I got an 88 on my first Early Christianity paper, which pisses me off. I get pissed off at anything less than a 94 anyway because I'm always right, but especially if I legitimately have a case. In this instance, instead of answering the question about the major sticking point between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem as all about circumcision, I mentioned that in passing and said it was just a symptom of their power struggle.
I'm fucking sick to death of history professors. I love the subject, so I keep taking the classes, but so many are soulless dullards. I started that paper with some whimsy about how if I were the author of John I would've dismissed the prof's questions regarding the initial separation between Christianity and Judaism as irrelevant, since the Word was with God at the beginning. He circled the paragraph as unnecessary. Look, I don't know who you people are used to dealing with, but I'm Andrew Moseman, and I don't just answer questions straightforwardly. I can't help being whimsical and toying with people. It's one the few qualities Christ and I share.
Now I can't decide whether to actually make a stink about it, or just write my second paper with the most bizarre historical conjectures I can come up with. Maybe I'll make it a gnostic rant. He'll like that.
Mostly, I just hate writing undergraduate papers, because they're such an insult to my intelligence. Of course circumcision is on the surface the point of contention. I have a bad tendancy to leave simple things like that out, though, just because to me their assumed. I forget that Nebraska education centers on vomiting the professor's take back onto the page, just to prove you can read.
Four more class periods as an undergrad. Ugh.