20
A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem Ramón Anthony Madrigal Florida College Abstract: Although the study of the Synoptic Problem has been the focus of scholarly attention for over two hundred years, the social learning theory known as Communities of Practice is a relatively recent phenomenon. This article describes a communities of practice approach to the study of the Synoptic Problem in an upper-division under- graduate course at a private, liberal arts college. Students with little or no prior knowledge of the Synoptic Problem were introduced to the salient issues of the Synoptic Problem as well as a theoretical framework in which to interpret them. Data were col- lected using a variety of mixed methods, including pre- and post-treatment tests, written survey questions, interviews, field notes, and focus group sessions. The results of this study suggest that a communities of practice approach can enhance students’ knowledge of the Synoptic Problem and also foster an awareness of scholarly and personal presup- positions that influence the interpretation of the gospels. One of the most fascinating and perplexing topics in the field of Biblical Studies is the Synoptic Problem (hereafter SP). The SP refers to the literary relationship between three of the gospels within the New Testament canon: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three documents describe the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth in much the same way, using the same general outline and much of the same verbal phraseology. While there are some generic similarities with the Fourth Gospel, there are significant differences of detail between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John (Sanders and Davies 1989; Dungan 1999; Madrigal 2002). For this reason, the study of the New Testament (hereaf- ter NT) gospels in general and the search for the historical Jesus has focused primarily on the detailed examination of the Synoptic Gospels. The SP essentially consists in identifying the verbal similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels – and explaining how these literary phenomena arose. The approach to and the resolution of the SP are critical in terms of the implications they have on issues such as inspiration and interpretation (Goodacre 2001; Eddy and Boyd 2007). Literature Review The SP has often been described in terms of superlatives. In his introductory textbook on the SP, for example, Goodacre suggests that the SP is “one of the most fascinating literary puzzles in world history” (2001, 30). Another erudite yet accessible introduction to the synoptic gospels (Sanders and Davies 1989) depicts the SP as one of the most difficult enigmas in the entire field of the humanities (vii). One can easily and quickly come to terms with the SP by opening any gospel synopsis, which prints the texts of the NT gospels in parallel columns. In this way, the careful student can scan over the three (or four) columns of text on the page and observe the precise verbal similarities and the ARTICLES © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Teaching Theology and Religion, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2012 125

A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

A Communities of Practice Approach to theSynoptic Problem

Ramón Anthony MadrigalFlorida College

Abstract: Although the study of the Synoptic Problem has been the focus of scholarlyattention for over two hundred years, the social learning theory known as Communitiesof Practice is a relatively recent phenomenon. This article describes a communitiesof practice approach to the study of the Synoptic Problem in an upper-division under-graduate course at a private, liberal arts college. Students with little or no priorknowledge of the Synoptic Problem were introduced to the salient issues of the SynopticProblem as well as a theoretical framework in which to interpret them. Data were col-lected using a variety of mixed methods, including pre- and post-treatment tests, writtensurvey questions, interviews, field notes, and focus group sessions. The results of thisstudy suggest that a communities of practice approach can enhance students’ knowledgeof the Synoptic Problem and also foster an awareness of scholarly and personal presup-positions that influence the interpretation of the gospels.

One of the most fascinating and perplexing topics in the field of Biblical Studies is theSynoptic Problem (hereafter SP). The SP refers to the literary relationship between threeof the gospels within the New Testament canon: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These threedocuments describe the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth in much the same way,using the same general outline and much of the same verbal phraseology. While thereare some generic similarities with the Fourth Gospel, there are significant differences ofdetail between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John (Sanders and Davies 1989;Dungan 1999; Madrigal 2002). For this reason, the study of the New Testament (hereaf-ter NT) gospels in general and the search for the historical Jesus has focused primarilyon the detailed examination of the Synoptic Gospels. The SP essentially consists inidentifying the verbal similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels – andexplaining how these literary phenomena arose. The approach to and the resolution ofthe SP are critical in terms of the implications they have on issues such as inspirationand interpretation (Goodacre 2001; Eddy and Boyd 2007).

Literature ReviewThe SP has often been described in terms of superlatives. In his introductory textbookon the SP, for example, Goodacre suggests that the SP is “one of the most fascinatingliterary puzzles in world history” (2001, 30). Another erudite yet accessible introductionto the synoptic gospels (Sanders and Davies 1989) depicts the SP as one of the mostdifficult enigmas in the entire field of the humanities (vii). One can easily and quicklycome to terms with the SP by opening any gospel synopsis, which prints the texts of theNT gospels in parallel columns. In this way, the careful student can scan over the three(or four) columns of text on the page and observe the precise verbal similarities and the

ARTICLES

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing LtdTeaching Theology and Religion, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2012 125

Page 2: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

subtle verbal differences between the gospels (Aland 1982). Two examples will serveto illustrate the issues that quickly arise in using this procedure of study. First, in oneaccount where Jesus sent his twelve disciples out on a mission, he commands hisdisciples to “take nothing for their journey except a staff” (Mark 6:8). The parallelaccounts in Matthew (10:10) and Luke (9:3) disagree with Mark, and plainly state thatJesus prohibited the disciples from taking a staff along on this journey. When one isconcerned about the historical accuracy of the gospel narratives, such a discrepancy canbe unsettling, at least at first glance. For yet another example, one might ask the ques-tion: When did Jairus’s daughter die? The account in Matthew reports that the girl hadalready died before Jairus approached Jesus for help (9:18), while the accounts in theother two synoptic gospels explicitly state that the girl died after Jairus had petitionedJesus (Mark 5:35//Luke 8:49). The endeavor to explain these literary relationshipsbetween the gospels is what the SP is all about.

Not only do all experts in the field agree that the SP is a fascinating and interestingscholarly conundrum, there is also a majority consensus among NT scholars as to howthe SP is to be solved. Crossan, for example, forcefully observes that a massive schol-arly opinion exists on the thesis that Mark was the first written gospel (among thecanonical four), and that Matthew and Luke used Mark in composing their own gospels(1995, 16). Crossan further notes that a majority of NT scholars agree that the othersource that both Matthew and Luke consulted in the composition of their gospels was anindependent source called Q – from the German word for source – Quelle (25). In otherwords, the significant verbal agreements between the gospels of Matthew and Luke arebest explained by the conception that Matthew and Luke used a common source (Q) butwere not familiar with each other. Most introductions to the NT and especially scholarlytreatments on the gospels adopt this Two-Source Theory or one of its variants as theirbasic point of departure (Barton 1998; Stein 2001; Ehrman 2008). Nevertheless, inrecent years there has been a resurgence of interest in alternative theories among NTscholars who are dissatisfied with this classical approach to the SP, and who questionthe efficacy of the hypothetical source Q (Dungan 1999; Goodacre 2001a; Goodacre2001b; Poirier 2004; Wood Jr. 2005; Eddy and Boyd 2007). For example, MarkGoodacre posts his top ten reasons for dispensing with Q on his website (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm). No doubt, the number one rationale for this proposal isthe fact that no manuscript evidence is extant for Q, despite the attention and energygiven to its scholarly reconstruction (Robinson, Kloppenborg et al. 2000).

Communities of PracticeDue to the obvious complexity of the issue, it is pedagogically expedient to approachthe topic from a certain theoretical or conceptual perspective (Maxwell 2005). This isespecially true in teaching the Synoptic Gospels in the undergraduate college classroom,giving due consideration to the salient issues surrounding the SP. One educationaltheory that has received significant attention over the last decade is called communitiesof practice (Wenger 1998; Wenger and Snyder 2000; Wenger, McDermott et al. 2002).This social learning theory suggests that people learn best by participating in worth-while tasks within a meaningful community. Members of the community meet regularlytogether to share a practice, an interest, an activity, or some type of craft. Group meet-ings can be actual (physical) or virtual (online). Knowledge is shared unselfishlywithin the group and ties between members are strengthened as participants in thecommunity work collaboratively, addressing tasks and solving problems over time

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd126

Page 3: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

(see www.hickstro.org/cccl/rdp/glossary). While they may begin their journey ofdiscovery and learning at the periphery or margins of the community, learners eventuallymove from peripheral participation to becoming fully involved in the activities of thecommunity.

In their groundbreaking monograph entitled Situated Learning, Lave and Wenger(1991) trace the learning trajectories of five distinct communities of practice and analyzethe learning patterns of each group. The concept of apprenticeship formed the basis oftheir empirical investigation, which included the examination of Yucatec midwives, Vaiand Gola tailors, naval quartermasters in the United States Navy, supermarket butchers,and nondrinking alcoholics. The obvious diversity of these five cases only serves tohighlight their similarities in demonstrating the characteristics of situated learning, mostprominently the idea that genuine learning occurs when participants engage in somemeaningful activity within an inclusive, social community (Lave and Wenger 1991;Madrigal 2007).

Seven years later, Wenger published a detailed description of the theory of situatedlearning, entitled Communities of Practice (1998). In this monograph, Wenger morefully explains the concept that learning begins with legitimate peripheral participationand subsequently moves to consistent and active engagement in a productive communityof practice. Wenger developed an initial inventory of four essential components thatcharacterize effective and efficient communities of practice. These elements aredescribed by the terms: community, identity, practice, and meaning (Wenger 1998, 5).As participants in a group (community) engage in regular or varied activities (practice),they develop knowledge not only about the significance of these activities (meaning),but also gain insight about themselves (identity).

On his research website (www.ewenger.com/theory), Wenger currently collapsesthese four elements into three key characteristics: domain, community, and practice(Wenger 2010). Essentially, the element currently labeled domain describes whatWenger previously referred to as identity and meaning. Although it is unclear whether ornot this change more clearly articulates the concept, his learning theory remains intact.Through consistent interactions and relationships, members of a community of practiceengage in activities that permit them to learn together. They are able to solve problems,seek information, use resources and experiences to discover and generate knowledge.In order for communities of practice to become productive, effective, and successful, alearning environment must be created in which the participants are encouraged to regu-larly interact and share knowledge. Communities of practice can be formal or informal,personal or virtual. Interactions online, for example, can be synchronous (as in chat ses-sions in real time) or asynchronous (email or bulletin board threads or blogging posts).

In the past ten years, a broad range of social-scientific studies have explored interest-ing and unusual communities of practice, including teachers and students of the Bible incongregational settings as well as in seminary contexts (Mercer 2005), network learnersin a business environment (Cousin and Deepwell 2005), information technology profes-sionals involved in English language teaching (Davison 2005), physicians dedicated tousing technology for professional development (Parboosingh 2002), medical profession-als in a Spanish-for-healthcare course (Bloom 2007), and even the learning paths oftwenty individuals devoted to the singular objective of becoming witches (Merriam,Courtenay et al. 2003). Yet another article considered the role of religion withinthe family community as this relates to the psychological development of children(Madrigal 2006). So, it occurred to this researcher that an empirical study employing

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 127

Page 4: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

this framework to explore the educational experience of undergraduate students enrolledin a course on the Synoptic Gospels would be a worthwhile endeavor. These studentswould become collaborators in an empirical research study that would document theirlearning experience as they grappled with one of the most challenging puzzles in bibli-cal criticism. Participants in this proposed study would interact in regular and consistentactivities that would encourage them to identify the salient issues of the SP and providea framework to discuss their investigation of the phenomena found in the gospels. Sucha study would also provide the participants with resources and tools that would permitthem to discover or generate some possible solutions to the SP, however tentative theymay be.

Research QuestionOne central research question guided each stage of this study, including the collection,analysis, and interpretation of data: What effect does a communities of practiceapproach to the Synoptic Problem have on the learning experience of upper-divisionundergraduate students? To state the question another way: Can a communities ofpractice approach to the study of the SP enhance learning?

MethodologyThis exploratory investigation of the dynamics of a situated learning approach to thestudy of the SP was essentially a qualitative research study. This type of naturalisticinquiry focuses on practical knowledge and experiential knowledge, not on deductive,statistical inferences (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Guba and Lincoln 2005). This empiricalresearch into the learning experience of undergraduate students exploring the puzzle ofthe SP endeavored to document and to describe these phenomena. Although severalmethods of data collection were used, including pre- and post-treatment measurements,the overall thrust of the project is best classified as qualitative in nature, rather thanquantitative. The reason for this is that the purpose of the study was not to makepredictive inferences, but to explore and describe a specific educational experiencethat occurred at a specific time in a particular context.

Although all social-scientific research projects have inherent limitations, one mustexercise special caution in studies that do not employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Since the research plan for this project was qualitative in nature,and not an experimental study with a control group, there were additional limitations.The quantitative research objective of generalizability was replaced by the correspond-ing objective of transferability, commonly employed in qualitative research projects(Lincoln and Guba 1985; Denzin and Lincoln 2005; Corbin and Strauss 2008).Therefore, the results of this empirical study must be used with care in other contexts.Broad, sweeping generalizations can rarely be made in ethical social-scientific research,especially in research investigations with a qualitative, phenomenological design.

ParticipantsEleven undergraduate students (six women and five men) enrolled in an upper-divisioncourse on the Synoptic Gospels during the 2008 fall semester were chosen to participatein this research investigation. Their names have been changed in this report, for pur-poses of confidentiality. Selection was made on the sole basis of enrollment in thecourse, which met for three contact hours per week, for fifteen weeks. All studentsenrolled in the course agreed to participate in the study and signed an informed consent

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd128

Page 5: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

form. This purposeful method of selecting participants is quite common in researchstudies employing qualitative methods as well as mixed-methods of social-scientificinquiry (Kemper, Stringfield et al. 2003; Newman, Ridenour et al. 2003). Participantconsent was all that was necessary to begin the research, since there is no institutionalreview board at the school where the study was conducted. Additionally, the instructorof the course was actively involved as a participant-investigator throughout theentire project. Scholarly and philosophical analyses and assessments of participant-investigation as well as qualitative research in general are abundant (Glaser and Strauss1967; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Denzin and Lincoln 2005; Corbin and Strauss 2008).

Data Collection and AnalysisData were collected using an assortment of mixed-methods: pre- and post-treatmenttests, written survey questions, interviews, field notes, and a focus group protocol.During the first day of class, the instructor administered a pre-test to all of the studentsenrolled in the course (n = 11), stating that the test would not be used in calculatingcourse grades. It was simply a tool to measure students’ current knowledge of thesubject matter, prior to being exposed to the activities of the course (see Appendix A).Toward the end of the semester, another written test was administered to measure thesame knowledge set. All discrete knowledge items from the pre-test were included inthe post-test in some varied format, including open-ended identification questions oressay prompts. Formal and informal interviews with students were conducted by theinstructor. Collaborative brainstorm sessions were documented in field notes. Interviewnotes and observational notes were recorded in the investigator’s field journal. A formalfocus group session was conducted in the thirteenth week of the semester, using afocus group protocol to initiate discussion (see Appendix B). This one-hour sessionwas audio-recorded and transcribed several days later. All data were analyzed by theconstant-comparative method of data reduction and analysis typically used in qualitativeresearch projects (Miles and Huberman 1994; Ritchie, Spencer et al. 2003; Corbin andStrauss 2008). Preliminary or emergent themes which arose in reading over transcrip-tions and field notes were recorded and subsequently revised when compared with addi-tional data and new insights on the data. In the case of the pre-test and post-test data,mathematical calculations were made to determine the level of new knowledge thatstudents had acquired over the course of the semester. So significant were these resultsthat a statistical t-test was determined to be unnecessary (see Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Tests

Codename Pre-Test Results Post-Test Results

Jeffrey 44.1 88.0Susan 58.8 91.0Saul 61.7 92.0Linda 58.8 87.0Maite 52.9 82.0Taylor 52.9 77.0J.R. 55.8 91.0Guy 47.0 82.0Alicia 52.9 68.0Roland 50.0 89.0Connie 29.4 92.0Class Average 51.3 85.3

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 129

Page 6: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Results

Pre-TestWithin the first ten minutes of the first class session, the instructor administered a pre-test consisting of eighteen questions (See Appendix A). All items on this pre-course testwere either multiple-choice items or true-false questions, with the exception of the firstitem. The first question prompted students to describe the SP in one or two sentences.One student, who will be here named Susan, responded to this question with an inter-rogative sentence: “Should all of the gospels be considered part of the New Testa-ment?” Another student responded with two sentences: “Matthew, Mark, Luke are verysimilar in their writings. People talk that this is too coincidental.” Several students indi-cated that they had an emergent sense of the essence of the SP by citing “conflictingresurrection accounts” (Linda), or “differing details throughout the gospels” (Maite),or “The books have much of the same stories, but some vary in details” (Guy). Despiteindications of an elementary grasp of the SP, ten out of the eleven students enrolledfailed the pre-test, with the highest raw percentage score being 61.7, amounting toD minus letter grade. The lowest score was 29.4% and the average for the entire class(n = 11) was 51.3%.

Post-TestDuring the tenth week of the semester, another written test was administered to the stu-dents. As indicated in the research methodology section above, all items on the pre-testwere included in this post-test, although the items were rewritten in a different format.Some discrete knowledge sets were tested by open-ended essay prompts, or identifica-tion items, which required students to generate information rather than simply make aselection or guess. It should be mentioned here that after the students completed theinitial pre-test, they did not have access to it again. The results of the post-test showedunequivocally that the experiences of the course were successful in promoting studentlearning. All eleven students passed this post-test, with the lowest score being a rawpercentage of 68. Two students tied for the top score on the post-test, with percentagegrades of 92. Remarkably, one of these top scores was achieved by the student with thelowest score on the pre-test (Connie). On average, all students had improved their scoresby 34 percentage points, with the post-test class average being 85.3%.

Pedagogical StrategiesSeveral instructional policies were employed during the course of study to create a senseof community among the students enrolled in this course. The instructor attempted toestablish a low-anxiety classroom environment, which would allow students to focuson their learning. Guidelines for participation in this community of practice (the class)were presented during the first week. The instructor stated that he was open to all ideas,opinions, and conclusions articulated by the students as they grappled with the SP.Moreover, he encouraged everyone to treat the opinions of others with respect – in anonjudgmental manner. Activities, tasks, and interactions performed during the fifteen-week course would be viewed as one extended brainstorm session. All serious opinions,questions, ideas, reflections, and arguments would be welcome. Before class, studentswere to record reflections on and reactions to their individual studies in a journal. Alter-natively, they could keep a running record of their thoughts and musings in the marginsof their main textbook – a synopsis of the NT gospels. These pedagogical strategies

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd130

Page 7: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

illustrate Wenger’s (2006) concepts of domain, community, and practice – as theywere employed in this upper-division undergraduate class on the synoptic gospels.

The first three weeks of the course focused on the central issues of the SP, as studentsbecame accustomed to the unique learning practices that would be used throughout thesemester. The main tool in this study was the English edition of Aland’s Synopsis of theFour Gospels (1982). Select passages – or pericopae – were assigned to be highlightedusing colored pencils. In this way, the verbal agreements between the gospels wouldbecome even more obvious, almost jumping off the page. While several different methodsof coloring synopses have been suggested over the years (Goodacre 2001, 33-35), theinstructor selected the classical method of coloring, as printed in the Synopticon (Farmer1969). Precise verbal agreements found in the triple-tradition (all three synoptics) werecolor-coded blue. Exact verbal agreements between the texts in Matthew and Luke –the double tradition – were colored red. Agreements between Matthew and Mark werecolored yellow, and agreements between Mark and Luke were colored green. While theinstructor checked students’ coloring assignments before every class session, this exercisesoon demonstrated that students were enthusiastic about this preliminary phase of study.Evidently, very few college courses require coloring in their books!

As in all communities of practice, participants not only worked independently, butcollaborated together in their activities. The synopsis served as a principle resource ortool as they coordinated their efforts to identify verbal similarities and differences in thegospels and to propose ways to address various problems or challenges that surfaced.In-class time was given for students to share the results of their investigations together,to discuss the discoveries that they had made during their individual studies, and tobrainstorm various ways to view the gospel narratives and possible solutions to anyproblems that arose. An attempt was made by the instructor to create a learning environ-ment that would encourage conversation and participation. During the first ten minutesof each class period, students interacted informally with each other, conversing abouttheir studies, sharing questions and proposing solutions. To encourage spontaneity anda relaxed, low-anxiety atmosphere, the instructor provided an assortment of chocolatetreats at the beginning of each class. Students would enter the classroom – sometimesten minutes early – select their chocolate, and interact with their classmates. Studentswere encouraged to write their annotations and assorted observations on the amplemargins of their synopses. Several students took pleasure in writing brief and sometimeshumorous responses in their classmates’ books. The instructor encouraged these behav-iors, and through the course of the semester all participants considered themselves to bea part of a unique club or community of scholars.

It was evident from the focus group transcription data that the provision of chocolatetreats enhanced a sense of community as students participated in the activities of thecourse:

J.R.: I think that it’s extremely important to note, for future reference, therelationship between chocolate and student participation . . .[student giggles ]Connie: But seriously, I think that this is true.[more giggles ]RM: This isn’t a dietary magazine, Connie.Connie: No, no, no, no. I’m not talking about the chocolate relationship. But,there is a book called the secret history by Donna something, it was on the

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 131

Page 8: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

best-sellers list, and it’s about these students that are obsessive about Latin, andthey have a teacher that, you know, that made the class into a kind of club, ratherthan a [formal] class, and I know that I’ve felt that way about some of my otherclasses, with my teachers, and I think that just having that there [the chocolate]is almost like walking around with a cup of coffee. And you know, which a lotof Bible study groups like to do, and that [the chocolate] was a really good wayto make the class more of a . . .J.R.: An intimate setting.Connie: More of a purposeful thing – like we would be here anyway [were thisnot a formal class].

As students contemplated the possible correlation between learning and the consumptionof chocolate, the instructor noted in his field notes that this idea might, in fact, be aworthy topic for a future research project.

During the initial weeks of study, the instructor introduced students to his simplifiedoutline on hermeneutics. This three-phase program of interpretation can be profitablyimplemented in the study of ancient texts in general, including the NT gospels in particu-lar. The first step toward understanding any piece of literature, especially ancient texts, issimple observation: What do these texts say? The exercise in synopsis-coloring is a sys-tematic procedure of discovering the details of the gospel texts. Moreover, in the instruc-tor’s estimation, this level of understanding was one of the key objectives of the course.The next phase of analysis was categorized as contextualization: What did these textsmean to their original audiences? This area of investigation included such issues asauthorship, date, provenance, original language, and so forth. The contexts of history andgeography, social-cultural considerations, and Koine Greek linguistics must be exploredto determine the meanings that would be assigned to these gospels by the early Christiancommunities who first read them. Internal considerations in the double-tradition, forexample, reveal that Matthew was concerned about addressing the needs of a predomi-nantly Jewish audience. Students observed several similarities between Moses and Jesus,such as how both escaped danger in infancy (Exodus 1, cf. Matthew 2) and how bothfigures came to be associated with a mountain (Exodus 10:20, cf. Matthew 5-7). Suchdetails would appeal to a Jewish audience, which may provide insight into the originalaudience of Matthew’s gospel. On the other hand, Luke was focused on meeting theexpectations of a predominantly Gentile audience, as indicated in several passages,including his preface (1:1-4) and his account of the good Samaritan (10:25-37).

The final phase of analysis was labeled application. This level of reflection, ofcourse, is more distant from the original authors and readers of the gospels and isfocused on the relevance of these ancient texts for readers today. The field of reader-response criticism is an example of an academic discipline that has developed in recentyears to explore precisely this issue (Tompkins 1980; Moore 1989). While studentswere often concerned about matters of application, the instructor encouraged students topatiently expedite the first two levels of analysis – observation and contextualization –before jumping prematurely to the final step of application.

Additionally, students were exposed to a general review of the historical-criticalmethod and to a consideration of presuppositions that are either implicitly or explicitlystated in scholarly discussions on the gospels. This examination of scholarly assump-tions proved to be especially helpful to the students in this particular academic commu-nity of practice. Florida College enrolls approximately five hundred and fifty students

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd132

Page 9: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

annually from over thirty-five states and six foreign countries. Most of these studentsconsider themselves to be Christians, and come from theologically conservative back-grounds. Responses to survey questions revealed that all students enrolled in the coursebelieve the Bible to be inspired by God. Eight of the eleven students indicated that theyalso believe the documents of the Bible to be inerrant. Three students were uncertain ordoubtful on the issue of inerrancy, citing textual variants in the Greek manuscripts ofthe NT. As per Wenger’s theory of learning, participants assign meaning to their regulartasks and activities within the context of an inclusive, receptive social community. Afocus on the issue of presuppositions provided students with a framework in whichto examine and evaluate not only the phenomena encountered in the gospels – asevidenced through synopsis-coloring – but also to engage profitably with the assignedreadings in the secondary literature. This pivotal issue in hermeneutical procedure wasexplored in a seminal yet often overlooked essay by Rudolf Bultmann, perhaps themost influential theologian of the twentieth-century (1990). According to Bultmann,the best procedure to use in critical biblical scholarship is to dismiss all prejudices andpresuppositions, with one exception: “the one presupposition that cannot be dismissedis the historical method [his emphasis] of interrogating the text. Indeed, exegesis as theinterpretation of historical texts is a part of the science of history” (243). Students notonly were exposed to readings by Bultmann, but also to scholarly rebuttals to thisapproach to hermeneutics (Carroll 1998; Madrigal 1999; Barr 2000; Smith andHodkinson 2005).

A sampling of classical and contemporary scholarly literature on the gospels ingeneral and the SP in particular demonstrated the inherent presence of presuppositionsthat could be classified as either implicitly or explicitly promoting the philosophy ofnaturalism (Streeter 1925; Dodd 1938; Taylor 1960; Streeter 1964; Crossan 1991;Crossan 1995). For instance, in his discussion of the enterprise of biblical criticism ingeneral, Dodd maintained that the serious study of the Bible must be conducted onhistorical and scientific principles (1938, 20). Likewise, in his seminal study on thegospels, Streeter compared the scholarly study of the NT gospels, including the attemptto trace sources within the written gospels, to the scientific study of geology. Both disci-plines rely on the careful observation of existing phenomena, and generate hypothesesthat best account for all of the available data (1925, 23). Moreover, one of the early pio-neers of form-criticism, writing during the first third of the twentieth century, suggestedthat the critical investigation of the formation of the NT gospels must be conducted ina scientific manner, “although it cannot have the precision possible when things aremeasured, weighed, and treated in test-tubes” (Taylor 1960, 3). More recently, theco-founder of the Jesus Seminar takes a similar approach in his examination of the lifeof Jesus of Nazareth (Crossan 1995, 38).

In congruence with Wenger’s (1998) principles of learning, the participants in thiscommunity of practice found the examination of scholarly presuppositions helpful inaddressing the problematic and complex issues involved in the study of the gospels.Students also became aware of their own assumptions as they reflected upon the biblicaltexts. Students shared the results of their studies through class presentations of summa-ries found in standard introductions to the New Testament, citations from the AnchorBible Dictionary, and most especially their own observational notes in the margins oftheir synopses. Wenger (1998) maintains that one critical characteristic of thriving com-munities of practice is the consistent sharing of a repertoire of resources and informa-tion, especially if that sharing results in problem solving. The researcher noted in his

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 133

Page 10: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

field journal that these interactions between students increased through the course of thesemester, and also included many discussions and interactions outside of the immediateclassroom.

Notice for example, the following exchange from the focus group transcription data.The context of the discussion was the issue of the influence of presuppositions on theinterpretation of the Bible, most especially upon the issues that occur in the systematicstudy of the SP:

Jeffrey: I think that everybody wants to be right, and they want to think that. Imean, if you haven’t thought about that or the creation of the universe, then youare either really ignorant or worse. I mean, you have got to have an opinion. Evenif you say you don’t, you still do.Guy: Well, I think that there can be a person who, I mean, who has never studiedthis before. And they legitimately have questions about what’s going on here [inthe gospels]. They would, I mean most people would approach this subject withsome thoughts, with their background and their bias and so forth. Some people tryto look at this from both sides. But there are some exceptions where they havenever studied this before, they have never studied the Bible before, and . . .Linda: They still bring to the table a particular worldview, a particular set ofbeliefs. They already have! The way that they view the world, that’s going toaffect the way that they view the [synoptic] problem, no matter what.Guy: Right, but I mean if they’re coming legitimately to learn, and they’rereading this [the gospels] and saying I want to know this, I want to understandthis, you know, can you explain it to me? I know that they do have their back-grounds, but they want to learn.Linda: But even their wanting to learn is a bias, if you think about it that way.The fact that they’re saying I want to learn the Scripture with an open mind, that’sa bias. As opposed to, I would rather learn it in another way, or I don’t care aboutit, or you know, something like that.Guy: Right.[Collective sigh and laughter ]Guy: I mean, I guess I was coming from the idea that somebody has never reallystudied this before.J.R.: I think that rather than trying not to have a bias, it is better to look at your-self and recognize what biases you may have, and be able to judge the materialthat you are studying with your own bias in view, and I mean, not necessarilythrough the lens of your bias, but to be able to recognize how your bias mayaffect your own outcome, your own views in whatever you’re studying. And Ithink that’s why it is important for us. I mean, we have this conservative bias,obviously, and so it is important for us to look at people who have a more liberalbias, just to see where they are coming from, and to see whatever material theymay have, might, in fact, be correct. I mean, just because we are conservativedoes not mean that we are always right.[More collective laughter ]

The above conversational exchange demonstrates more than an emergent awareness ofthe value of analyzing assumptions and presuppositions while engaged in a scholarlystudy the gospels. The dialogue demonstrates that a communities-of-practice approachto the study of the SP most definitely promoted awareness about presuppositions

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd134

Page 11: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

underlying the careful examination of the NT gospels. For yet another example, in thefifteenth week of the semester, Roland, a senior majoring in Liberal Studies, submittedthe following paragraph in a research paper which examined Jesus’s beatitudes asrecorded in the double-tradition (Matthew and Luke):

An important factor to consider when first studying the synoptic gospels is themanner in which one views the gospels. For example, if one were to hold ontothe assumption that the gospels were not absolutely inspired by God and were notnecessarily entirely true, then one would be very inclined to pronounce the entireBible as false after stumbling upon one alleged discrepancy, without giving anyadditional thought as to how the discrepancy might be resolved. On the otherhand, if one holds to the assumption that the Bible, including the gospels, isentirely true in what it says, then one would be more diligent in examining allegeddiscrepancies of problems that may appear at times. They would take the time tolook at the problem and explore various options as to how to reconcile a discrep-ancy or propose a plausible solution. The initial assumption of whether what thegospel claims is true or not, makes the largest difference in how one will answerthe questions concerning the synoptic problem.

A Synoptic ToolboxThroughout the semester, the instructor and students discussed the critical issues thatinevitably arise in the detailed study of the gospels. In-class brainstorming sessionsrevealed that most – if not all – solutions to questions about the historical accuracy andinternal consistency of the gospel accounts could be boiled down to three types: harmo-nization, multiple-events, and insufficient knowledge. Participants soon labeled thesethree solutions the “Synoptic Toolbox.” A cursory review of the relevant literaturerevealed similar findings (Gundry 1984; Stein 1984; Linnemann 1992; Blomberg 1997;Witherington III 2009). Gundry, for example, observes that theologically conservativescholars typically resort to one of two approaches. They either admit insufficient knowl-edge or suggest a plausible, if not probable solution to internal contradictions betweenthe gospel accounts: “We can propose a solution that theoretically or technically ispossible, but is something less than a natural or obvious meaning we would assign thepassage were it not for the existence of an apparently discrepant parallel. The otherapproach is to suspend judgment and speak of it as an apparent discrepancy incapableof natural resolution at this time” (1984, 243).

Examples of specific issues that arose in the detailed examination of specific textsillustrate how these proposed solutions were implemented. One must keep in mind thatin many scholarly circles, the focus on discrepancies between the gospels is not a vitalconcern. However, in this particular community of practice, where a majority ofparticipants consider the documents of the NT to be inspired by God and historicallytrustworthy, the resolution of apparent discrepancies was an important objective. In acomparison of the chronological discrepancy between the Fourth Gospel and the synop-tic gospels in passages describing Jesus’s cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem, twoprincipal solutions emerged. First, a proposal of two cleansings of the Temple resolvesthis apparent discrepancy, although students recognized that no single gospel reportsthat there were two separate cleansings, one at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry (John)and one at the end of Jesus ministry (Synoptics). This is a plausible if not probableapologetic reconstruction of the narratives in the NT gospels. Secondly, upon further

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 135

Page 12: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

reflection, some students were uncertain about two cleansings, suggesting that thepurpose of the gospels was not to record an exhaustive account of the precise historicalsequence of events in the life of Jesus, but rather to emphasize certain theological truths(John 20:30-31; cf. Witherington III 2009, xv, xvi). An entry from the researcher’s fieldjournal noted: “After an extended class discussion, a majority of the group shared theopinion that this second solution seemed more likely than the proposal of two separatecleansings of the Temple.”

The methods of harmonization and insufficient knowledge were seen to be the bestways to resolve other problematic discrepancies, which could not be explained byproposing multiple events. For example, while it may be possible to conceive of twocleansings of the Temple, there most definitely were not two crucifixions of Jesus or tworesurrections of the daughter of Jairus. In these cases, attempts at harmonization werepreferred, or if suggested harmonizations ultimately proved unacceptable, the admissionof insufficient knowledge was made, albeit reluctantly. Perhaps more data or futurescholarly insights will shed more light on the issue at hand. The alternative, of course,would be to conclude that the NT gospels exhibit genuine discrepancies that cannot beresolved or harmonized. This is precisely the conclusion that the participants in thiscommunity of practice were not willing to seriously entertain. While all the participantsagreed that the Synoptic Toolbox – employing the tools of harmonization, proposalsof multiple events, or the admission of insufficient knowledge – was imperfect, it wasnevertheless a useful and practical conception that could be used in addressing most ofthe problems that surfaced during the course of study.

Enhanced LearningSince students identified themselves as part of an active community attempting toaddress a complex issue, their discussions and collaborations together providedresources and experiences that resulted in creative “solutions” to the SP, such as theSynoptic Toolbox. Moreover, this situated learning approach most definitely enhancedthe learning experience of these undergraduate students, as determined by the pre- andpost-test results. Opinions expressed during interview sessions and during the focusgroup session confirm this conclusion. Additionally, post-course student evaluationsdemonstrated unequivocally that students enjoyed the course and the instructional deliv-ery methods employed during the semester, including the theoretical framework thatguided the activities of the course. Florida College uses a detailed online survey instru-ment of forty-two items, soliciting student opinions regarding discrete aspects of coursedelivery as well as holistic measures of the course and instructor in general. The overallaverage of all items on these student evaluations was 4.8 on a 5 point scale (with alleleven students responding). The evaluation instrument also allows room for studentsto write open-ended comments. All comments were highly positive in describing thelearning experience to be enjoyable, productive, and instructive.

While a communities of practice approach to the SP attempts to grapple withcomplex and difficult intellectual issues that arise, it also respects the personal convic-tions of the participants in the community. This is especially important when studentsare exploring the phenomena of the NT gospels critically for the first time. In the intel-lectual contexts of multiculturalism, post-colonialism, postmodernism, and critical peda-gogy (Trelstad 2008), it is appropriate and timely to examine the learning experiences oftheologically conservative students exploring the complex phenomena of the SP in anindependent school. Such an approach consciously respects the religious beliefs of

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd136

Page 13: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

undergraduate students and seeks to establish and develop a learning environment thatis nonthreatening and nonjudgmental. Additionally, a communities of practice approachto learning also provides ample opportunities for formal and informal interactionsbetween the members of the community. In this case, a communities of practiceapproach also focused on a clearly defined goal (seek solutions to the SP), andpromoted a meta-cognitive awareness of personal and scholarly presuppositions thatwere and are involved in the study of the gospels. Participants, including the instructorof the course, acknowledged that this approach is not the only way to investigate theNT gospels.

The perspectives and insights of this research suggest that this approach could beused profitably in many areas of teaching and learning, especially if the four elementsdescribed above are present (nonthreatening environment, ample opportunities to inter-act, clearly defined goal, and meta-cognitive awareness). Not surprisingly, these fourcharacteristics (see Table 2) can be classified easily into Wenger’s three elements ofcommunities of practice theory: domain, community, and practice (2006).

Some possible studies for future research include a communities of practice approachto other challenging topics in religion and theology, such as the study of the source-criticism of the Pentateuch. The exploration of these complex phenomena of the HebrewBible is analogous to the challenge of the SP. Such an approach might reveal alternativemethods of reading the Pentateuch, especially from a framework that prefers to focus onthe present canonical shape of the text, rather than speculate about the possible sourcesthat may have been involved in its composition. Similar studies could be undertakenexploring other specific genres or passages in the Bible, such as the wisdom literature ofthe Jewish sapiential tradition, or the phenomena of prophecy in ancient Israel. Alterna-tively, one could take a communities of practice approach to selected texts in the Qu’ranor perhaps selected texts in the Book of Mormon, or even explore the learning experi-ence of undergraduate students as they examine the broader area of world religions. Asnoted above, yet another interesting study might explore creative ways in which teachersmay reduce anxiety levels in their classrooms, such as the moderate consumption of

Table 2: Pedagogical Strategies Implemented

Wenger’s (2010)Three Elements

Pedagogical Strategies Used inthis Course on the Gospels

Examples of Pedagogical Strategies

Domain Create a low-anxiety learningenvironment

1. Instructor was not judgmental to students and open to allstudent opinions. He requested all students to treat eachother’s opinions with respect.

Encourage students to reflect ontheir own assumptions andpresuppositions

2. An informal learning atmosphere was created, including theprovision of quality chocolate treats for students to enjoyduring the first ten-minutes of each class period.

3. Instructor encouraged students to reflect upon their ownassumptions as they approached the SP (meta-cognition).

4. Students also identified the presuppositions of NT scholars.Community Provide ample opportunities for

interaction in-class; encourageinteractions outside of class

5. In-class brainstorm sessions6. Shared results of synopses-coloring and marginal

annotations.7. Informal discussions/conversations outside of class were

encouraged and were realized.Practice Focus activities on a clearly

defined goal8. Exploration of the detailed phenomena of the Synoptic

Gospels.9. Generation of possible solutions to the SP.

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 137

Page 14: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

chocolate treats. Indeed, the potential field of studies employing a communities ofpractice approach is truly “white unto harvest.”

ConclusionThe purpose of this empirical research study was to examine the educational experienceof upper-division undergraduate students enrolled in an academic course on the SynopticGospels. The investigation was guided by the following research question: What effectdoes a communities of practice approach to the Synoptic Problem have on the learningexperience of upper-division undergraduate students? Or stated alternatively: Can acommunities of practice approach to the study of the SP enhance learning? The resultsof the study strongly suggest that a communities of practice approach to the study of theSynoptic Gospels had a positive effect on the learning experience of the upper-divisionundergraduate students involved in this project. Nevertheless, readers must use theresults of this case study carefully, recognizing the limitations of social-scientificresearch in general, and qualitative research in particular. While the results of thisempirical research study may not be widely generalized, some aspects of the studymight be transferable to similar contexts, where similar participants employ similarprocedures. The research design and instructional methodology of this course provideda theoretical framework for students to examine the synoptic gospels and a practicalframework to evaluate their own learning experience. Furthermore, this research alsosuggests that effective communities of practice sometimes emerge from dynamiccommunities of faith.

Bibliography

Barr, J. 2000. History and ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the end ofa millenium. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Barton, J., Ed. 1998. The Cambridge companion to Biblical interpretation. Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Blomberg, C. 1997. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman.

Bloom, M. 2007. “Tensions in a non-traditional Spanish classroom.” Language TeachingResearch 111: 85–102.

Bultmann, R. 1990. Is exegesis without presuppositions possible? The hermeneuticsreader. Edited by K. Mueller-Vollmer. New York, N.Y.: Continuum.

Carroll, R. P. 1998. “Poststructuralist approaches: New historicism and postmodernism.”The Cambridge companion to Biblical interpretation, ed. J. Barton, 50–66.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles, Calif.:Sage.

Cousin, G., and F. Deepwell. 2005. “Designs for network learning: A communities ofpractice perspective.” Studies in Higher Education 301: 57–66.

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd138

Page 15: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Crossan, J. D. 1991. The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant.San Francisco, Calif.: Harper Collins.

Crossan, J. D. 1995. Who killed Jesus?: Exposing the roots of anti-Semitism in thegospel story of the death of Jesus. San Francisco, Calif.: Harper Collins.

Davison, C. 2005. “The standards solution: The role of standards in developing ITprofessional competencies and communities of practice in English language teach-ing.” Information technology and innovation in language education, ed. C. Davison,255–283. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. 2005. Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. “Introduction: The discipline and practice ofqualitative research.” The Sage handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzinand Y. S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Dodd, C. H. 1938. The authority of the Bible. London, U.K.: Nisbet & Co. Ltd.

Dungan, D. L. 1999. A history of the synoptic problem: The canon, the text, thecomposition, and the interpretation of the gospels. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Eddy, P. R., and G. A. Boyd. 2007. The Jesus legend: A case for the historical reliabil-ity of the Synoptic Jesus tradition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Ehrman, B. D. 2008. A brief introduction to the New Testament. New York, N.Y.:Oxford University Press.

Farmer, W. R. 1969. Synopticon: The verbal agreement between the Greek texts ofMatthew, Mark and Luke contextually exhibited. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies forqualitative research. New York, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruter.

Goodacre, M. 2001a. The case against Q. Philadelphia, Pa.: Trinity Press International.

Goodacre, M. 2001b. The synoptic problem: A way through the maze. London, U.K.:Sheffield Academic Press.

Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, andemerging confluences.” The Sage handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzinand Y. S. Lincoln, 191–215. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Gundry, S. N. 1984. “Evangelical theology: Where should we be going?”Evangelicals and inerrancy, ed. R. Youngblood, 240–252. Nashville, Tenn.:Thomas Nelson.

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 139

Page 16: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Kemper, E. A., S. Stringfield, et al. 2003. “Mixed methods sampling strategies in socialscience research. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, ed.A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 273–296. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Linnemann, E. 1992. Is there a synoptic problem? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Madrigal, R. A. 1999. “Faith and reason.” A place to stand, ed. F. Jenkins, 160–180.Temple Terrace, Fl.: Florida College Press.

Madrigal, R. A. 2002. “John among the synoptic gospels.” God so loved: Studiesin the Gospel of John, ed. D. W. Petty, 1–25. Temple Terrace, Fl.: Florida CollegePress.

Madrigal, R. A. 2006. “Religion.” Encyclopedia of human development, ed.N. J. Salkind, 3: 1074–1075. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Madrigal, R. A. 2007. “Latin teacher cognition in technology-rich communities ofpractice.” Annual Convention of the American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages. San Antonio, Tex.

Maxwell, J. A. 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage.

Mercer, J. A. 2005. “Teaching the Bible in congregations: A congregational studiespedagogy for contextual education.” Religious Education 1003: 280–295.

Merriam, S. B., B. Courtenay, et al. 2003. “On becoming a witch: Learning in a margin-alized community of practice.” Adult Education Quarterly 533: 170–188.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook ofnew methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Moore, S. 1989. Literary criticism and the Gospels: The theoretical challenge. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Newman, I., C. S. Ridenour, et al. 2003. “A typology of research purposes and itsrelationship to mixed methods.” Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioralresearch, ed. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 167–188. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage.

Parboosingh, J. T. 2002. “Physician communities of practice: Where learning and prac-tice are inseparable.” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions224: 230–236.

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd140

Page 17: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Poirier, J. C. 2004. “Memory, written sources, and the synoptic problem: A response toRobert K. McIver and Marie Carroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 1232: 315–322.

Ritchie, J., L. Spencer, et al. 2003. “Carrying out qualitative analysis.” Qualitativeresearch practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, ed. J. Ritchieand J. Lewis, 219–262. London, U.K.: Sage.

Robinson, J. M., J. S. Kloppenborg, et al., eds. 2000. The critical edition of Q. Minne-apolis, Minn.: Fortress.

Sanders, E. P., and M. Davies. 1989. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia, Pa.:Trinity Press.

Smith, J. K., and P. Hodkinson 2005. “Relativism, criteria, and politics.” The Sage hand-book of qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 915–932. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage.

Stein, R. H. 1984. Difficult passages in the gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Stein, R. H. 2001. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Streeter, B. H. 1925. The four gospels: A study of origins. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan.

Streeter, B. H. 1964. The four gospels: A study of origins. London, U.K.: Macmillan.

Taylor, V. 1960. The formation of the gospel tradition. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan.

Tompkins, J., ed. 1980. Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Trelstad, Marit. 2008. “The Ethics of Effective Teaching: Challenges from the ReligiousRight and Critical Pedagogy.” Teaching Theology & Religion 114: 191–202.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. 2006. “Communities of practice.” http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ (accessedNovember 15, 2010).

Wenger, E., R. A. McDermott, et al. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice: A guideto managing knowledge. New York, N.Y.: Client Distribution Services.

Wenger, E., and W. M. Snyder. 2000. “Communities of practice: The organizationalfrontier.” Harvard Business Review 781: 139–145.

Witherington III, B. 2009. The living word of God. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press.

Wood Jr., J. H. 2005. “The New Testament gospels and the Gospel of Thomas: A newdirection.” New Testament Studies 51: 579–595.

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 141

Page 18: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

Appendix A: REL 3249 Pre-Test

You will NOT be graded on this test. The sole purpose of this test is to determine yourknowledge of the subject as you begin this course of studies. Question # 18 will not betabulated since it is an opinion.

1. In one or two sentences, describe the synoptic problem:

2. In New Testament studies, the abbreviation Q is a common reference to Qumran,where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.a. Trueb. False

3. The term canon refers toa. Inspired menb. Books accepted as scripture by a community of faithc. Textual variants found in ancient manuscriptsd. None of the above

4. Jesus’s parables are NOT found ina. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

5. The narrative about the prodigal son is found in:a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

6. The birth narratives of Jesus are found in which Bible books (circle all thatapply):a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

7. The double tradition refers to significant verbal agreements between:a. Matthew and Markb. Mark and Lukec. Luke and Matthewd. None of the above

8. There are significant textual variants at the end of the gospel of Mark:a. Trueb. False

9. Which book is addressed to a predominantly Jewish audience?a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd142

Page 19: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

10. There is wide scholarly consensus on a proposed solution to the synopticproblem:a. Trueb. False

11. This writer of antiquity published what is considered to be the first harmony ofthe gospels:a. Josephusb. Suetoniusc. Tatiand. Tacitus

12. Most New Testament scholars believe that the first gospel to be written was:a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

13. The miracle of Jesus changing water into wine is found in which gospel? (circleall that apply):a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. John

14. The Gospel of Thomas is an ancient book about Jesus written in the Copticlanguage:a. Trueb. False

15. The Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars that can be classified as theological andphilosophicala. Liberalsb. Moderatesc. Conservatives

16. This scholar published the first synopsis of the gospels:a. J. J. Griesbachb. B. H. Streeterc. J. D. Crossand. A. Farrar

17. The gospel of Matthew was originally written in:a. Hebrewb. Aramaicc. Greek

18. Do you think that the Bible is an inspired book? Yes – No Is the Bible inerrant?Yes – No

Appendix B: Focus Group Questions on our Synoptic Studies

These questions will be used to spark discussion on the salient issues that emergedduring this course. Other questions will likely arise, and you are welcome to add otherquestions for us to consider.

A Communities of Practice Approach

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 143

Page 20: A Communities of Practice Approach to the Synoptic Problem

1. Discuss one or two of the most important things that emerged from your experi-ence in this course.

2. On a scale from one to ten, how much has your knowledge of this subject grownduring this course?

3. Do you plan to continue studying this subject?4. Was there a question or an issue that emerged during this course that concerns

you?5. Do you think that anyone approaches this subject without any bias or presupposi-

tions?6. Did the approach or conceptual framework we used this semester help you grapple

with the problems that surfaced in this course?7. Discuss anything else that relates to your experience in this course that you feel

strongly about.

Madrigal

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd144