FINAL HONOUR SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY 2015

EXAMINERS’ REPORT

A. RESULTS AND STATISTICS

There were 51 candidates in the Final Honour School 2015, after 2 withdrawals

Table 1. Annual comparison of results, 2010-2015

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015No. of

candidates 65 46 43 57 47 51

no. % no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %

First 13 20.0 15 32.6 16 37.2 17 29.8 17 36.2 14 27.5

II.1 49 75.4 29 63.0 26 60.5 38 66.7 29 61.7 35 68.6

II.2 3 4.6 1 2.2 1 2.3 2 3.5 1 2.1 1 2.0

Third 0 0 1 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0

Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Fail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Table 2. Annual comparison of results according to gender, 2010-2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FirstFemale 7

(53.8%)5

(33.3%)8

(50%)9

(52.9%)5

(29.4%)3

(21.4%)

Male 6(46.2%)

10 (66.7%)

8(50%)

8(47.1%)

12 (70.6%)

11(78.6%)

II.1Female 18

(36.7%)19

(65.5%)12

(46.2%)14

(36.8%)12

(41.4%)17

(48.6%)

Male 31 (63.3%)

10 (34.5%)

14 (53.8%)

24 (63.2%)

17 (58.6%)

18(51.4%)

II.2Female 2

(66.7%)0

1(100%)

1(50%)

1(100%)

0

Male 1(33.3%)

1(100%)

01

(50%)0

1(100%)

ThirdFemale 0 0 0 0 0

1(100%)

Male 01

(100%)0 0 0 0

1

Thus, out of 51 candidates in 2015 the following statistics apply:

Female 21 (41.2%)

Male 30 (58.8%)

Table 3. Detailed breakdown of results by gender, 2015

Classification Female Maleby no. % of gender by no. % of gender

First 3 14.3 11 36.7

2.1 17 81.0 18 60.0

2.2 0 - 1 3.3

Third 1 4.8 0 -

Tables 4a-d. Detailed breakdown of results in terms of gender categories:

Gender category: FEMALE2014 (18 candidates) 2015 (21 candidates)

Classification by no. % of gender by no. % of genderFirst 5 27.8 3 14.32.1 12 66.7 17 81.02.2 1 5.5 0 -

Third 0 - 1 4.8

Gender category: FEMALE2010-2015 (135 candidates) 2009-2014 (138 candidates)

Classification by no. % of gender by no. % of genderFirst 37 27.4 35 25.42.1 92 68.2 98 71.02.2 5 3.7 5 3.6

Third 1 0.7 0 -

Gender category: MALE2014 (29 candidates) 2015 (30 candidates)

by no. % of gender by no. % of genderFirst 12 41.4 11 36.72.1 17 58.6 18 60.02.2 0 0 1 3.3

Third 0 0 0 0

2

Gender category: MALE2010-2015 (174 candidates) 2010-2015 (183 candidates)

by no. % of gender by no. % of genderFirst 55 31.6 47 25.72.1 114 65.5 129 70.52.2 4 2.3 6 3.3

Third 1 0.6 1 0.5

There were no viva voce examinations this year.

Number of single school candidates per paper, 2009-2015

Papers/Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015God and Israel in the Old Testament 57 65 46 43 57 46 51

The Gospels and Jesus 57 65 46 43 57 47 51

Pauline Literature 24 28 14 15 25 18 19

Development of Doctrine to 451 57 65 46 43 57 47 51

God, Christ and Salvation 57 65 46 43 57 46 51

Further Studies in NT etc. - - - 3 3 1 7

Western Christianity 1050 to 1350 7 11 7 5 7 8 7

Western Christianity 1500 to 1619 15 24 18 16 18 15 9

Christian Life and Thought 1789-1921 4 7 5 7 4 2 3

Issues in Theology 1789-1921 13 6 13 8 9 5 12

Further Studies: Augustine 4 7 4 5 8 7 6

Further Studies: Aquinas 3 5 2 0 4 4 0

Further Studies: Luther 5 7 7 4 4 5 1

Further Studies: Calvin 3 5 7 6 5 1 5

Further Studies: Newman 4 0 0 5 0 0 0

Further Studies: Barth 7 5 6 3 4 3 0

Further Studies: Bonhoeffer 7 6 4 1 8 5 8

Further Studies: Kierkegaard 7 4 6 4 0 3 5

Further Studies: Dostoevsky 0 7 0 4 1 0 0

Philosophy of Religion 14 6 0 4 9 1 4

Christian Moral Reasoning 5 6 1 3 7 6 4

The Nature of Religion 10 19 12 13 16 15 17

Judaism I 0 1 2 0 1 1 3

Judaism II 0 0 2 0 1 1 3

Islam I 8 8 7 7 11 11 8

Islam II 7 7 5 5 9 9 6

3

Buddhism I 0 2 1 2 3 5 5

Buddhism II 0 2 1 2 3 4 5

Hinduism I 2 0 1 2 1 2 1

Hinduism II 2 0 1 1 1 2 1

Selected Topics OT Apocalyptic 2 1 1 0 1 0 3

Selected Topics OT Prophecy 11 5 1 4 5 0 3

Selected Topics OT Wisdom 5 4 6 4 2 4 6

Selected Topics OT Worship and Liturgy 2 2 1 0 0 2 7

The Hebrew of the Old Testament 3 4 3 5 6 6 3

Archaeology in Relation to the OT 4 7 6 1 7 5 4

Religions and Mythology of the ANE 3 4 2 2 5 5 1

Varieties of Judaism 5 6 1 0 2 1 4

Beginnings of the Church to AD 170 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Christian Liturgy 3 2 0 2 1 7 6

Early Syriac Christianity 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

Church in the Byzantine Empire 2 4 4 0 2 2 4

Science and Religion 2 8 2 4 3 2 4

Christian Spirituality 1 3 3 2 1 0 0

Sociology of Religion 4 5 4 3 5 4 3

Psychology of Religion 3 2 2 4 5 1 4

The Bible: Use and Influence 3 2 1 2 0 0 0

English Church and Mission AD 597-754 2 2 1 0 2 1 2

Mysticism 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

Optional Extended Essay 23 19 19 16 20 15 16

Optional translation: Hebrew 2 0 1 1 0 6 1

Optional translation: Greek 7 9 8 4 12 6 5

University Prizes

The following prizes were awarded:

(i) Denyer and Johnston Prize (for best undergraduate performance in Theology): Daniel Mullaney, Wycliffe Hall.

(ii) Gibbs Prize (for the best performance in Theology for candidates who have not exceeded the twelfth term from their matriculation): Crawford Jamieson, Trinity College. .

(iii) Gibbs Essay Prize: James Lorenz, Worcester College.

(iv) Pusey and Ellerton Senior Prize: Michael Dormandy, Wycliffe Hall.

4

(v) Catherine of Alexandria Prize: Daniel Mullaney, Wycliffe Hall.

5

B. CONDUCT OF EXAMINATIONS

The examiners could not have fulfilled all of their tasks without the generous help and collaboration of Assessors. They are exceptionally grateful for the assistance of the following Assessors:

Dr Afifi al-Akiti, Professor Nigel Biggar, Professor Mark Edwards, Dr Sarah Apetrei, Professor Averil Cameron, Dr Mark Chapman, Hywel Clifford, Dr Joanna Collicutt, Clayton Croy, Dr Robert Ellis, Dr Eric Eve, Professor Gavin Flood, Dr Miri Freud-Kandel, Dr Courtney Friesen, Dr Brendon Gallagher, Carol Harrison, Sondra Hausner, Dr Linda Hulin, Dr John Jarick, Dr Werner Jeanrond, Dr Christine Joynes, Professor Justin Jones, Dr Simon Jones, Professor Jan Joosten, Dr Philip Kennedy, Dr Ian Ker, Dr Matthew Kirkpatrick, Dr Mary Marshall, Philip McCosker, Dr Emma Percy, Dr Olivera Petrovich, Dr Mark Philpott, Professor Joel Rasmussen, Professor Robert Saxton, Nicholas Sinai, Donovan Schaefer, Dr Jeremy Schonfield, Professor Graham Ward, Joanna Weinberg, Professor Jan Westerhoff, Benjamin Williams, Dr. Nicholas Wood, Professor William Wood, Dr Hugh Wybrew, Professor Stefano Zacchetti, Professor Johannes Zachhuber, and Simeon Zahl.

6

C. REPORT ON PAPERS

Reports are only given for papers with entries of six or more candidates in the Single School. The number of candidates for each paper broken down into the three separate Schools and the PG Diploma is given at the head of each report. Statistics in the individual paper reports relate to the Single School entries.

Paper no Title Single

Schoolwith

Philosophywith Oriental

Studies PGDip

1 God and Israel 51 0 0 8

The single school: 70 and above: 11 60-69: 33 50-59: 7 <50: 0

Average: 64.8

All essay questions were attempted on this paper except the questions on hermeneutics and, surprisingly, the Deuteronomistic History.

All gobbets were answered. However, candidates seemed to indicate a preference for First Isaiah over Second Isaiah.

There were some excellent essays, displaying a high capacity to argue and some independent thought. Overall there were many essays which were more than regurgitated tutorial essays, showing a real capacity to understand and engage with the question as asked rather than the topic in general. A number of candidates, however, offered work which was very generalised and, in particular, the Deuteronomy and Isaiah gobbets in English lacked attention to detail. Those who attempted Hebrew gobbets performed well and displayed a thorough knowledge. Overall candidates performed best in the Psalms gobbets. A slightly larger number of essays than usual were weak and lacked depth, regurgitating an argument the candidate had not fully understood, lacking illustration, and often displaying inconsistencies in the argument. This was particularly the case with questions about the post-exilic period. Some students reiterated material previously used, almost word for word, which cost them marks. This was particularly so in the case of some candidates who chose to talk about the Documentary Hypothesis in their gobbet on Deuteronomy and then went on to answer an essay question on it.

2 Gospels and Jesus 51 21 0 9

The single school: 70 and above: 8 60-69: 34 50-59: 9 <50: 0Average: 63.9

The result for the examinations for Paper 2, Jesus and the Gospels, was generally positive. The average result in the single schools ticked upward slightly (an encouraging sign, if a small one). In this respect, the examination seems entirely consistent with its precedents.

7

The choices among gobbets were relatively evenly distributed, and answers were satisfactory. The Greek gobbets did not elicit as many translations that mirrored the NRSV as had been the case last year; more translations more plausibly indicated attention to (or ignorance of) features of the Greek text. 

The essays, as usual, were dominated by essays on Matthew and John. While overall performance was fine, some of the essays clearly suggested the candidate’s determination to write about an area in which he or she prepared, regardless of the question. Had an equivalent effort been dedicated to preparing for the exam more generally, these candidates might well have performed better, and would have been unlikely to perform worse. Tutors are surely not endorsing the tactic of drafting set responses and applying them willy-nilly, but it may be worth reminding students more vividly that such an approach is more often counterproductive than beneficial.

The examiners welcome the positive trajectory of marks in the single school. While sample sizes and year-on-year changes in teaching relativise the importance of short-term trends, a slow, steady drift toward a distribution of marks that approximates the marks in other papers is no doubt a good sign.

The examiners noted evidence of serious misapprehensions among some students. For instance, two or three essays explained that "the veil of the Temple” described in Matthew 27 surrounded the Court of the Gentiles. While the relevant curtain may have been within or in front of the Temple, it can hardly have separated the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts (atop a metre-high railing?).

3 Pauline Literature 19 1 0 4

The single school: 70 and above: 4 60-69: 12 50-59: 3 <50: 0

Average: 64.1

4 Development of Doctrine 51 12 0 7

The single school: 70 and above: 11 60-69: 34 50-59: 5 <50: 1

Average: 65.65

There were 51 candidates. All questions except 15b, c, d, and e were attempted at least once.

8

Question 1a) had 31 answers; 1b) 12; 1c) 5; 1d) 3; 2) 2; 3) 10; 4) 7; 5) 21; 6) 23; 7) 1; 8a) 11; 8b) 5; 9) 5; 10a) 1; 10b) 13; 11a) 7; 11b) 2; 12) 2; 13) 2; 14a) 21; 14b) 9; 15a) 1; 15f) 1. The noticeably popular questions were therefore the gobbet on Arius and the essays on Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Nestorius.

The results were as follows: 11 students fell in the range 70% and over; 34 in the range 60%-69% (1 at 69%); 5 in the range 50%-59%; and 1 in the range 40%-49%.

It was evident to the examiners that some students had not been prepared sufficiently well to answer on the gobbets, which requires a different kind of answer to the essays. The best students situated the gobbet within its wider historical and textual context, but also carried out a close exegesis of the passage, exploring its theological resonances. The worst students simply used the gobbet as a springboard to reproduce a shorter, evidently pre-prepared, essay on the chosen text or author, rather than reflecting on the specific choice of passage, and were marked down for doing so.

The best essay answers were not afraid to show off their reading in the secondary literature, but did not simply reduce their answers to a survey of it, instead using it where relevant in the service of an argument. They also demonstrated an intimate knowledge of, and personal engagement with, the relevant primary texts, and were able to approach each question critically and from various perspectives. The worst answers were those which tended towards generalised surveys of a particular issue, with minimal attention to actual texts and without acknowledging potential tensions or problems within the source material, or conflicts within the secondary literature.

5 God, Christ & Salvation 51 21 0 2

The single school: 70 and above: 6 60-69: 43 50-59: 1 <50: 1Average: 66.0This year’s examination paper was intended to challenge candidates to deploy in fresh ways their understanding of the Christian doctrines they had studied, principally by seeing the inter-connections between related doctrinal loci. A pleasing number of candidates rose to this challenge with success: they presented lucid, interesting, and well-informed arguments that showed that they had learned to think theologically in dialogue with a commendably broad range of modern theologians. Conversely, there were relatively few answers that bore the (depressingly) unmistakable signs of being a re-heated tutorial essay, suitably topped and tailed in the vain hope that the examiners could be persuaded to think that it answered the question set. It was really good to see such a large proportion of candidates thinking for themselves. The middle ground of scripts was typified by answers that presented surveys rather than arguments, and which showed too shaky a grasp of what systematic theology might be (something belonging to the genus of abstract theory seemed often to be the background assumption), what motivates it, and how it stands in relation to the sources of theological reflection. For example, question 7 (‘Can any sense be made of the idea that there is one God in three persons?’) was amongst the most popular, but barely any candidates considered the possibilities that (i) the formula might find its sense on the basis, not of abstract and speculative metaphysical arguments, but of the interpretation of Scripture, and (ii) that ‘person’ and ‘God’ have traditionally been understood in just this way, and contested by modern theologians on just this basis. On the other hand, the best responses to this question demonstrated a clear and profound understanding of the relationship between different doctrinal loci – here that between the doctrine of the Trinity and soteriology.

9

Joint School candidates often produced engaged and thoughtful arguments that displayed considerable conceptual virtuosity. All Joint School candidates, but especially weaker ones, were prone to treat densely textured doctrinal issues in oversimplifying and reductive ways which, whilst rendering them tractable to analysis, lost sight of the irreducibly particular and concrete characteristics of systematic theology. For example, concepts of salvation from sin (Question 12) and the contemporaneity of salvation (Q14) were often treated almost entirely independently of their grounding in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and in humanity’s (putative) relationship with God. Some Joint School candidates misunderstood the term ‘dogmatics’ – as in ‘Christian dogmatics’ – to mean ‘being very insistently opinionated’, which seems a curious error in Oxford. No Joint School candidate made the mistake, common amongst those of the Single School, of confusing ‘raising the question’ with the logical fallacy of ‘begging the question’, nor did they confuse ‘infer’ and ‘imply’.

The most popular questions in both Schools were 7 (on the ‘sense’ of ‘one God in three persons’), 9 (on historical Jesus research), 10 (on Jesus’ suffering), 11 (on the concept of sacrifice), 12 (on salvation), 15 (a) and (b) on soteriology and religious plurality, and 17 (on liberation theology). Most of the other questions had several takers. The only questions that no one tackled were 4 (on historical context and doctrinal continuity), 13 (on Christus Victor in the modern world; but many candidates deployed the concept in responding to other questions), and 18 (apparently no candidate thought that the concept of heresy has any contribution to make to contemporary theology).

In relation to particular questions, the following observations may be helpful:

1) Some candidates took the extreme view, which to the examiners’ knowledge no Christian theologian has ever endorsed, that the practice of theology must be carried out in complete independence of the exercise of reason. This seemed somewhat paradoxical given that the same candidates used reason in advancing what they appeared to think was a theological position.

3 or) No candidate really addressed the question of the normativity of Councils.

7) It was uncommon to for there to be any discussion of the Bible in answering this question. The preferred strategy was to discuss the pros and cons of person language vs. the alternatives proposed by Barth and Rahner, but this left the discourse remote from any motivation in e.g., scripture or the economy of salvation. The best scripts did recognize this. Very few candidates, even in the Joint School, saw that there might be a logical problem lurking not far from the surface of this question, and those that did were not greatly exercised by it.

9) Most candidates conflated proving historical existence with proving ‘full humanity’.

10) Many answered this in terms of the question of divine passibility and theodicy: if God suffers, then the Son of God is not the object of child abuse. A substantial proportion of candidates attempted to avert the charge of child abuse by denying that it was God the Son who, in his divine nature, suffered; very few candidates thought that even if Jesus suffered in his humanity, this might be considered to be because he was obedient to the one he addressed as Father, and that his death might therefore be criticized along the lines presented in the question.

12) Tillich was a popular recourse in answering this question, but few candidates went into any depth about how his analysis of sin relates to the work of Jesus – which is what the question invited candidates to reflect upon.

15a and b) Depressingly few candidates noticed that these questions were not an invitation to rehearse the strengths and weaknesses of the standard typology, but rather to discuss Christian doctrines of salvation in relation to different aspects of the phenomena of religious plurality. Many candidates failed to see – though, to their credit, some did – that 15a might best be answered by

10

expounding a Christian soteriology in order to develop from it criteria for assessing the typology. A good number of candidates were clearly dissatisfied with the options presented by the typology.

16) Very few candidates saw language about God as being anything but plastic, or as owing its origins to anything other than immanent, social forces naturalistically construed. And, whilst it may be true that Christians are idolaters, they are not usually so crassly so as many of the responses to this question implied. No candidate thought it relevant to observe that the problem of ‘male’ language for God arises particularly acutely in English but less so in biblical languages.

17) It was rare to encounter a script offering a definition of ‘advanced capitalist society’, though some candidates recognized that the question was inviting them to consider liberation theology outside its generative political and economic context.

A few scripts gave the impression that the candidate already knew all the “answers” and that serious theological reflection is not required from Christians when slick but superficial handbook formulae will do. The standard of writing was often poorer than the marks awarded might imply, and simple spelling mistakes seem to be becoming more common – for example: ‘subjegate’, ‘surfuse’, ‘conceed’, ‘catastrophy’, ‘accute’, ‘persuing’, ‘cours’, ‘reparing’, ‘occurance’, ‘serpant’, ‘divicive’, ‘permiate’, ‘presedence’, ‘numinal’. (None of these examples have been drawn from scripts by candidates with Specific Learning Difficulties.)

6 NT & Christianity ESSAYS 7 1 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 0 60-69: 6 50-59: 1 <50: 0

Average: 62.9

7 Western Christianity 1050-1350 7 1 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 2 60-69: 5 50-59: 0 <50: 0

Average: 68.4

There was a high average mark of this paper in 2015 with all the candidates achieving a 2.1 or 1st class mark. However, the range of questions answered was not wide. In a few cases different candidates answered the same three questions as each other, leading both markers to question whether both the teaching and curriculum had led to candidates being able to answer a limited selection of questions. If candidates could be guaranteed that three topics would arise, they would be tempted to revise those three questions thoroughly. Thus, for next year, it is suggested that the paper, and the teaching, be more varied and have a less predictable set of questions.

11

8 Western Christianity 1500-1648 9 1 0 2

The single school: 70 and above: 2 60-69: 7 50-59: 0 <50: 0 Average: 67.0

The quality of the scripts was varied with some clear firsts but also some in the low sixties. A large proportion were of a good upper second standard. Those who achieved first-class results engaged with the questions set in order to provide a convincing argument by using both primary and secondary sources, analysing the historical facts and theology and demonstrating a depth and breadth of knowledge and insight. Those candidates who fell short of this exacting standard obtained good 2.1s except for those few who demonstrated little analytical depth and produced pre-prepared answers that were mainly descriptive. There was a good variation of questions answered across the board

9a Christian Life and Thought 1789-1921 3 0 0 1

9b Issues in Theology 1789 –1921 12 1 0 1

The single school: 70 and above: 4 60-69: 8 50-59: 0 <50: 0 Average: 68.3

Fourteen questions (out of 21) were attempted by at least one candidate. Questions not attempted were 2 (on Kierkegaard and the category of paradox), 5 (on Arnold and his definition of religion), 12 (on Otto’s understanding of the ‘holy’), 15 (on whether Hegel should be considered a Trinitarian theologian), 16 (on the influence of historical Jesus research), 18 (on whether theologians might find theological resources in Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity), and 19 (on the emergence and impact of Ultramontanism). Of the four set topics in section 1 of the examination, the three ‘Theology and Literature’ questions proved the most popular with candidates, with the Dostoevsky question drawing four responses, and the Eliot question and the Ibsen question each drawing three responses apiece. The ‘Religious Experience’ module was only slightly less popular on the whole; the Schleiermacher question attracted five candidates, and the James question three. The module on the study of the Bible proved less engaging on balance, with only one candidate electing to write on Schweitzer and none on Arnold, although the question on Strauss drew five responses. The ‘Faith and Reason’ module drew four responses, with the question on Coleridge and the question on Newman each drawing two responses. Among the section 2 questions addressing more general theological themes in the nineteenth century, question 21 (on the cross-currents of revivalism and secularisation) attracted four responses, question 13 (on the philosophy of Kant), question 14 (on the legacy of the Enlightenment), and question 17 (on ‘Darwin’s dangerous idea’) each drew three responses apiece, and question 20 (on the potential theological value of literary depictions of religious themes) just one. The quality of scripts was on balance high on this paper. A full third of the examinations were

12

marked as firsts (one a very high first, indeed), and among those that were marked at the upper-second level, more than 50% were in the upper half of that classification.

10 SpThs: Augustine 6 0 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 2 60-69: 4 50-59: 0 <50: 0

Average: 68.0

There were 6 candidates. All questions were answered at least once except 4 and 8. Questions 1a had 2 answers; 1b) 1; 1c) 3; 1d) 5; 1e) 5; 1f) 2; 2) 3; 3) 2; 5) 1; 6) 1; 7) 2; 9) 3.

The overall performance of candidates was strong, with all marks falling in the range of 65%-70% (with two at 70 and one at 69).

10 SpThs: Luther 1 0 0 0

10 SpThs: Calvin 5 0 0 0

10 SpThs: Bonhoeffer 8 0 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 3 60-69: 5 50-59: 0 <50: 0 Average: 67.8

The Bonhoeffer paper produced some very good scripts with the vast majority of results in the upper 2:1 category, and a pleasing number of firsts. Marks were evenly spread across the different sections and there was no drop in standard for the gobbet answers. Some of the responses were marked down for a lack of precision, as they offered general and sweeping overviews, but did not demonstrate knowledge of the individual texts, and the specific contours of their arguments. In the gobbet section, where a very specific piece of text is to be analysed, this becomes particularly noticeable. But it was also a feature of some of the other essays. Perhaps in contrast, essays that received higher marks demonstrated the ability to be specific, whilst also making good use of Bonhoeffer’s life, context, and wider work, to show the significance of the texts being discussed and aid their interpretation

10 SpThs: Kierkegaard 5 1 0 0

13

12 Christian Moral Reasoning 4 9 0 1

13 The Nature of Religion 17 5 0 1

The single school: 70 and above: 5 60-69: 11 50-59: 1 <50: 0

Average: 67.4

Seventeen finalists took this paper. Of these four obtained a first class mark and the rest upper second class (2.1). No student failed and no student received a mark below 60. Some questions on the paper were not attempted (2, 3, 12) and only one candidate tackled questions 1 (on Marx) and 8 (on defining religion). Most candidates answered question 4 (Freud), 5 (Durkheim) and 6 (Weber). Candidates generally favoured questions that were clearly focused on a particular thinker and avoided questions or a more abstract nature such as whether the science of religion is compatible with Theology. On the whole this was a satisfying performance from all candidates.

14 Rabbinic Judaism(Judaism I) 3 0 0 0

15 Judaism in History & Society (Judaism II) 3 0 0 1

16 Classical Period of Islam (Islam I) 8 3 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 2 60-69: 6 50-59: 0 49-40: 0 39-30: 0 Average: 67.88

Joint school (Philosophy): 70 and above: 0 60-69: 3 50-59: 0 49-40: 0

Average: 63.0

Eleven candidates attempted this paper, three of whom were from FHS Philosophy and Theology and the rest from FHS Theology. Seven questions (out of 12) were attempted by at least one candidate. Questions not attempted were numbers 2 (source criticism), 5 (Kalam on attributes), 6 (Muslim philosophers), 9 (al-Ghazali) and 12 (Islam and other religions), and there was a wide spread of responses for the other questions. Question 7 (Shi‘ism) was by far the most popular this year, whereas only one candidate answered question 4 (Hadith). Where candidates responded in an analytical and critical way to the questions, high marks were achieved. Results were encouraging: no candidates scored below 2.i, while two achieved first class marks.

17 Islam in the Modern World 6 1 0 0

14

(Islam II)

The single school: 70 and above: 3 60-69: 3 50-59: 0 49-40: 0 39-30: 0 Average: 68.2

All exam papers were of broadly high quality; students tacked a range of questions, though the disparity between lowest and highest marks was less pronounced than for Islam I. In only one case was there any major discrepancy between the two markers; this was resolved through careful discussion.

18 Early Buddhist Doctrine (Buddhism I) 5 0 0 1

19 Buddhism in History (Buddhism II) 5 0 0 0

20 Brahminism (Hinduism I) 1 0 1 0

21 Bhakti, Vernaculars (Hinduism II) 1 0 0 0

22 Old Testament I (ii) Apocalyptic 3 0 0 0

22 Old Testament I (ii) Prophecy 3 0 0 0

23 Old Testament II (i)Wisdom 6 0 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 3 60-69: 2 50-59: 1 <50: 0

Average: 66.3

Candidates answered a wide range of gobbets, although some of the later wisdom material and the Hebrew gobbets were avoided. The essays also covered a wide range, with candidates preferring questions relating to the set texts than those of a more general (and perhaps more challenging) nature. Most answers showed a real detailed engagement with the issues, both in the gobbets and the essays; those who performed less well had scripts which were just too generalised and superficial. But overall there were some impressive scripts.

15

23 Old Testament II (ii) Worship 1 0 0 0

24 Hebrew of OT 3 0 0 0

25 Archaeology in OT 4 0 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 1 60-69: 3 50-59: 0 49-40: 0 39-30: 0 Average: 67.80

There were two good papers, commendable because they actually used specific archaeological examples, engaging in an appropriate dialogue with the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible. Other papers were more disappointing; some missed the full scope of the question (e.g. ‘texts and artefacts’/ ‘scrolls and artefacts’, ‘eighth and seventh centuries’) and others failed to argue with enough information, offering only the most generalised illustrations both from archaeology and the Bible.

26 Religions & Mythology of ANE 2 1 0 0

27 Opt trs: Greek (NT) 5 1 1 0

28 Varieties of Judaism 4 0 0 0

29 Christian Liturgy 6 0 0 0

The single school: 70 and above: 3; 60 – 69: 3; 50 – 59: 0; <50: 0

Average mark: 70.16

One script was very good, both as regards content and presentation. Two were good, and three were satisfactory. Comments on gobbets varied, many showing good knowledge of the texts themselves and their context, others suggesting less confident familiarity with the one or the other, and consequently too brief. The essays also varied in quality. The best demonstrated a good knowledge of the subject and the ability to present a coherent argument. Others revealed a weaker grasp of the topic, and were less well presented.

 31 Church in Byzantine Empire 4 0 0 0

16

32 Science and Religion 5 1 0 5

33 Sociology of Religion 3 2 0 0

35 Psychology of Religion 4 1 0 0

36 English Church & Mission 597-754 2 0 0 0

Extended essay, optional DTOS 0

Extended essay, optional DPTH (Philosophy) 15

Extended essay, optional DPTH (Theology) 1

Extended essay, optional DPTH (Philosophy & Theology) 1

Extended essay, optional DTHE 16

The single school: 70 and above: 5 60-69: 7 50-59: 4 <50: 0

Average: 65.38

Professor Markus Bockmuehl (Chairman)

Dr Andrew Adam

Dr Jonathan Arnold

Dr Phil Booth

Professor Gavin Flood

Professor Susan Gillingham

Professor Joshua Hordern

Dr Andrew Moore

Dr Jenni Williams

Markus BockmuehlDATE

17