Sources or sauces?

I said last post that I would write on sources, yes 'source' not ketchup sauce. OH the English language! Spelling, typos, grammar... another time! Here though we look at finding scholarship's arguments.

To add mere sauce is just a tasty after effect. To SOURCE your research and use them in essays is far more basic to your ingredients for an essay.

Resources are books, articles, even relevant and worthy websites. How to find them? We start probably with the resources listed by your lecturer for the course. They will lead you to find key authors. There may be articles as well as books by those same people on the online library provided by your institution. So if you cannot get a book that is advocated, try finding the articles that author wrote around the same time. Scholars often try to publish articles before they write the tomes that give them their scholarly worth! They often cover key areas and ideas they have for later books. It is also worth trying to find the reviews of the books in related journals in up to 2 years after date of the book's publication, to see how others critique the book's ideas.

Work out just what the apparent key book argues. Then see if another argues against it. Note the publishing dates to see what sequence the argument may have.

Note too, who the scholars are. Where do they teach? If it is within a denominational college, are they writing to defend that group's ideas? Are they maverick and write outside of those parameters, pushing the boundaries? Who might oppose them? Does the author have tons of publications already out there or are they a starting up scholar trying to make a name for themselves? This gives you some idea on how valid an argument might be. Then within the essay you state both sides of the argument [or more] and work out your preference, defending it with your critique of the sources.

Too much pepper? Too much salt? Far too 'hot and spicy'? or maybe too bland and ordinary, with nothing to offer against more tasty sources/ sauces?!

Story time:

Mirabel had thought about her essay on the I Ams of John's gospel. She had gone to the primary source: John's gospel in the Bible. She had then sought out the Secondary sources and started with commentaries on the gospel. Back tracking a bit, there was a tertiary source; the dictionaries on the gospels. These would a basic overview of John's gospel. Then there were books covering the whole New Testament studies - but there were several of those - Tenney (mmh old) to Burkett (more recent) and oh yes, R.E. Brown the same as the commentary author (again not so recent). Perhaps they would indicate which ideas are prevalent without having to read whole commentaries. They might have cross-references too.

The NT studies book she first picked up looked a little tacky; she had borrowed it from her -well - growing older pastor. He'd probably had it 30 years ago when he was studying. It was a start but hadn't the lecturer suggested that scholars of the last ten years were better for up to date scholarship. Then again, she found commentaries by Raymond Brown, two thick tomes, clearly set out but then she saw the publication date - in the 1970s. Oh dear. Yet he was still reckoned as a good source in the lecturer's notes. Who was he? A Catholic scholar, from America, who advised the Pope according to the blurb on the back! Oh! So what difference did that make compared to a more recent author like F.D. Bruner who published in 2012? Then Mirabel spotted the publisher; Eerdmans. That wasn't Catholic, usually. Maybe it is a more 'conservative', even 'evangelical' position than Brown held. Let's compare the two and see if it makes any difference; just look at I am the Bread of life: after all the Catholics may interpret John 6 eucharistically and evangelicals not so. That might lead to one debate. 'Note that idea on the spidergram,' she thought to herself. Maybe too Bruner had actually used Brown's work in his own and if so might have commented on it. Let's see if there is an author index in the back and trace where he uses Brown.

And so Mirabel started the fascinating tracking of sources, noting the footnotes one used of another's books and articles. It does use time. It depends on what level you are writing. That tracking isn't as important at Level 4. By level 6 it can be very helpful to write critically. it adds spicy sauce to the drama of scholarship!