Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Q poll

Expand Messages
  • Tim Lewis
    Yes I realised afterwards that I hadn t made clear what the question was because I probably need two questions. I will need to update the poll so as to
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes I realised afterwards that I hadn't made clear what the question was
      because I probably need two questions. I will need to update the poll so as
      to distinguish between what the Mt-Lk common material is believed to be (as
      one's preferred hypothesis) and what the 'Q hypothesis' is supposed to be
      (i.e. what is the Q hypothesis--regardless whether one decides for or
      against it).

      I think there is a relationship between the identification of (a) what the Q
      hypothesis is and (b) what the material is concluded to be. Your response
      indicates that currently the poll reads as though asking (b) whereas I
      actually wanted to ask (a) i.e. whether there are many other institutions
      (like mine) out there teaching that the Q hypothesis merely represents a
      bunch of oral traditions [and as an extention into (b) some scholars take a
      more extreme perspective by seeing a united set of written materials].

      Perhaps "Q is a figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)" spoils my
      intention for asking (a) since it would be a (b) type answer...I'll have
      another go at it!
      Thanks Mark for the comments,
      Tim

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mark Goodacre" <goodacre@...>
      To: "Tim Lewis" <tim_lewis@...>
      Cc: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:34 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Q poll


      > Thanks for the interesting poll, Tim. I always enjoy a good poll :)
      > I can't help wondering whether the options are a little too
      > restrictive and in two ways: (1) I was taught all sides of the
      > question and encouraged to come to my own answer on the basis of the
      > evidence -- that does not appear on the list; I try to do the same
      > thing for my own students, though I add the disclaimer that it is
      > possible that my presentation of other theories may be inadvertently
      > influenced by my own preferred theory; (2) the way that the
      > alternatives are described is a little forrthright, e.g. "Q is a
      > figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)" would not be the way
      > that I would characterize Q sceptical work in my teaching, and I tend
      > towards a certain sympathy with the Q sceptical position.
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Mark
      >
      > --
      > Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
      > Associate Professor
      > Duke University
      > Department of Religion
      > Gray Building / Box 90964
      > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
      >
      > http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
      >
      >
      > --
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date:
      > 14/08/2007 5:19 PM
      >
      >
    • Eric Eve
      Mark Goodacre wrote: Thanks for the interesting poll, Tim. I always enjoy a good poll :) I can t help wondering whether the options are a little too
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:


        Thanks for the interesting poll, Tim. I always enjoy a good poll :)
        I can't help wondering whether the options are a little too
        restrictive and in two ways: (1) I was taught all sides of the
        question and encouraged to come to my own answer on the basis of the
        evidence -- that does not appear on the list; I try to do the same
        thing for my own students, though I add the disclaimer that it is
        possible that my presentation of other theories may be inadvertently
        influenced by my own preferred theory; (2) the way that the
        alternatives are described is a little forrthright, e.g. "Q is a
        figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)" would not be the way
        that I would characterize Q sceptical work in my teaching, and I tend
        towards a certain sympathy with the Q sceptical position.


        .


        <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15623871/grpspId=1705074057/msgI
        d=873/stime=1187184419/nc1=3848642/nc2=4706133/nc3=4776371>
        In addition to those points (both of which I'd endorse), I'd also be a bit
        leery of saying what "my institution" teaches. We're a group of pretty
        independent-minded scholars with a variety of views on the Synoptic Problem,
        and I very much doubt we all teach the same thing. There's certainly no
        official party line on the matter which the institution endorses (not even a
        party line that says undergraduates have to be taught about the Synoptic
        Problem or Q at all - judging by some examination answers I've read in the
        past I'd guess some aren't).

        Maybe the tutorial system at Oxford makes it particularly difficult (or
        particularly meaningless) to give an institutional answer to the question in
        any case. I certainly try to give my own students both sides of the
        question, but they know perfectly well what I think and that may well often
        influence what they think.

        In any case, I took a look at your survey but felt unable to respond because
        none of the categories seemed to fit

        -- Eric
        ----------------------------------
        Eric Eve
        Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
        Harris Manchester College, Oxford
        http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/




        __





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tim Lewis
        Hi Eric, Perhaps the survey s usefulness may still be salvaged. After Mark s response I added the following clarification to the poll: This poll only asks
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Eric,
          Perhaps the survey's usefulness may still be salvaged. After Mark's response I added the following clarification to the poll:
          "This poll only asks what your institution claimed the Q hypothesis to be not what the Mt-Lk common material might be (select more than one if needed)..."
          The intention was to try to find out what is being taught/heard about what the Q hypothesis is (not which hypotheses lecturers prefer/espouse). One could tick/check all the responses if close enough...perhaps the poll would have been better served if I had used actual quotes from scholars concerning what is the Q hypothesis and then left a spot for "Other"?
          Cheers,
          Tim


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Eric Eve
          To: Synoptic-L
          Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:55 PM
          Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Q poll


          Mark Goodacre wrote:

          Thanks for the interesting poll, Tim. I always enjoy a good poll :)
          I can't help wondering whether the options are a little too
          restrictive and in two ways: (1) I was taught all sides of the
          question and encouraged to come to my own answer on the basis of the
          evidence -- that does not appear on the list; I try to do the same
          thing for my own students, though I add the disclaimer that it is
          possible that my presentation of other theories may be inadvertently
          influenced by my own preferred theory; (2) the way that the
          alternatives are described is a little forrthright, e.g. "Q is a
          figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)" would not be the way
          that I would characterize Q sceptical work in my teaching, and I tend
          towards a certain sympathy with the Q sceptical position.

          .

          <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15623871/grpspId=1705074057/msgI
          d=873/stime=1187184419/nc1=3848642/nc2=4706133/nc3=4776371>
          In addition to those points (both of which I'd endorse), I'd also be a bit
          leery of saying what "my institution" teaches. We're a group of pretty
          independent-minded scholars with a variety of views on the Synoptic Problem,
          and I very much doubt we all teach the same thing. There's certainly no
          official party line on the matter which the institution endorses (not even a
          party line that says undergraduates have to be taught about the Synoptic
          Problem or Q at all - judging by some examination answers I've read in the
          past I'd guess some aren't).

          Maybe the tutorial system at Oxford makes it particularly difficult (or
          particularly meaningless) to give an institutional answer to the question in
          any case. I certainly try to give my own students both sides of the
          question, but they know perfectly well what I think and that may well often
          influence what they think.

          In any case, I took a look at your survey but felt unable to respond because
          none of the categories seemed to fit

          -- Eric
          ----------------------------------
          Eric Eve
          Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
          Harris Manchester College, Oxford
          http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/

          __

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/955 - Release Date: 15/08/2007 4:55 PM


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Goodacre
          Tim, Thanks for the clarifications. I think the question inevitably plays into what people s preferred source theories are, though, especially Q is a figment
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 16, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Tim,

            Thanks for the clarifications. I think the question inevitably plays
            into what people's preferred source theories are, though, especially
            "Q is a figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)". Even in
            its revised form, it supposes that "institutions teach" a particular
            thing, rather than lay out the range of alternatives. I'm also not
            too keen on "someone plagiarized" for just one of the options. Why is
            "Q was a single written source", for example, not also "someone
            plagiarized"? Is it because two people plagiarized?

            All best
            Mark

            On 16/08/07, Tim Lewis <tim_lewis@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Hi Eric,
            > Perhaps the survey's usefulness may still be salvaged. After Mark's response I added the following clarification to the poll:
            > "This poll only asks what your institution claimed the Q hypothesis to be not what the Mt-Lk common material might be (select more than one if needed)..."
            > The intention was to try to find out what is being taught/heard about what the Q hypothesis is (not which hypotheses lecturers prefer/espouse). One could tick/check all the responses if close enough...perhaps the poll would have been better served if I had used actual quotes from scholars concerning what is the Q hypothesis and then left a spot for "Other"?
            > Cheers,
            > Tim
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Eric Eve
            > To: Synoptic-L
            > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:55 PM
            > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Q poll
            >
            > Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >
            > Thanks for the interesting poll, Tim. I always enjoy a good poll :)
            > I can't help wondering whether the options are a little too
            > restrictive and in two ways: (1) I was taught all sides of the
            > question and encouraged to come to my own answer on the basis of the
            > evidence -- that does not appear on the list; I try to do the same
            > thing for my own students, though I add the disclaimer that it is
            > possible that my presentation of other theories may be inadvertently
            > influenced by my own preferred theory; (2) the way that the
            > alternatives are described is a little forrthright, e.g. "Q is a
            > figment of the imagination (someone plagiarized)" would not be the way
            > that I would characterize Q sceptical work in my teaching, and I tend
            > towards a certain sympathy with the Q sceptical position.
            >
            > .
            >
            > <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15623871/grpspId=1705074057/msgI
            > d=873/stime=1187184419/nc1=3848642/nc2=4706133/nc3=4776371>
            > In addition to those points (both of which I'd endorse), I'd also be a bit
            > leery of saying what "my institution" teaches. We're a group of pretty
            > independent-minded scholars with a variety of views on the Synoptic Problem,
            > and I very much doubt we all teach the same thing. There's certainly no
            > official party line on the matter which the institution endorses (not even a
            > party line that says undergraduates have to be taught about the Synoptic
            > Problem or Q at all - judging by some examination answers I've read in the
            > past I'd guess some aren't).
            >
            > Maybe the tutorial system at Oxford makes it particularly difficult (or
            > particularly meaningless) to give an institutional answer to the question in
            > any case. I certainly try to give my own students both sides of the
            > question, but they know perfectly well what I think and that may well often
            > influence what they think.
            >
            > In any case, I took a look at your survey but felt unable to respond because
            > none of the categories seemed to fit
            >
            > -- Eric
            > ----------------------------------
            > Eric Eve
            > Research Fellow and Tutor in Theology
            > Harris Manchester College, Oxford
            > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0049/
            >
            > __
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/955 - Release Date: 15/08/2007 4:55 PM
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >



            --
            Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
            Associate Professor
            Duke University
            Department of Religion
            Gray Building / Box 90964
            Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
            Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

            http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.