Sunday 7 December 2003

Branflakes vs. Acadia

Round One - Fight!

The penultimate examination free-for-all begins tomorrow evening at 7:00. Enjoy the rush as Branflakes, in the blue corner, weighing in at just slightly too much to be really healthy, squares off against CREL 2213, Introduction to Biblical Studies, in the red corner. CREL 2213 weighs in at three months, many lectures, and a lengthy essay on 1 Corinthians 13. Come for the fight; stay for the reasonably priced concessions.

Updates to follow.


  1. Smart money is on CREL 2213.

  2. Nice essay! I hope Dr. Evans wasn't too hard on you for being late?

    You've been in the exam for 18 minutes now...round 1 has 42 minutes left. Keep in there!

  3. Why does it say that the comment was posted "AT" December 8, 2003? Shouldn't it be "ON" December 8?

  4. Yes, it should say that. Now it does. It should also have some parens somewhere, but I'll deal with those later.

    He said "Don't worry about it" when I let him know I handed it in to the office. Whether that means "Don't worry - you won't lose too much" or "don't worry - it's as much of a zero now as it was the instant after you were supposed to pass it in" is open to debate.

    Especially since he sent a student to supervise the exam. One would assume this is because he was teaching a class up the hill (which he does do at this time). It's still a bit disappointing though.

    I'll have to e-mail him tomorrow and ask.

    [Did you really like my paper? You found it's discussion coherent and useful?]

  5. I read your essay. interesting in spots. not sure why you had acknowledgments, is this a thesis or something?
    keep at it heh

  6. Yes Branflakes, I did like your paper. Really. I think it would make a nice homily, though of course there would have to be some changes since scholarly paper style doesn't quite work in the pulpit :)

    Yes, the acknowledgements confused me...not usually seen in an essay, but to each his/her own I suppose!

  7. Enough about the acknowledgements already.

    I was feeling a little punchy, so I added them in. That's why they were so tounge-in-cheek. ;-)

    Yes. It obviously isn't homiletic, but since I've got a good five years before I do that, I have nothing to worry about. Now all I have to do is pray that Dr. Evans likes it as much as you two do.

  8. i said it was interesting in spots. a paper is supposed to have a thesis, then evidence to support your thesis, and then a conclusion to tie up the evidence and wrap it up.

    you do not seem to have a strong thesis. well this guy says not to study this so i will. a thesis is supposed to tell the reader what the paper is on. yours sorta does this but it is awkward.

    your conclusion is very simplistic at best. is this the best you could do? well this letter of paul/saul is still relevant today? read your conclusion again brando and answer this, is there a better way to wrap your paper up? it seems you got to the necessary word count and then said ok im wrapping up.

    your evidence was merely re-saying what other people said about the letter. if i want to read about the letter of paul then i can just go read those books in the bibliography, why read yours? what do you think about the letter? you want to write a homily then understand what that is. the congregation want to know what YOU think not a bunch of old probably dead guys. it is you they are listening to not them.

    all this being said, i found it interesting in spots. it is a nice little analysis of what other people said about the letter. not too awful much originality there but there is some. and thats what i liked about it. markwise i would say this is between a C+ to B, somewhere in that range. it will depend on standards of the prof. so i say keep at it, practise makes perfect. i say this in the hope you take this as constructive criticism and because in the end your paper gives a favourable impression.

  9. I think that comment was unfairly harsh. This is especially true since you clearly have no idea what an exegesis is all about. "A paper is supposed to have a thesis". Well, no, it isn't necessarily. As for "relevance in today's world", that isn't necessarily part of an exegesis either. An exegesis is about explaining what a Biblical passage means, with respect to the context it was written, how the passage was written, what the passage addresses, etc. This can be an extremely complex process, and I think Branflakes explained the meaning of the passage quite well.

  10. I might also point out that Branflakes did not quote from "a bunch of old dead guys". Their names do look male, but most if not all are not dead. Nor are they necessarily old. Neither does an idea bring from an old dead person necessarily imply that the idea is a bad one.

    Also, any good sermon comes not out of a vacuum, but from considered reserch into the passage, its meaning, and current theological opinions on the matter, which includes reading material from "a bunch" of old and young men and women.

    I will agree that the conclusion needed polish.

  11. Good essay. What's with the acknowledgements?

    I think Brandon had a thesis (although it wasn't in the first paragraph and wasn't terribly arguable): "The chapter???s main topic is the importance of love in one???s spiritual life." He seemed to develop that throughout the paper anyway.

    The conclusion was kind of absent, but I think that this is a very good piece of writing... especially for someone who misplaces his keys every hour on the hour like a frigging moron.

    Yay for Brandon!

  12. It's not a homily. It wasn't written for a homiletics course. :-)

    I acknowledge, and have before, the utter mediocrity of my conclusion. As for giving of myself, that wasn't the point of this exercise. The point here was to give an academic evaluation of this text and its context.

    If I want to pour out my heart, believe me, I can do it, and do it well. I'll have to dig out some of my tear-wrenching tripe, and post it here.

    I do accept your criticism though. Thanks.