User talk:RobertC/1 Ne 1:1-5 v1

Big picture issues of this approach

Putting technical material in lexical notes

Here's an attempt to incorporate a lot of the technical material into lexical notes that are structured according by phrase. That is, I use a 4th-level subheading for each phrase and then discuss each word as used in that phrase in its own bullet. The idea is that a simpler interpretive discussion can be relegated to the exegesis section. Notice I've only done this using the first phrase of the verse as an experiment. If others like this approach, I can try working on more phrases. I have a separate document noting which of Joe's statements I've incorporated here, and which have yet to be incorporated (of course most haven't been incorporated). --RobertC 14:04, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Exegesis vs. lexical notes

If we put technical, textual notes in the lexical notes section, what does that leave for the exegesis section? My thought is that the exegesis should be synthetic synthesizing and somewhat less speculative, or at least be more conclusion-oriented than the lexical notes. That is, my conception is that each commentary page will start with the blatant questions section, then have lexical notes which give very objective information but with broad and vague hints at possible interpretive issues the notes raise, then the more subjective but conclusive interpretive issues should go in the exegesis section (by "conclusive" I basically mean synthesizing—I'll try to add an example of what I mean from the 1 Ne 1 page soon...). --RobertC 20:23, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with your overall point but I wasn't sure what you meant when you said that you think the exegesis should be less speculative than the lexical notes. From the other things you said, I would think it would be more speculative. --Matthew Faulconer 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I was being a bit schizophrenic about all this. My thought was that the lexical notes might be an appropriate place to analyze a wide range of possible connotations of a particular phrase or word, and in this sense be speculative. Exegesis, on the other hand, would be more interpretive, which is more speculative by nature (theological issues become relevant, rather than pure textual analysis), but I think the focus of the site should be to develop interpretations that can be supported by the scriptures, not wild speculation. I view exegesis for a place to put mini-essays about certain passages (as opposed to briefer, less-deleped arguments in the lexical notes), and although these will likely be more speculative in one sense (i.e. addressing theological issues), I think more care should be taken to avoid wild speculation (i.e. interpretations with no textual foundation; I don't think we should encourage elaboration of unlikely interpretations, esp. in the exegesis section) than in the lexical notes (where I don't think it inappropriate to explore a wide range of possible meanings/connotations). Sorry for not being very clear, I hope you get what I'm driving at.

I also think it makes sense to roughly follow other commentary conventions. The Word Biblical Commentary typically has 6 different sections for each passage: (1) bibliography, (2) textual notes, (3) notes, (4) form/structure analysis, (5) comment, and (6) explanation. I'm thinking only (5) and (6) should go in our exegesis section. The main difference, as far as I can tell, seems to be that (5) and (6) tend to be more like little mini-essays on a particular theme of the passage, also analyzing the content of the passage in the larger context, whereas (3) tends to be more focused on possible connotations, cross-references, a only short sketches of possible theological implications (as opposed to the more developed arguments made in (5) and (6)). The Anchor Bible, at least for Deutoronomy, usually just has for each passage textual notes (translation issues), notes, and somewhat infrequently, a comment section. I have this same tendency, that is, I prefer making most of my comments in the lexical notes section pertaining to a particular word or phrase, and only infrequently do I feel like I have something to say that doesn't fit into this format. I hope that by paying closer attention the WBC sections, my thinking on these issues will become less muddled. --RobertC 14:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a distinction between lexical notes where you think it isn't inappropriate to explore a wide range of possible meaning and the exegesis where we should avoid unlikely interpretations. (I think by "unlikely interpretations" you mean unlikely to be true. Is that right?) Net, net, I think that you mean that the exegesis has a stronger responsibility to stay close to the text than the lexical notes. I'm not sure I agree with that point. In my view interpretations most accessible and interpretations most clearly presented in the text itself (and I think there is a high correlation between the two) should be those most highlighted to the reader. Since the reader is equally likely to see the lexical notes and the exegesis I think they both should have about the same standard in terms of how close to the text they are. This is where I am thinking we need something like a subpage to hold less accessible interpretations. Maybe a quick summary of such can be given on the commentary page with a link to more detail.

I could see going either way on the question of what belongs in the lexical notes section and what belongs in the exegesis. Probably the most important thing is to make a decision and stick with it. Thanks for the info on the Word Biblical Commentary. That is very interesting and I think does provide useful insights to us.

I think it would be helpful to to through the current page and flagging what interpretations seem most suggested by the text itself and which seem more of a long-shot. I may do this because regardless of which format we all ultimately agree on, agreeing about which interpretations are most suggested by the text will help us fit the content appropriately into the designated format. If Joe agrees that deciding on which interpretations are most suggested by the text itself is a good step, maybe it would be good for him to take the first crack at it--given how much he has contributed to that page. Otherwise I would be happy to take a crack at it if no one else gets to it first. --Matthew Faulconer 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Where should structural notes/analysis and cross-references go?

What the above strategy leaves vague is where structural notes should go. I think this should depend on the write-up and analysis. That is, if the structual note is just outlining possible structures without saying much by way of interpretation, I think it should go in the lexical notes section, whereas interpretive discussion based on a particular textual structure should be written in the lexical notes section. In general, I think there should be textual structure notes put in the lexical notes section, and then if there are additional interpretive or synthesizing comments/conclusions one wishes to make regarding the structure (more than the rather vague and objective "this chiastic structure frames the middle element which says..." type of comments), they should be put in the exegesis section (e.g. "a chiastic structural reading implies X, whereas a parallel structural reading implies Y). I think cross-references should be case-dependent in a similar way (simple comparisons or contrasts of phrases and structural cross-references should be put in the lexical notes section, but interpretive cross-references should go in the exegesis section).

Note that one reason I'm being so analytical about these issues is I think this is a good time to think carefully about these issues and then add whatever conclusions/guidelines we come to a concensus on to the the help and policy pages. --RobertC 20:34, 29 Apr 2006 (UTC)

where to start?

We are talking about several large questions that don't uniquely apply to 1 Ne 1:1-5. 1 Ne 1:1-5 is unique though in the amount of commentary on that page. I wonder if it might be good to first agree on what principles to apply to pages where there is a lot to say, then apply those principles first to a page other than 1 Ne 1:1-5. I am thinking that Alma 13:1-5 may be a good choice--big enough to be interesting but small enough to let us experiment in several ways. Then once we agree on the general thing that should be done and made it work there, we can come back to 1 Ne 1:1-5. Thoughts? --Matthew Faulconer 05:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, I've felt a bit overwhelmed and paralyzed regarding 1 Ne 1:1-5. I'll try to look over Alma 13 this week and either post changes/thoughts on that discussion page, or start a subpage. (I'll also be trying to improve my SS lesson pages since Kurt posted a link at ldsgospeldoctrine. He usually updates on Wednesdays and he says most traffic is on Saturdays and Sundays, if anyone has any suggestions/feedback before then. I just thought I'd experiment to see if it generates new traffic—perhaps Jeff Batt came from there? Kurt says he gets around 2000 different user hits a week!) --RobertC 11:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I too like the idea. I think you are right that there is too much on 1 Ne 1:1-5 to handle without more discretion (and I'm adding more all the time, just to keep things interesting). Alma 13:1-5 seems like a good starting point. I will take some time to go there and do some work on the discussion page as well (although my contribution might be minimal for a few days yet, still a lot going on with the baby... plus I have some insights lately into the book of Jonah that I'd like to begin posting). Jeff Batt, by the way, is an old missionary companion of mine I happened to be talking to recently and mentioned the site. I saw his one post... has he set up an account, etc.? Onward... --Joe Spencer 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)