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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Q poll

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Aug 16, 2007
      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 2 of 6 , Aug 16, 2007
        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.