r1300hilo3s9

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