There is something of a magic formula for referencing sources in graduate school scriptural exegesis papers. Make sure to consult some “reputable” commentaries, use the standard reference works, and be sure to include some journal articles (always more than you think). But there are some fundamental issues concerning the use of critical sources in exegesis which I have not seen addressed adequately:
•What is the justification for the use of critical sources in exegesis? At times I feel as though the practice borders on the appeal to authority fallacy. I know that the practice is meant to foster interaction among commentators, and this is supposed to increase the quality of exegesis (and I believe it can). However, I am not sure why such sources are necessary to ascertain the meaning of the text.
•If exegesis is centered around interaction with other sources, it is really a descriptive or critical commentary of those sources and not exegesis of scripture in its own right.
•What is the logic behind the selection of sources? Each topic has its own compulsory sources (e.g. Raymond Brown for the gospel of John). But how many sources are necessary to adequately engage the community on a given topic? It is practically impossible to interact with every published work. So how do I decide which sources and how many to interact with?
•Concerning the ubiquitous phrase “most scholars believe”: How do we actually measure consensus among Biblical scholars? Does anyone actually gather data before making such an assertion? How do we decide which votes count? If there is a consensus, what does that mean? Besides being descriptive of prevailing views, how does that help us better understand the meaning of the text?
*18/711/13*
