on the far right) is the conclusion statement, summarizing the interpretation.
We can then display the arguments and evidence using 4 tools:
- Relation Arrows
- Argument Boxes
- Evidence Boxes
- Preferred and dispreferred colours.
Let’s start with the arrows and argument boxes. Beneath the conclusion statement are argument boxes, coloured green or orange. These are connected using relation arrows, green, red, or purple.
The green arrows indicate supporting arguments, they strengthen the conclusion. The red arrows are for refuting arguments, which contradict the conclusion. The purple arrows indicate undercutting arguments, which challenge but do not refute the conclusion.
Argument boxes may also have evidence boxes, with a white background, these show supporting evidence.
Green and orange colours show which arguments we prefer or disprefer. If the conclusion is preferred, the statement, supporting arguments, and evidence are green, and opposing points are orange.
If the conclusion is dispreferred, those colours reverse: the statement and its support are orange, and opposing arguments are green.
This way you can follow the green boxes through the whole page to see our interpretation.
Using these tools, we try to create clear, layered representations of all the arguments for and against each interpretation, and we hope that you find these resources helpful as you engage deeply with the psalms and the tough questions they raise.