(back to RS110 Syllabus)

The final exam will consist of 5 of the following 8 essay questions, from which each of you shall select 3 on which to write fully-developed, thoughtful essays. Bring your Synopsis. You may use it during the exam.

1. Were the evangelists (i.e., the authors of the Gospels) trying to recount history? That is, did they really care about what actually happened? Defend your answer. If they did care about recent events, what can we say about the way they conceived of their historiographical task? Has your underlining in the Synopsis, and your readings for this course, shed any light on the way the evangelists went about their historical work? What can we say about apparent discrepancies and differences in parallel accounts in the Gospels? Use at least one specific passage to discuss these issues.

2. Was there a "Q"? Discuss the evidence for and against the existence of a source shared by Matthew and Luke, independent of Mark. Provide specific examples from your work in the Synopsis to illustrate and support your answer. You'll want to point to specific passages that some consider "Q" material, but you'll also want to discuss why a "Q" hypothesis is more, or less, helpful in explaining the Matthew/Luke parallels. Discuss the merits and demerits of Goodacre's counter-proposal. And then, finally: does it matter? What difference does it make for interpreting the Gospels?

3. Assuming Matthew has borrowed heavily from Mark, how does Matthew's account help us interpret Mark's story? Using your Synopsis, offer specific examples of ways Matthew's Gospel interprets Mark and, in effect, tells us how to think about Jesus. Along the way, highlight distinctives in each Gospel (Matthew and Mark).

4. Discuss the challenges and rewards of parable interpretation, in part by interacting critically with the work of N. T. Wright and Kenneth Bailey. Illustrate and defend your remarks by pointing us to specific aspects of Jesus' parables in the Gospels.

5. What got Jesus executed? Consider at least two gospels in terms of the factors, episodes, forces and key figures leading up to Jesus' crucifixion. Be sure to assess the role of Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem and his action in the Temple, and the roles of the Judas, the Jewish priesthood and the Roman occupying force. You may want to include a brief assessment of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (if you saw it) on this specific question.

6. Discuss Barnett's claim, in Jesus and the Logic of History, that the impact of Jesus' person, life and teachings are the best explanation for the remarkable rise of the early Church.

7. Compare and contrast Jesus of Montreal and Godspell, in terms of their central message, the kind of Jesus/Jesus figure they present, and their portrayal of discipleship. Is there anything of theological value in either of these films? What would Jesus like about them?

8. Select one of the following 2nd Temple groups on which to write a descriptive essay, outlining their place in 1st century Jewish life, and their significance for understanding the Gospels and/or Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, scribes, Samaritans, Zealots, Essenes, Qumran community.