FINAL HONOUR SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY 2015
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
- 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 / 2015First / Female / 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.1 / Female / 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.2 / Female / 2
(66.7%) / 0 / 1
(100%) / 1
(50%) / 1
(100%) / 0
Male / 1
(33.3%) / 1
(100%) / 0 / 1
(50%) / 0 / 1
(100%)
Third / Female / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
(100%)
Male / 0 / 1
(100%) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
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 gender
First / 5 / 27.8 / 3 / 14.3
2.1 / 12 / 66.7 / 17 / 81.0
2.2 / 1 / 5.5 / 0 / -
Third / 0 / - / 1 / 4.8
Gender category: FEMALE
2010-2015 (135 candidates) / 2009-2014 (138 candidates)
Classification / by no. / % of gender / by no. / % of gender
First / 37 / 27.4 / 35 / 25.4
2.1 / 92 / 68.2 / 98 / 71.0
2.2 / 5 / 3.7 / 5 / 3.6
Third / 1 / 0.7 / 0 / -
Gender category: MALE
2014 (29 candidates) / 2015 (30candidates)
by no. / % of gender / by no. / % of gender
First / 12 / 41.4 / 11 / 36.7
2.1 / 17 / 58.6 / 18 / 60.0
2.2 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3.3
Third / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Gender category: MALE
2010-2015 (174 candidates) / 2010-2015 (183 candidates)
by no. / % of gender / by no. / % of gender
First / 55 / 31.6 / 47 / 25.7
2.1 / 114 / 65.5 / 129 / 70.5
2.2 / 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
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.
(v) Catherine of Alexandria Prize: Daniel Mullaney, Wycliffe Hall.
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 OliveraPetrovich, 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.
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 School / with Philosophy / with Oriental Studies / PGDip1 / God and Israel / 51 / 0 / 0 / 8
The single school: 70 and above: 1160-69: 3350-59: 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 / 9The single school: 70 and above: 860-69: 3450-59: 9<50: 0
Average: 63.9
The result for theexaminations 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.
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 / 4The single school: 70 and above: 460-69: 1250-59: 3<50: 0
Average: 64.1
4 / Development of Doctrine / 51 / 12 / 0 / 7The single school: 70 and above: 1160-69: 3450-59: 5<50: 1
Average: 65.65
There were 51 candidates. All questions except 15b, c, d, and e were attempted at least once.
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 / 2The single school: 70 and above: 660-69: 4350-59: 1<50: 1
Average: 66.0
This year’s examination paper was intended to challenge candidates to deployin 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.
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 systematictheology. 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 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 / 0The 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 / 0The 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.