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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Q poll

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.