ἠφανισμένος

"Various computer science programs have denied my application on the grounds that I do not know "mathematics." This is a SHAM, and all of academia should be ashamed of it. I did not apply to be a mathematician but to be a computer scientist. Oh, you might say, but how can you be a computer scientist if you do not know math? The answer is obvious! Computer programs can be used by just about anyone. Perhaps you needed mathematics to use them back in 1987 but no longer: now any man, woman, or child can buy a computer program at their local Office Depot."
In case I need to spell it out: your argument fails because you've confused the skills necessary to produce scholarship with the skills necessary to read and appreciate classical texts. The former requires substantial knowledge of the classical languages, which is why your applications were rejected (assuming you're not a troll). The latter can of course be done to a large extent in English or any other modern language.

We should be cautious that our own love for Greco-Roman literature is not assumed for the rest of the world. There is also a difference between folks actually being interested in the ideas of Cicero--and then buying an English translation--verses students required to read Augustine or even Cicero as part of their course. It's also worth mentioning that the renown of a particular work or author may not impact the sale or reading of translations. So, yes, while many outside of the academy might have a vague sense of who Marcus Aurelius was, they have not likely ever purchased nor read his works. This goes the same for even the various corpora labelled 'the bible': many are familiar with the ideas therein, but few have sat down and read any part of them. My point, and why it 'matters', is fidelity for translations of ancient works into modern English depends on the intended audience. For 'pagan' Greco-Roman works, I suspect the majority of these readers have more specialized ('arcane') interests and I dare even suggest higher literacy levels (even if this means they didn't attend college/graduate school) than those among readers of Augustine and the biblical texts. 

Thanks!

Logos Bible Software has an Android app which you can use to read the SBL GNT and everything on Perseus in Greek, Latin, and English. You have to create an account with Logos to download everything, but the resources I mentioned are free. I don't read Hebrew, so I can't help there.

While we're on the subject: Classics’ elitism should be lost in translation
 

This is helpful, thanks. This is why, I think, I and others were puzzled by the approach you've taken in this thread. The discussion prior to your post was not aimed at linguists doing linguistic research. It was aimed at classicists and would-be classicists doing historical and literary work. Linguists can of course use and produce scholarship on many different languages without needing the kind of knowledge that we're suggesting is absolutely essential for someone wanting to do literature or history in a foreign language (ancient or modern).

This is helpful, thanks. This is why, I think, I and others were puzzled by the approach you've taken in this thread. The discussion prior to your post was not aimed at linguists doing linguistic research. It was aimed at classicists and would-be classicists doing historical and literary work. Linguists can of course use and produce scholarship on many different languages without needing the kind of knowledge that we're suggesting is absolutely essential for someone wanting to do literature or history in a foreign language (ancient or modern).

Boston is still a good school, and you will not regret not having debt to deal with. My 2cents.

The bolded sentences contain some major, major caveats.  And yes, classicists are generally very interested in the form of the texts we study.

Compare these sentences:

Καλὴ ἡ παιδεία.

Institutio bona est.

“Education is good” is an acceptable translation of both, but the semantic range of καλή is not exactly the same of bona and not exactly the same as “good.” The same holds true for παιδεία / institutio / “education.” The scholar who has not read large quantities of Greek and Latin texts is essentially blind to these distinctions and the implications they hold for interpreting the texts. I don't think anyone is really arguing that translations of Greek and Latin texts are worthless qua translations. The point is that anyone who wishes to produce scholarly work based on Greek and Latin texts must read the originals and not be reliant on a translation, the quality of which you cannot evaluate if you don’t know the languages. This really doesn’t have much to do with Sapir-Whorf.

The bolded sentences contain some major, major caveats.  And yes, classicists are generally very interested in the form of the texts we study.

Compare these sentences:

Καλὴ ἡ παιδεία.

Institutio bona est.

“Education is good” is an acceptable translation of both, but the semantic range of καλή is not exactly the same of bona and not exactly the same as “good.” The same holds true for παιδεία / institutio / “education.” The scholar who has not read large quantities of Greek and Latin texts is essentially blind to these distinctions and the implications they hold for interpreting the texts. I don't think anyone is really arguing that translations of Greek and Latin texts are worthless qua translations. The point is that anyone who wishes to produce scholarly work based on Greek and Latin texts must read the originals and not be reliant on a translation, the quality of which you cannot evaluate if you don’t know the languages. This really doesn’t have much to do with Sapir-Whorf.

The bolded sentences contain some major, major caveats.  And yes, classicists are generally very interested in the form of the texts we study.

Compare these sentences:

Καλὴ ἡ παιδεία.

Institutio bona est.

“Education is good” is an acceptable translation of both, but the semantic range of καλή is not exactly the same of bona and not exactly the same as “good.” The same holds true for παιδεία / institutio / “education.” The scholar who has not read large quantities of Greek and Latin texts is essentially blind to these distinctions and the implications they hold for interpreting the texts. I don't think anyone is really arguing that translations of Greek and Latin texts are worthless qua translations. The point is that anyone who wishes to produce scholarly work based on Greek and Latin texts must read the originals and not be reliant on a translation, the quality of which you cannot evaluate if you don’t know the languages. This really doesn’t have much to do with Sapir-Whorf.

Form has no influence on meaning?!
I may faint.

I can't do it. I was seriously considering only two more programs, having whittled down the list of five. But there is no way in hell I'd be able mentally and emotionally to handle being 8+ hours from my family and significant other in order to go to the best program I got into, and it wouldn't make sense to go to the lower ranked one. I just know it wouldn't work. I sent emails to all of my programs rejecting their offers today, and I'm going on the non-academic job market tomorrow. I just thought I should post this. Sorry, everyone. Being able to do philosophy just is not as important to me as being near my family and partner. I sincerely apologize to anyone I have inconvenienced, and I wish you all the best. I hope you all get to stay near your loved ones.

This is my personal, biased opinion (because I am Canadian and once was fluent in French, and because I have experience with Romance languages since birth)) - but I'd say go with German. It's a bit trickier to master and in my opinion the earlier you get the basics down, the better. I took two years as an undergraduate so my grammar is okay, but reading academic German is such a trip. Many people can get by okay puzzling through French (or Spanish or Italian) but German is really hard to break through if you don't have previous experience with it or any other similar languages (like Dutch I guess?).

"Various computer science programs have denied my application on the grounds that I do not know "mathematics." This is a SHAM, and all of academia should be ashamed of it. I did not apply to be a mathematician but to be a computer scientist. Oh, you might say, but how can you be a computer scientist if you do not know math? The answer is obvious! Computer programs can be used by just about anyone. Perhaps you needed mathematics to use them back in 1987 but no longer: now any man, woman, or child can buy a computer program at their local Office Depot."
In case I need to spell it out: your argument fails because you've confused the skills necessary to produce scholarship with the skills necessary to read and appreciate classical texts. The former requires substantial knowledge of the classical languages, which is why your applications were rejected (assuming you're not a troll). The latter can of course be done to a large extent in English or any other modern language.

This is what I use for Greek text crit:  http://www.ifao.egnet.net/publications/publier/outils-ed/polices/#grec
TLG also has a pretty full list of fonts if the above doesn't work for what you need: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/help/UnicodeTest.php

For all the questioning of essentialism, inherent worthiness (i.e. sacrality), and claims of authenticity on the part of their objects of study the reasons for doing a PhD remain curiously sacrosanct among those in the academic study of religion. 

Go further here - is the only thing you are able to do?  If so, you've probably committed enough to it, but if not, go do whatever else you are able to do.  Imagination and prognostication are perfectly good skills to have if you want to be a fortune teller, but not a future academic.  I don't say this to be brutal or insensitive, but rather to push the envelope on the common maxim that "if you can imagine/see yourself doing something else, do that."  I think that its excessive subjectivity has worked too much mischief and produced too many PhDs.  So, if the former is indeed true, a third round it is, because what else are you going to do?
This is another sticking point for me - the job market in either of these fields, and in general is nowhere close to the academic job market, and further the humanities job market level of difficulty.  People who complain about law/medicine jobs might be having a hard time getting the job they want, but if it is a job they need, and they are a reasonably qualified candidate, they'll likely work something out.  For instance, do a search of law firms, medical offices, and hospitals in a city of your choice on google maps.  Count them up - certainly they aren't all hiring, but some probably are, and say that number is even pretty low, like 5% of them are hiring a couple of people, and you might have 50-60 jobs in a medium-sized city.  Now search for institutions of higher education, narrow it to ones that are not Capella/U of Phoenix, cut out CCs (not because they are not worthwhile, but because you don't really need a PhD to teach at them), and then look into the ones that have a religion department, and unless it is a large research university, you might have 2 profs in that department, and neither is close to retirement or considering leaving.  Further, if either of them are, the college is probably going to just fold the full-time position and hire an adjunct or two to cover the courses, because they only have 13 students enroll in them each semester anyhow.   So, there is probably a really good chance that for the same medium city there may be exactly 0 jobs.  Maybe 1 visiting lecturer, and that is probably like winning $10,000 from a scratch-off ticket odds, and if there is one regular old full-time, tenure track job in religion, that is more like winning the actual lottery odds (however, this position might be for Asian religions, or American religious history, or sociology of religion - none of which you might be able to teach).  So, while people will keep getting sick, and keep needing doctors; and keep buying houses, slipping on puddles of water in the grocery store, and trying to set up LLCs and needing lawyers - the sad truth is that no one really needs a religion professor (you may claim otherwise in an abstract sense, but I don't think you can make a utilitarian argument in the same manner).  Also, there are thousands of different jobs that a person with a B* and M* could do, and probably do well, and do anywhere!  If you take a year to learn RoR or Python, guess what - you can pick where you would like to live, get paid a lot more than even a mid-career academic, and have a trajectory that could in a year or two and with some certification have you doing pretty handsomely for yourself.  Then you can buy all Harrassowitz editions of the North Semitic languages of the Levant that you want and read them in your spare time, which you'll probably have a lot of.
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from pursuing their vocation here, but rather suggest that the web of possibility spreads itself much wider and stronger than its gossamer strands might otherwise indicate. 

Hey! so I wrote the post last night in a REALLY bad place, so first of all, apologies to those who found it condescending. I guess what I was trying to say, but said it in a really bad way, was that I'm not some stupid, unqualified hack (which is honestly how this makes me feel most of the time, and how I'm afraid people will think of me, or already do think of me). Before I started this program, I was a more or less happy, healthy, sane individual, with a lot of love and friendship and support. Like many of you, I honestly believed that this was my passion, and that my dedication to my field would mean something once I entered a PhD program. What I think I said really badly, but still truly believe, is that you do not have to be a martyr to this career choice. This is not the only thing in the world you can do. If you have not yet started, really walk into this with open eyes: it is the dirtiest game I, or anyone I know, has ever played. Perhaps we are the unlucky ones--hence the title of the post. Listen, I'm looking at a group of people who was where I was last year. And if anyone had told me last year how bad things would be now, I hope I would have believed them, and looked for other opportunities. Maybe all of you on this thread are truly cut out for the loneliness, precariousness, pretensions, and vicious competition that this life requires. You have my full admiration. I was very idealistic, and now I had a tough learning experience, and I think last night I wanted to share some of the lessons of the last year. Again, apologies if I did it in a clumsy way.

To those who did not get in this year, and who are mourning: you are the lucky ones. Go be with your friends and families, enjoy the sunshine, if you have an alternative path that excites you TAKE IT. Doing this PhD has been a nightmare.  I currently have a 4.0 in one of the top programs in the world, I'm a graduate of a few 'big name' universities and my resume is a fancy piece of shit that looks good to committees, but if I had to do it all over again--knowing then what I know now--I would tell myself to get out of the game, and do literally anything else. I'd rather be cleaning bathrooms at Starbucks (I did it for five years, it is good, honest, physical work.) Academia is a dirty, disgusting game when played at the high (Ivy/flagship) levels; grad school life is beyond isolated, cut-throat, and competitive, and worst of all, what nobody tells you, or they tell you so much but you refuse to believe it: THERE. ARE. NO. JOBS. And the jobs that are there go to one of three types of people: geniuses (which few of us are), the well-connected in academia (ditto), the absurdly lucky (double ditto). Every single friend who is in a PhD (from schools like Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc) told me that the first year of their PhD was the worst year of their lives. Yup. It is. Please, I beg of you, if you were not accepted this year really take a second look at your job options, your passions, your priorities, and rethink this path. See this website if you want more confirmation, or feel free to pm me--I'm very happy to do for you guys what nobody did for me last year. http://100rsns.blogspot.com/
If you want to know why I'm sticking with it, its because I'm genuinely in love with the work, and I get to do it on a high level where I'm at. But my life is fading daily, and all that there is now is the work. And honestly, I think that's what academia wants from you--a brain free of soul and bodily distractions. Its a good way to be an academic, but a bad way to be human.

Accepted to Emory, Bob Jones, Princeton U, and an online program (Capella) so far.  PhD in NT except for the online program. Really waiting to hear from Regent and Harvard. 

Thanks! I'm excited. Not a joke post as some seemed to have thought.  

The user has a negative reputation (numeric and otherwise) in this subforum. Also take a closer look at the institutions listed: Bob Jones and Princeton, Regent and Harvard. It's not a serious post.

You should not foot the bill for a PhD program. If you are set on going the PhD route, it is a much better idea to spend an extra year or two at a top masters program where you have a chance of getting funding, and then applying to a PhD program that is going to offer you tuition + stipend.

The user has a negative reputation (numeric and otherwise) in this subforum. Also take a closer look at the institutions listed: Bob Jones and Princeton, Regent and Harvard. It's not a serious post.