Write a one page summery from the readings from Attridge.

All together should be a total of 4 pages.

In each summery, you need to address what surprises you, intrigues you, challenges you, confuses you, inspires you, or otherwise merits comment in the readings?

Once you have completed the paper, I will send you some follow-up questions from my professor about your writings for you to answer.

Here are some comments that my professor made about another paper which would give you an idea of what she is looking for.

The most helpful thing, I think, would be to present the information in a less definitive way. I would not be so concerned about what you represent to the class if you were not presenting information in direct conflict with the positions represented by the assigned textbooks without specifically saying so. So the main thing I would like to see from you is more explicit humility and a willingness to recognize that you are representing your perspective, rooted in your assumptions and, frankly, your ?authoritative? sources who operate within the same canonical framework that you do. In other words, you are adopting an existential approach even when you purportedly study historical critical concerns because you begin with faith convictions about the text and its relationship to history before you ever read what?s there, and you are relying on other sources that come from a similar existential perspective. Please remember that I have on numerous occasions explained that in THIS class, we are going to adopt a critical reading strategy instead of a canonical approach. That?s not because I don?t see value in canonical reading, it?s because I want to teach a specific set of skills that will stretch you and, in the end, give you a more complete understanding of the biblical texts. Whether you are doing this intentionally or not, you seem to be unwilling to suspend the truth questions (e.g., did things actually happen exactly the way the biblical text describes them?) in your reading. We?re not trying to prove that something did or did not happen in a particular way; we?re trying to consider all of the information and evidence available to us as tools for understanding the text. And we cannot do this effectively if we presuppose that something is true or not true before we investigate it. Another tendency I have noticed in your posts and in your paper is that you often make sweeping generalizations as if you were stating the obvious. For instance, you make frequent reference to the ?unity? of the Pentateuch. Yet, the Pentateuch is full of examples of disunity, many of which we have been discussing. What do you mean by ?unity?? Are you referring to the way in which all the pieces come together to tell an overarching story? Yes, generally speaking, there is a larger narrative presented. However, within the larger narrative is plenty of disunity in terms of conflicting information, variations in writing style, differing theological perspectives, anachronistic statements (e.g., ?and to this day? ? a straightforward indicator that the writing of the event comes at a significantly later date than the happening of the event), etc. Declaring the text to have unity does not make it so. And, yet, you make the statement without explanation or argumentation, as if everyone should recognize the truth of it. When you begin from a canonical (existential) assumption that the unity is there, then, not surprisingly, you see it. But this is not an adequate reason for making an unsupported claim about it in a class discussion, especially when we have already established a critical (not canonical) reading strategy as the class parameter.

Do it in a conversational way, rather than in a formal essay. Raise questions, offer speculations and curiosities, explore beginnings of answers without wrapping everything up in such a neat package? Then you?re participating in a class reading rather than providing your own definitive reading. This is especially important in our class because, for you, the place where you find certainty is in your faith convictions. (That?s not bad in and of itself, but it means that almost post ends up coming from a canonical rather than a critical approach.) In other words, you sometimes ?settle? questions by dismissing them as irrelevant (e.g., ?these may look like contradictions but they?re not because the Bible doesn?t have contradictions?).

I said I would return to the matter of resources. Some outside resources are more helpful than others and it?s important to make wise decisions, especially when finding something on the internet. So always check the credentials of the author. Was that person educated as a biblical scholar? (In another class one time, students tried to use material written by a rocket scientist?literally?who dabbled in Israeli-Palestinian politics because he sounded so convincing. But he either wasn?t aware of all the relevant evidence or he picked out only those things he could twist to support his cause and his conclusions were unwarranted, but the only way for the students to discover this was to read his bio.) If the author was educated as a biblical scholar, was it at an accredited school? What approach does this scholar take to the biblical text? Is it canonical (i.e., starting with faith convictions) or critical (i.e., withholding the faith questions for the end of the process)? Does the scholar make a distinction between theology as it?s represented in a particular text and the scholar?s own personal theology? Or does the author simply make statements about God and humanity as if what the biblical text says and what a Christian believes (or should believe, according to this author) are always the same? Asking these questions will help you make good decisions about the resources you use for your class work. This will be very important when you write your biblical analysis paper.
You are about to upload the paper. If you are sure that the paper is propely written and there are no mistakes, proceed with uploading. In other case, proofread the paper once more and try again.

File:
Type: