Skip to content

Course 4 · Lesson 7.4

Writing up, checking conclusions and revising

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 4 outline

Module 1: How the Canon Formed

  1. What a canon is, and what canonical means
  2. The Old Testament canon: Law, Prophets and Writings
  3. The New Testament canon: from gospels and letters to a list
  4. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons compared

Module 2: The Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint

  1. The Hebrew Bible and the work of the Masoretes
  2. Origin and character of the Septuagint
  3. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the state of the Old Testament text
  4. How New Testament writers quote the Old Testament

Module 3: Transmission of the New Testament Text

  1. Copying by hand: papyri, codices and scribes
  2. Manuscript traditions: Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine texts
  3. Kinds of variants and how they arise
  4. The principles of textual criticism
  5. Reading a critical apparatus and a translation footnote

Module 4: Reading Responsibly: Exegesis and Method

  1. Exegesis and eisegesis with worked examples
  2. Source, form and redaction criticism: what each asks
  3. Strengths and limits of the historical method
  4. Literary and canonical reading

Module 5: Meaning Beyond the Surface: Typology, Allegory and Genre

  1. Typology in the New Testament and the fathers
  2. Allegory and its critics: Alexandria and Antioch
  3. Reading by genre: narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, gospel and letter
  4. Setting, authorship and audience as questions to ask of any passage

Module 6: Christian Approaches to Interpretation

  1. The fourfold sense of Scripture in the medieval church
  2. Reformation principles: Scripture, clarity and the grammatical and historical sense
  3. Orthodox and Catholic approaches: Scripture within Tradition
  4. Historical scholarship and theological interpretation in conversation

Module 7: Writing an Exegesis

  1. Choosing a passage and framing a question
  2. Observation and context: what the text says and where it stands
  3. Using commentaries and reference works without being led by them
  4. Writing up, checking conclusions and revising

All courses

Program / Course 4: Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics / Lesson 7.4

What you will learn

  • Organize an exegesis into clear sections that report the work honestly.
  • State a conclusion, the strongest objection to it and a reply.
  • Label each claim as drawn from the text, from context or brought by the writer.
  • Revise a draft using a checklist and a period of rest.

The big idea

Writing an exegesis is not copying notes into a paper. It is the last act of the study, in which the writer must decide what the evidence shows and say so plainly. A good exegesis has a clear shape, reports the methods used and what each contributed, states a conclusion with its strongest objection, and marks what remains uncertain. Revision is part of the work. Setting a draft aside and reading it again as a stranger reveals claims that go beyond the evidence.

Key terms

Exegetical paper
A written study of a passage that reports its wording, context, interpretation and conclusion, with evidence for each.
Thesis statement
A sentence stating the main conclusion the paper will support.
Objection and reply
The practice of stating the strongest argument against your conclusion and answering it fairly.
Provenance of a claim
The source of a statement: the text, the context, a scholar or the writer’s own inference.
Revision
Rereading and rewriting a draft to improve its accuracy, clarity and honesty.
Footnote
A note at the foot of the page that names the source of a claim or adds a remark.
Bibliography
A list of the works used in a study, with full details.

Background

Many students find that the study goes well and the writing stalls. The reason is usually that they have a large pile of notes and no plan. A paper needs an order that serves the reader. The reader does not need to know the order in which you found things. The reader needs to know what you asked, what you found and how confident you are.

The structure suggested in the assignment for this course follows the order in which the lessons have gone: a translation comparison, a context section, a section for each method used, a section on traditions of reading, a conclusion and a list of what remains uncertain. You may adjust the order, but keep the elements. The length asked is about three thousand to four and a half thousand words, or ten to fourteen pages, which allows each section to be developed without being padded.

A paper is also a moral act. Writers are tempted to make their results look stronger than they are. The discipline of this course is to say plainly what the evidence supports, to credit those whose work you used, and to be willing to say that something is uncertain.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Plan the shape

Before drafting, lay out the sections in a short plan. A workable outline has an introduction that states the passage, why you chose it and your question; a section on the text and translations, with variants; a section on literary context and genre; a section on historical context, marking what is known and uncertain; a section applying one historical method and saying what it adds and cannot settle; a section on the canonical setting, including any typological link and your judgment of it; a section reporting how at least two traditions have read the passage; the conclusion; and a closing list of uncertainties.

Under each heading, note the two or three points you will make and the evidence for each. If a section has nothing to say, consider whether it is needed. If a point has no evidence, consider whether to keep it.

Step 2: Draft the conclusion honestly

State your conclusion in a few sentences. It should answer the question you asked in Lesson 7.1. Then state the strongest objection to it, the best argument a thoughtful reader of a different view could offer. Do not choose a weak objection that is easy to answer. Reply to it fairly, saying where it has force. If you cannot reply, say so.

Then list what remains uncertain. This might include textual variants you could not settle, historical points that scholars dispute, or questions of tradition on which you have only partial information. A list of uncertainties is not a confession of failure. It shows the reader where the edges of the knowledge lie.

Step 3: Label your claims

The assignment asks you to review the finished work for eisegesis. A practical way is to mark each claim with one of three labels: drawn from the text, drawn from context, or brought by you. A claim drawn from the text can be pointed to in the words. A claim drawn from context rests on evidence about the setting, and you should be able to cite it. A claim brought by you is an inference or an application, and it should be stated as such.

Doing this in a margin reveals the proportions. If most of your claims are labeled brought by you, the paper is more reflection than exegesis, and you should return to the text. If you cannot decide which label fits, the claim is probably unclear and needs rewriting. The exercise also makes it easy to see where you used a commentary without comment.

Step 4: Rest, then revise

Set the draft aside for at least three days. When you return, read it aloud as if you were a stranger. Check each section against the following list. Is the question clear? Are variants and translation differences reported accurately? Is each method used for what it can do, with its limits named? Are claims separated into text, context and your own? Are at least two traditions represented in terms their members would accept? Is every borrowed idea cited? Is the conclusion clear, with its strongest objection? Is the paper free of overstated claims?

Then revise. Cut what does not serve the question. Add evidence where a claim stands bare. Rewrite sentences you do not understand. Keep a record of the changes if you can, since the criteria for the assignment include evidence of revision. Finally, check the citations and the bibliography.

  1. Does my paper answer the question I asked?
  2. Can a reader follow the order of the sections without help?
  3. What is my conclusion, and what is the strongest objection to it?
  4. Which claims come from the text, which from context and which from me?
  5. Where have I stated more than the evidence shows?
  6. Have I cited every idea that came from another writer?

Examples

A conclusion with an objection

A student concludes that in Luke 15 the elder brother represents those who object to Jesus’ welcome of sinners. The strongest objection is that the parable ends without telling us whether the elder brother comes in, so we cannot say how Jesus’ audience was meant to respond. She replies that the open ending is itself part of the point, since it leaves the question with the hearers, and she notes that this reading is an inference and not a statement of the text.

A claim label in the margin

In a draft, the sentence The word therefore links Paul’s appeal to the argument of chapters 1 to 11 is marked from the text. The sentence The church in Rome probably contained both Jewish and Gentile members is marked from context, with a citation to a Bible dictionary. The sentence This means we must give our whole lives to service is marked brought by me, and the writer rewrites it as an application and no longer as a finding.

A list of uncertainties

At the end of a paper on Psalm 22, the writer lists three matters: whether the title is original, whether the psalm was composed for an individual or for public worship, and how the shift at verse 22 should be read. For each she gives the main positions and says which she finds more likely and why.

Different perspectives

Protestant

Protestant seminaries commonly teach exegetical papers with sections on text, context, structure and meaning, then theological implications and application. They stress that application should follow, not replace, the meaning of the text.

Catholic

Catholic programs follow a similar pattern and add attention to the use of the passage in the liturgy and in the church’s teaching. The three principles of Dei Verbum can be used as headings: the unity of Scripture, the tradition and the analogy of faith.

Orthodox

Orthodox students will often include the patristic and liturgical reading of the passage as a major section, together with modern historical study. They would hold that a study that ignores how the church has prayed the passage is incomplete.

Academic and Jewish scholarship

University traditions require the statement of a thesis, the weighing of rival views and the citation of sources, whether the writer is a believer or not. Jewish scholarship adds the habit of citing earlier commentators and of recording the disagreements among them.

Why it matters

Writing forces clarity. Many people feel they understand a passage until they try to explain it in a paragraph. A written exegesis shows what you know and what you do not, and it leaves a record you can return to. The habits of stating a conclusion with its objection, labeling claims and admitting uncertainty are valuable in any field where evidence is weighed.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A good paper is one that sounds certain.

Correction: A good paper is accurate about its certainty. Stating uncertainty where it exists is a strength.

Misunderstanding: Quoting many scholars makes a paper scholarly.

Correction: What makes a paper scholarly is the weighing of evidence and the clear reporting of sources. Quotation without comment shows little.

Misunderstanding: Revision means correcting spelling.

Correction: Revision includes checking claims against the evidence, cutting what does not serve the question, and strengthening weak arguments.

Misunderstanding: Application belongs in the middle of the exegesis.

Correction: Application can come at the end, clearly marked. Placing it in the middle tends to blur what the text says with what the writer wants it to say.

Knowledge check

What sections does the assignment for this course ask the exegesis to contain?

A translation comparison, a context section, a section for each method used, a section on how traditions have read the passage, a conclusion and a list of what remains uncertain. It also expects the question at the start and evidence of revision.

Why should you state the strongest objection to your conclusion?

It shows that you have considered serious opposing arguments and that your conclusion is tested. It also helps the reader see the real strength of your case. A weak objection that is easy to answer proves little.

Explain the three labels for claims.

A claim drawn from the text can be pointed to in the words. A claim drawn from context rests on evidence about the setting and should be cited. A claim brought by the writer is an inference or application and should be stated as such.

Why wait three days before revising?

Time away lets you read the draft as a stranger would. You notice unclear sentences, unsupported claims and places where you went beyond the evidence, which are hard to see immediately after writing.

Think it through

  1. Which part of the writing do you expect to find hardest, and what can you do about it?
  2. How might the three labels change the way you read other people’s commentary?
  3. Why is it difficult to state the strongest objection to a view you hold?
  4. What would a reader gain from a list of your uncertainties?

Independent assignment

Plan and draft the conclusion

In your notebook, write a one page plan for your exegesis with the sections named in this lesson, and two or three points and evidence under each. Then write a draft conclusion of 200 to 300 words with your answer to your question, the strongest objection, your reply and a list of three uncertainties. Mark each claim in your conclusion with one of the three labels. Keep your work in your notebook, and when you complete the full exegesis, rest it three days before revising.

Further study