The exam was in June 1987 and my fragile memory suggests it was at an examination centre in Redcliffe.

In two hours we had to pick four topics out of fourteen and I wrote on covenant traditions, prophetic vocation, apocalyptic literature and the reform of Josiah.

I got a passing grade only, despite my notes suggesting I did get a fair bit of work done in between exhaustion, etc. That semester I also learnt to do an appendicectomy, pin fractured hips and coagulate bladder tumours amongst other things. Thankfully, I became neither a surgeon nor an Old Testament scholar but I don’t think it hurts to have dabbled.

The second assignment for RE100 in 1987 was:

Discuss the problems associated with identifying the original words of the prophet Amos and the social situation in which the words were originally spoken.

Amos

The marker did not like this at all. Instead of being criticised for not putting my own ideas I was told my ideas were lousy and poorly argued and got a bare passing grade.

He may have had a point.

Incidentally my suggestion of linked Wisdom and Prophecy traditions turned up years later in my dissertation on the Gawain poet.

I just recalled that because I was living out of Brisbane (just) at Redcliffe, I could continue as an external student. Later in 1987 we moved to Daisy Hill in Logan City and so was still outside the Brisbane area.  I could continue as an external student but still have access to the Brisbane libraries. Sweet.

The first assignment for RE100 was due in early April and somehow I got it done. Irritatingly there was a third different style for referencing in three semesters. In retyping the assignment I have replaced endnotes with footnotes and adapted the style of referencing somewhat. I also corrected rather more typos than I had anticipated suggesting my proofreading was done while sleeping off a late night in Casualty.

Scholars have generally been concerned with identifying the literary sources that they see underlying the Pentateuch in its final form and with the interpretation of these underlying sources. Focussing your discussion on Genesis, write an essay in which you discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach.

Pentateuch

Conrad’s marking was scanty and his comments to the point:

A well constructed and presented summary of the material. You should work on introducing more of your own thoughts and critical evaluation of the material as well. 4/5

That does not mean 4 out of 5, rather a score of 4 to 5 in a scale of 7. The problem with that was that I doubt I had any original thoughts on the matter at all.  Rereading the essay I am impressed by a well structured but completely derivative argument, which I would fully expect from a first go at a religion subject.

Having studied an English and a Government subject I had a go a religion. It was not a startling success but it certainly let me know how ignorant I was. In 1987, we moved to Redcliffe for my fourth year in the hospital system. For the first six months of the year I was a spare parts surgical registrar doing general surgery, urology and orthopaedics, as well as being on call for the accident and emergency. The ward work I could get away with, but I was seriously out of my depth in emergency work and practical surgery. I recall being seriously exhausted and if I was called out through the night I would be zombie for some considerable time. Our first child was only a few months old and while a good baby still involved disrupted nights.

So it made no sense to continue studying that year, but attempt it I did.  The course was run by Dr Edgar W. Conrad, now Associate Professor. As an external student I never met my lecturer and imagined him a crusty old man. This was completely incorrect as I find him to be still active at UQ to this day and to have had a stellar career with many books and articles and even a Festschrift in his honour in the years since. His brief comments on my work told me that I was stunningly average and unoriginal but he passed me nonetheless.

The course involved twenty six lectures and was assessed with two assignments and an exam. I have no idea how I managed any of it and I’d like to think under other circumstances I might have made a better fist of it.  I felt more at home with New Testament and Christian history than Old Testament over the years, but this course was a solid background.

This exam had eight questions, but only three had to be answered. I knew that one of the options was going to be a critical review of one of the books by a political ideologist.

Choosing Bernstein and memorising the headings for that essay left only two to pick and the past exams indicated some safe topics that included more on Marxism and Social Democracy. This allowed me to narrow my exam preparation somewhat.. a lot actually.

I passed.

The second assignment for GT105 wasn’t due until October 1986, which gave some me breathing space and also time for a daughter to be born.

I chose this topic:

Neo-marxists customarily criticise Social Democrats for believing that it is possible for a social democratic party to use the state in order to mediate the inherent and basic conflict of interest between capital and labour and thus bring about a transition to socialism. Outline the Neo-Marxist critique and set out what you would consider an appropriate response.

A real rib tickler.

Neo Marxists

I was pleased with the mark and surprised by a page full of constructive comments from the lecturer.  I recall that I was quite attracted to Bernstein’s version of socialism.

This was only a few years before the breakdown of Soviet bloc communism, but none of us had a clue.