What to Look for in Exegetical Papers (rev. 08/25/13)Daniel B. Wallace

The following guidelines follow the sequence of items on the “NT 105 Exegetical Paper Evaluation.” Note the point values for each section. Pay special attention to the footnotes, where all the guidelines for grading these papers will be listed. My interpretation is offered in footnotes.

Student’s Name: Semester/Year: __________________ File #:

Passage: Romans Course Section #: NT 105 Grade:

Excellent Good Needs Improvement

Absent

(5%) I. Interpretive Translation/Paraphrase1

A. Clarifies conceptual flow of thought _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Interpretation of figures of speech _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) II. Exegetical Central Idea2

A. Subject-complement statement _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) III.

Exegetical Sentence Outline3

A. Full sentences _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Wording reflects structure of thought _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Coordination and subordination of thought

_________ _______ _________ _________

D. Interpretation of figures of speech _________ _______ _________ _________

E. Properly stated subject-complement _________ _______ _________ _________

E. Overall: _________ _______ _________ _________

1 The key here is an interpretive translation. The translation needs to reflect, in something of a mini-commentary way, what interpretations the student is taking in the passage. I am not looking for a literal translation, but one that gives a ‘quick and dirty’ sense of the exegesis that is to follow in the body of the paper. Thus, the grammar needs to be unfolded, lexical terms need to be taken in their contextual sense, etc. At the same time, if the student follows an NIV-style translation, the conjunctions and syntactical connections between sentences will be lost. Perhaps something closer to the Amplified Bible is the best approach.

2 The exegetical idea almost always needs to be under 35 words. The subject should almost always be adverbial (see handout called “Exegetical Outlining Do’s and Don’t’s”). If “Paul,” “Believers,” “God,” “Christ,” etc. is the subject (as opposed to something like, “the reason believers should obey the government,” “the means by which spiritual gifts are to be used in the church…”), the mark is no better than “needs improvement.” The point of the exegetical idea is that the student needs to interpret the argument of the passage briefly and in proper form.

3The exegetical outline grade involves several aspects. If the student uses phrases instead of full sentences, “needs much improvement” is the grade. The structure of the thought is usually done correctly, as students tend to grasp clausal structural outlining. Interpretation of the text must be clearly seen as well, and here there are usually problems. A regurgitation of the wording of the text doesn’t do the trick; the student needs to show his or her understanding of exegetically problematic issues in the outline. Properly stated subject-complement statements almost always should be adverbial (see comments on exegetical idea above). The weakest link in exegetical outlining is generally this last point.

(50%) IV.

Commentary With Phrase Headings4

A. Introduction and transitions5 _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Use of key word / phrase headings6 _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Treatment of Greek grammar7 _________ _______ _________ _________

D. Discussion of key words/issues in passage8

_________ _______ _________ _________

E. Interpretation of figures of speech9 _________ _______ _________ _________

F. Interpretation of author’s thought throughout the passage10 _________ _______ _________ ________

_G. Support (validation) given for

interpretations adopted in problem areas11

_________ _______ _________ _________

H. Proper use of resource tools(grammatical, lexical, theological, etc.)12

_________ _______ _________ _________

4In general, each item here is worth 5% of the total paper grade. If something is absent, the highest grade the student can get on the paper is, therefore, a 95.

At the same time, some of these items are weighted more heavily. C, D, F, G, and H are often weak in student papers. G “Support (validation) given for interpretations adopted in problem areas” is the single most important element in the body of the paper.

5 The introduction should give a contextual orientation (1–2 paragraphs), and a specific introduction to the exegetical idea of the passage. Transitions especially focus on conjunctions, topic switches, independent clauses, etc. that reveal the transitions in the text.

6We want a phrase outline, not a sentence outline, in the body of the paper—one which corresponds to the subordination of thought in the exegetical outline.

7I’m looking for three things here: (1) Does the student cite the appropriate tools? That is, does he/she use grammars and lexica rather than commentaries as authorities on grammar? The lexica—especially BDAG—should be used for conjunctions and prepositions in particular. As for grammars, students should stay away from older works (19 th century), introductory grammars (e.g., Mounce), and popular tools (e.g., Wuest). (2) Does the student cite more than Wallace, ExSyn as his/her authority? I am not interested in students trying to flatter me, but they should nevertheless use my grammar liberally. Beyond this, however, they should also use BDF, Robertson, Moule, Porter, and even Moulton-Howard-Turner should be consulted. (3) In using the grammars, students tend to cite the grammar for the definition of the syntactical category (e.g., genitive of source, causal participle) even if the grammarian did not comment on that particular passage. Students need to be very careful in how they cite grammars in such instances, or else they will give the impression that the grammar agrees with their interpretation.

8 I’m not looking for a full-blown diachronic word study, but I do want to see the students make generous use of BDAG, TDNT, NIDNTT, and EDNT, and think through the significance of key words in the passage. Papers that use Wuest, Thayer, Vine’s, Strong’s, Mounce, commentaries as primary sources, or which do not cite sources, need to be docked significantly.

9 The students need to interpret all figures. Part of the process of learning exegesis is recognizing that we each come with a set of preunderstandings to a familiar passage, yet those preunderstandings may be culturally conditioned or even idiosyncratic.

10Everything in the exegetical paper proper needs to focus ultimately on the objective of tracing the author’s argument. Dealing with disconnected minutiae as though this is a syntactical analysis paper is not good exegesis. At the end of more technical discussions, the student needs to synthesize. Just quoting authorities without understanding what they are saying is inadequate.

11Students often just quote various authors without sifting through their arguments, interacting with them, or adding any arguments of their own. As well, they often refrain from adopting a view; on the other hand, some students take too strong of a stance. Many students are good at stating various viewpoints, but fail to follow through with any validation. Others use the wrong tools to validate (especially commentaries for grammatical and lexical validation), or rely solely on context for validation. This category is really worth about 10% of the total paper, so students need to pay careful attention to it. They learned how to validate in NT104; they need to put it into practice in NT105.

12This essentially is asking whether the student used the best non-commentary resources in these areas. This includes a judicious use of journal literature. They need to access the journal literature through ATLA or NTA and include at least two journal articles for their passage. They also need to cite the better journals especially. Although using The Master’s Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, Christianity Today, etc. are allowed, a heavy reliance on these journals

2

I. Use of commentaries13 _________ _______ _________ _________

J. Conclusion (summary review) _________ _______ _________ _________

K. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) V. ApplicationsA. Valid from this passage _________ _______ _________ ________

_B. Overall _________ _______ _________ ________

_

(5%) VI.

Textual Critical Problems14

A. Discussion of external evidence _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Discussion of internal evidence _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Conclusion with support _________ _______ _________ _________

D. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) VII.

Structural Layout/Diagram of Greek Clauses

A. Proper coordination and subordination _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) VIII.

Word Studies

A. Selection of key terms _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Synchronic summary _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Descriptive categories (usage) _________ _______ _________ _________

D. Evaluation within passage _________ _______ _________ _________

E. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(10%) IX.

Validation Problems15

typically means that the student has not engaged the full breadth of the literature. The reason journal articles are important to dialog with is this: when an author writes an article on a passage, he or she obviously has something to say. In the better journals, this is certainly the case. When a commentator comments on a given passage, he or she is required to do so because that passage is part of the book he or she is commenting on. But it could be a weak section for that author. At the same time, journal literature tends to give more avant garde viewpoints than are found in commentaries. Students need to interact with them, but use them judiciously.

13I’m looking for more than two or three commentaries to be used, as well as the best commentaries. Students who use Bible Knowledge Commentary, MacArthur, Pink, Matthew Henry, Wuest, or any number of on-line public domain commentaries should be docked. Even students who use decent commentaries but refrain from using the best ones should be penalized to some degree. Older commentaries may be used as long as more recent ones are in the mix.

14 The students need to have a detailed discussion of key textual problems in the passage. In the commentary, I also expect them to discuss all the textual problems listed in the Nestle apparatus, with at least 2–3 sentence summaries on each. The treatment should discuss the external and internal evidence briefly, with a conclusion (along with level of certainty) about what is the wording of the autograph. These can typically be handled in footnotes.

15Sensitivity to the problems and selectivity of the most important ones is key here. It is usually best not to organize the various views by authors, but rather to discuss the views and enlist one or more authors in support of each. Thus:

3

A. Selection of key issues _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Discussion of categories (views) _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Proper use of tools _________ _______ _________ _________

D. Treatment fair and thorough _________ _______ _________ _________

E. Use of secondary literature (commentaries, etc.)

_________ _______ _________ _________

F. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

(5%) X. English Composition16

A. Use of English grammar _________ _______ _________ _________

B. Spelling and proofreading _________ _______ _________ _________

C. Organization and expression _________ _______ _________ _________

D. Format of the paper _________ _______ _________ _________

E. Overall _________ _______ _________ _________

Wrong: There are four views on this text. (1) Dunn says _____; (2) Cranfield says ______, etc. Right: There are four views on this text. (1) Earthly authorities only are in view (Dunn, Moule). (2) Earthly and heavenly authorities are in view (Cranfield, Moo, Schreiner); etc.

The advantages of listing the arguments by the topics rather than by authors are as follows: (1) the student is required to think through what an author is saying rather than merely quote him; (2) a particular argument may be multi-faceted, with various authors contributing elements to it; this cannot easily be represented in an author-priority scheme; (3) similarly, a particular viewpoint is usually followed by more than one author; viewpoint-priority accommodates this easily.

16Although this is worth only 5% of the total grade, this is because it is usually done fairly well. Most students, however, do not follow Turabian for footnoting, do not proofread their work (especially when quoting Greek [which needs to always have full diacriticals except for textual problems]), do not use standardized abbreviations, etc. They especially need to cite the Greek correctly, which includes using accents, breathings, etc., and changing a grave accent to an acute when it is followed by punctuation or English.

4