REL 1300 Spring
2009: Highlights and lowlights of 3rd paper
Word has already got out that one student achieved a mark of
30/30. It can be done! "But how?" I hear you ask.
26/30 is a B+, and this is the mark that I give when you have met all
the requirements. To do better, you have to show a level of initiative
that goes beyond meeting the basic requirements. In a 1000 level class,
such as this, a grade beyond a B+ indicates that you have reached the
level expected in upper-division classes (2000 or 3000). There is no
simple set of instructions that you can follow to get beyond a B+
however. To achieve excellence you have to show you are capable of
doing more than just following instructions.
So, here's an extract from the paper:
The Jewish
tradition of keeping the Sabbath rest came from Moses:
Remember
the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all
your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it
you shall not do any work, you or your son or daughter, your male or
your female servant or your cattle or the sojourner who stays with you.
For six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and the sea and
all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD
blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (New American Standard Bible: Exodus
20:8-11)
Jews were
forbidden to perform most activities during the Sabbath, and the
Pharisees, who observed the religious laws carefully, emphasized these
restrictions among the people. The Mishhah is a Jewish philosophical
text that discusses specific biblical law codes and their application
(Molloy 320). This Jewish text states the following about healing on
the Sabbath:
(On the Sabbath)
one is not to work on an infant or set a fracture. If one dislocated
his hand or foot he may not pour cold water on it; but he may wash it
in the usual way. And if he is healed, he is healed (Mishna, Shabbath 22.6)
This is followed by a discussion of the story of Jesus
healing on the Sabbath found in Luke 6:6-11. What stands out is that
this was the only paper in which a student backed up the point about
the restrictions on healing on the Sabbath by quoting from the Mishna. Any of you should easily be able
to quote Biblical passages to prove your point. You should also be able
to use passages from primary texts in the folders when they are
relevant - many of you used Josephus' passages about Sadducees and
Pharisees, for example. If you can't do that much, you won't get a B+.
But it takes some initiative to find a copy of the Mishna (whether a
hard copy or an on-line edition) and, within the Mishna, to find the
appropriate passage. (It wouldn't be so impressive just to pick a
passage at random from the Mishna, whether or not it had anything to do
the paper). This passage also shows a proper understanding of how to
use the text-book. There is a reference to Molloy, because he explains
what the Mishna is and why it matters. It isn't worth quoting him
directly on this. All students are capable of repeating information
from Molloy - the added value comes from finding the book that he talks
about. Use the text-book as a pointer towards the sources that are
really valuable.
Finally, let me add that the paper did not receive 30/30 just because
of this particular passage. The whole paper was like this: every point
backed up with really good source material, and the whole thing
provided a comprehensive answer to the question.
Now an example of a paper that needs some improvement:
The Romans
and the Priest did not want one person to have enough support from
people that they could revolt it wanted. So one thing they tried to do
to stop people from listening to Jesus is that they told the people
that he was possessed by demons. They told them this to justify why he
could execute demons and perform miracles.
Jesus exorcised demons, he didn't execute them. I was taught by an
exorcist - he was not an executioner. Also, in the first sentence, the
phrase "it wanted" is redundant. The passage is based on something I
said in class - but it would not have been too difficult to find the
New Testament passage that I was referring to. There are searchable
translations of the New Testament on-line, and many copies of the New
Testament come with chapter-headings. Finding the passage I was talking
about is a B+ kind of task.
The big mistake, however, is the reference to 'the Romans' and 'the
Priest.' 'The Priest', I assume, is 'the High Priest'. The trouble is,
the dispute about Jesus' abilities as an exorcist is more likely to
have involved the Pharisees. The Romans had better things to do with
their time than spreading rumours. If they wanted someone out of the
way, they would execute him - as they did eventually with Jesus. The
High Priest was threatened by Jesus' actions in the Temple, but not
necessarily by his exorcisms, which were performed in Galilee - a long
way from Jerusalem. The dispute over Jesus' exorcisms is much more
likely to be a popularity contest between Jesus and the Pharisees - a
squabble between a peasant and representatives of the middle classes,
not something that would worry the ruling elite.
So, the problem with this passage is that it simplifies history. Jesus'
various different opponents are treated as a single, indivisible group.
Finally, remember to think like a historian. Consider the following:
But Jesus answered
them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought
the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but
also said that God was his father, making himself equal to God. Then
answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, The
Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:17-19
Jesus
obviously claimed to be the Son of God. He compared himself to God to
the point of saying that he was equal to God. Jesus was saying that you
could not reach to God if you did not believe in God's Son.
This might seem
good. We have a quotation from a primary source, followed by an
interpretation. The trouble is, the interpretation assumes that the
primary source material is an accurate record of what Jesus actually
said. But, of all the four Gospels in the New Testament, John's Gospel
is considered by most scholars to be the least reliable. Very few
scholars would accept that these are the actual words of Jesus, and
those that do would have to convince the critics. Of course, I
didn't discuss this passage in class, and I can't expect you to know
all of this. However, as we've gone through the course, you should at
least have noticed that I take care to distinguish historical facts
from later legends, and to explain the kind of methods that can be used
to distinguish. I'm not an expert on all of the religions we are
studying, but I at least take the trouble to refer to authors like
Montgomery Watt, A. C. Graham or Dumoulin who have the required
expertise, and to explain how they reached their conclusions. If you
are going to quote from the Gospel of John, you should try to find
something written by an expert on that Gospel. That isn't difficult: we
have the Oxford One Volume Bible
Commentary, which was purchased for precisely this kind of
situation. Or you could find the appropriate section of Harris, The New Testament: A Student's
Introduction.
Finally, let me mention that, for the second time this semester,
I have had to report a student to Professor Anyfanti for plagiarism. If
you haven't already, take the time to read the Notes
On Plagiarism carefully.
Back to REL 1300 home-page
Back to Dr. Murphy's home-page