jdmelin

Thanks for the info. The flexibility of the MTS at HDS is appealing. I'd love to take one or more courses at GCTS. I'll look up Dr. Ciampa.

Very helpful, GREman. Thanks.

Thanks, sacklunch. That's helpful.

I don't think I have a realistic chance of getting into a TT PhD program unless I get a second masters, hence the purpose of this thread. I wanted to get opinions on whether TT MTS programs would accept me. I understand what you're saying, but if I want to get into a TT funded PhD program, I basically have to get into a respected M* program if I want I shot. I don't care so much at this point whether I'll be challenged, or won't have a good time, or have the wrong attitude, etc. None of that matters if I actually want to get into a TT PhD program. If some of my views change, so be it. If they don't, so be it. It's about the facts. Will a TT PhD program accept me with my current credentials? A 99.9% chance of a NO. Will a TT M* program accept me with my current credentials? This is all I really care about since it's perhaps my only shot at getting into a TT PhD program. Not trying to be rude in any way. I just want to be matter-of-fact about all of this. And this isn't geared at just your response. I think you said some helpful things. I'm just getting a lot of feedback that isn't necessarily addressing whether I'd be accepted, but rather what kind of experience I would have were I to be accepted.

Well, I'm interested in pursuing a PhD later on. I am interested in textual criticism/related studies and linguistics (especially discourse analysis). I'm not necessarily interested in general linguistics to where I'd pursue a linguistics PhD. I'm interested in applying specific linguistics (perhaps discourse analysis) to NT Greek, for example. But I haven't narrowed down my interests at the dissertation level yet. At this point I'm interested in the M.T.S. first in order to strengthen languages, get a better background on Roman and Jewish history and religion, and to basically have a better holistic foundation going into a PhD (And because I don't have a chance to get into a top PhD program without beefing up my educational experience). What do you think are good options for me for an MTS/MA or PhD?

Agreed.

I second what newenglandshawn said. Some with argue against this, I'm sure, but Paul refers to a quote from Luke as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18) and Peter regards Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). The argument for the NT as Scripture isn't nearly as strong as the argument for the OT as Scripture, but I think it's still there. But like newenglandshawn said, we could spend a lot of time on this discussion. And this thread is already off track!

The manuscript evidence we have seems to scream something quite different. Wouldn't the fact that there are so many similarities among the various discovered documents mean that there are originals? Are you suggesting that various traditions just happened to come up with texts that all ended up being remarkably similar to one another?

Thanks for sharing. Food for thought. I'm an easy-going guy, and I get along with pretty much everyone, so even though I am indeed socially conservative, I'm fine if others aren't. Concerning Bazzana, I guess I'd have to sit under him for a bit to better understand where he's coming from.

To me, inerrancy simply means that the original autographs were without error. Each supposed "error" must be addressed in light of the intent of the author. I can't impose 21st century knowledge on someone from a few thousand years ago. So, naturally, issues of science, details of recording numbers, issues of chronology, etc. were written about differently than they would be today. As far as the LXX and MT, the minor discrepancies caused by scribal error bear no weight on the issue of inerrancy, in my opinion. Neither the LXX nor the MT are the originals. Inerrancy is a faith issue more than anything. No one will never have access to the originals, so all we can really do is compare copies against copies. And I'm comfortable with what we've discovered. What it amounts to for me is that if the Bible's claim that it is "God-breathed" is true, then I'm not okay with settling for anything less than an infallible and inerrant OT and NT.

Depends on your definition of inerrancy.

Yes, exactly. I'm especially curious about his research interests listed on his faculty description, specifically concerning developing a critical theory of biblical translation. Also, D. Andrew Teeter. My interests seem to fit well with his research interests, specifically biblical translation in antiquity.

NT, but I'm interested in the translation of the OT text into the LXX. I prefer the Greek language so far, so I lean towards NT.

I don't doubt that I would be challenged. Hopefully it would serve to sharpen my beliefs and help me grow academically and personally. Which schools and what'd you study? You can message me if you'd like.

I understand why you'd think that, but because of my belief system that I've developed over the course of my life, I'm not interested in pursuing more education that will change the core doctrines of my faith. I don't think it's sad and misguided. It's just where I stand personally. But, yes, we have different ideas about the function of higher education, at least as it pertains to religion. I don't think this would necessarily be the case. I'm not looking to study theology, per se, but rather to further study biblical languages, linguistics, history, world religions, etc. In other words, the objective aspects of the subject matters I'm interested in don't hinge on issues of inerrancy. I can handle it if people don't take the same view. Application of the study of the biblical text will differ, but I'm more interested in the observation and interpretation aspects. I'm specifically interested in Harvard, BU, BC, Emory, and Duke. Mostly HDS at this point. A few factors: 1. Funding - I'd rather not pay tuition (at least not much) for another masters or a PhD. 2. Credibility - I'd like to have a credible M.T.S. to have the opportunity to get into a top-tier PhD program. 3. Location - Frankly, I'm only interested in Boston, Atlanta, or Durham at this point. I'd like to have a career in ministry and academia. Ideally, I want to serve in a foreign context, working with national Christians to help get Bibles into their languages, as well as teach Greek/Hebrew/linguistics. Afterwards, I'd love to come back to the U.S. and teach indefinitely in order to train others to do similar work. I could stay in the sphere I'm already in, for sure. However, it would cost a lot more money and I would potentially have less future employment opportunities. Not to mention, if my denomination takes a turn for the worse, or if my views change enough to where I no longer feel that I can be employed at my denomination's schools, then I'd be up the creek without a paddle if I was still stuck in that "sphere." I'd rather have a foot in both camps so that my options are open. I could probably throw a few more idioms in there if that wasn't enough.