theophany

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Yeah, but Wissenschaft means something different by "science" than English typically does.

To combine both sacklunch's and theophany's advice a little bit:

How one responds to the first year of a PhD program is absolutely dependent upon both the program and your own constitution as an academic. sacklunch rightly points out that some people are totally fine to keep plugging along at the same pace and, importantly, that things change once you're in a PhD program.
So, to echo theophany a bit, one shouldn't feel bad for not being the kind of person who can keep up that same pace--primarily because it really doesn't matter. I began my first year thinking I had to attend as many on campus talks/lectures as I could, join as many reading groups as I could, read as much secondary material, read everything in German, etc., etc. But I was also newly married--just 4 week--before moving 2,000 miles across the country to a brand new city, no family around, just me and my wife, to begin my program. So doing all of those things was not sustainable, and I realized that very quickly. But I also worried a lot about possibly sacrificing things that were going to be helpful to me (a worthy sacrifice, no doubt, but one not everyone in academia understands unfortunately.) Now at the end of my fifth year, I can say with great confidence that those things didn't matter in the long run. They didn't necessarily help me get the grades I got in my seminars (also mostly meaningless IMO) and have contributed only in the most indirect way to my dissertation. The papers I've given at AAR and other national conferences and opportunities I've had to publish are what have opened professional doors for me, and those opened without sustaining the insane schedule I made for myself in my first quarter. That's not to say the same schedule would be insane for everyone--some people would probably thrive with it. But what a feeling of freedom I had the day that I looked around at the work habits of everyone else and said "Nope, that's not how I do it, and I'm not going to feel bad about it."  
What Fear N' Trembling has suggested is great if you're in a M* program because you really are hustling to get noticed, get letters, etc. You can definitely relax a bit once you're in a PhD program because the important things are not the same as they were as a M* student. 

My biggest advice for preparing to start a PhD program is enjoy your summer—you won't have too many years left that you don't have to be doing something. This is a chance to refresh a bit, especially if you're coming immediately off an M*. Get back to speed with reading, sure—return to books you already know to help get sea legs back, if you need it. Do some experiments in writing to limber up, including creative writing exercises. But remember that a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. If you over-prep, you're going to hit December and be burnt out already. Be kind to yourself.

My biggest advice for preparing to start a PhD program is enjoy your summer—you won't have too many years left that you don't have to be doing something. This is a chance to refresh a bit, especially if you're coming immediately off an M*. Get back to speed with reading, sure—return to books you already know to help get sea legs back, if you need it. Do some experiments in writing to limber up, including creative writing exercises. But remember that a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. If you over-prep, you're going to hit December and be burnt out already. Be kind to yourself.

My biggest advice for preparing to start a PhD program is enjoy your summer—you won't have too many years left that you don't have to be doing something. This is a chance to refresh a bit, especially if you're coming immediately off an M*. Get back to speed with reading, sure—return to books you already know to help get sea legs back, if you need it. Do some experiments in writing to limber up, including creative writing exercises. But remember that a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. If you over-prep, you're going to hit December and be burnt out already. Be kind to yourself.

As @theophany rightly says, so much depends on the institution, department, and your advisor, particularly in the US. I would also say that I'm not sure whether American or UK schools are more or less accepting--they're accepting in different ways. The UK and European RS programs are much more closely affiliated with the IAHR (International Association of the History of Religions) which is a "purely scientific" organization that insists on an extremely stark distinction between "the study of religion" and "theology." The AAR is not part of the IAHR--rather NAASR (North American Association for the Study of Religion) is the American branch of the IAHR. NAASR is extremely small compared to the AAR and seen by many in the AAR as a very small subset of loud voices who insist on a very stark distinction between "the science of religion" and "confessional" approaches. The latter often includes not just theology but philosophy of religion and sometimes even cultural studies and continental philosophy more generally.
In general, you don't see these kinds of clashes between "theology" and "religious studies" in the UK and Europe because those are (almost) always two distinct departments within universities with no crossover. "Religious studies" is always social/natural scientific whereas theology includes philosophy of religion, cultural studies, etc. That's not the case in the US. There are departments that lean more toward the social/natural scientific and there are those which are friendly to theology, though to clarify theophany's list--Duke Div is obviously friendly to theology, but Duke University's religious studies department is not. Other schools with RS departments friendly to theology/philosophy of religion: UCSB, Northwestern, Syracuse, Stanford. Of course, just how "confessional" one can be will vary as theophany says. Chances are that in any RS department within a "secular" university in the US, a purely constructive, confessional project is likely not going to be possible. 

It really depends on the US school you're talking about. At Duke, Yale, Notre Dame, JTS, etc., theological projects are common—if not the expectation—in fields called "theology" or "ethics." In those same fields at UChicago or Harvard, a more historical or social-critical tack is more normal. Part of the upshot of the less stark theology/religious studies divide @marXian was noticing is that there's a huge amount of variation from program to program, from field to field, and advisor to advisor—which can be great for doing your own project with some degree of freedom to explore, but also in unsaid or unclaimed expectations about how "the thing we're all doing" should in fact be done. These can come out in, y'know, one-on-one meetings, committee conversations, or oral exams...

I'm currently in a PhD program working on continental philosophy (post-Kantian), historical theology, and social theory, and I had two master's degrees (English followed by MA in theology from a seminary) before beginning my program.
I think sacklunch is right that many people in top tier programs have two master's degrees. However, many of those people who have two or more seminary degrees are doing language intensive work (like sacklunch). They earn multiple seminary/div school degrees in order to milk as much language training as possible because that's what gets people admitted to top NT/HB/ANE tracks. But if you're more interested in philosophy/theology, one degree in theology is plenty--but one MA/MTS overall may not be enough. As theophany said, moving from a specialized degree to a generalist degree is going to raise eyebrows. But beyond that, you're just not going to find an MDiv helpful if you want to do rigorous philosophy/historical theology because you're going to be bogged down in requirements that are totally superfluous to your goals.
Since you have a BA in philosophy and biblical studies (double major or two BAs?), applying to philosophy PhD programs won't hurt (though if you went to a Christian school, that could hurt your chances for getting in unfortunately.) But if you're really interested in theology, having an MTS and an MA in philosophy from a respected philosophy program could be a good combination. I know for certain that my MA in English and training in critical theory from that degree helped my chances significantly in the program that I'm in now. 
The most helpful thing you'll get from a strong, specialized program, like an MA in philosophy, is narrowing down your research interests. E.g. you're interested in both analytic and continental philosophy--for a PhD, you're going to have to choose. In fact philosophy of religion, historical theology, and religious pluralism all constitute three distinct areas of study with different faculty, etc. They're certainly not mutually exclusive, but figuring out a project that combines them in a specific and interesting way is going to take some time and a specialized MA program can help you get the focus and clarity you need to figure out where those things align for a potential project that you could see yourself working on for 5-7 years.

A hearty echo of @sacklunch. Folks mentioning having multiple M*s are right, to an extent, about the "normalcy" of such things. But the order here does matter. There's a difference between having, saying, a couple of MAR/MTSs and or having an MDiv followed by an MAR/MTS. But the order MTS followed by MDiv is somewhat confusing as a choice, unless it is because of ordination requirements (with which schools differ on their comfort). The common shorthand here on gradcafe of just saying "master's degree," with no distinction between the actual pedagogical differences of MDivs vs. MAR/MTS vs. STM/ThM is deceptive. Because, as @sacklunch pointed out in less explicit terms, the MDiv is a generalist degree while the MAR/MTS (except in cases like Duke or Yale's comprehensive MAR) is specialized. The movement from generalist to specialized (MDiv --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) or specialized followed by more specialized (MAR/MTS --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) makes sense on a trajectory towards the PhD, which is highly specialized. The movement from specialized to generalist (MAR/MTS --> MDiv) does not make as much sense, and will raise questions. If you are applying to a more top-tier school to balance out what you perceive to be a less rigorous conservative seminary*, then you should apply to the MAR/MTS. 
 
* Note that this is a common assumption that isn't well-founded. There are a number of PhD students at Yale, Duke, Princeton, Chicago, and other top-tier schools whose M* come from "conservative" institutions. Having a degree from a conservative institution does not disqualify you from admissions from a top-tier program. 

A hearty echo of @sacklunch. Folks mentioning having multiple M*s are right, to an extent, about the "normalcy" of such things. But the order here does matter. There's a difference between having, saying, a couple of MAR/MTSs and or having an MDiv followed by an MAR/MTS. But the order MTS followed by MDiv is somewhat confusing as a choice, unless it is because of ordination requirements (with which schools differ on their comfort). The common shorthand here on gradcafe of just saying "master's degree," with no distinction between the actual pedagogical differences of MDivs vs. MAR/MTS vs. STM/ThM is deceptive. Because, as @sacklunch pointed out in less explicit terms, the MDiv is a generalist degree while the MAR/MTS (except in cases like Duke or Yale's comprehensive MAR) is specialized. The movement from generalist to specialized (MDiv --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) or specialized followed by more specialized (MAR/MTS --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) makes sense on a trajectory towards the PhD, which is highly specialized. The movement from specialized to generalist (MAR/MTS --> MDiv) does not make as much sense, and will raise questions. If you are applying to a more top-tier school to balance out what you perceive to be a less rigorous conservative seminary*, then you should apply to the MAR/MTS. 
 
* Note that this is a common assumption that isn't well-founded. There are a number of PhD students at Yale, Duke, Princeton, Chicago, and other top-tier schools whose M* come from "conservative" institutions. Having a degree from a conservative institution does not disqualify you from admissions from a top-tier program. 

A hearty echo of @sacklunch. Folks mentioning having multiple M*s are right, to an extent, about the "normalcy" of such things. But the order here does matter. There's a difference between having, saying, a couple of MAR/MTSs and or having an MDiv followed by an MAR/MTS. But the order MTS followed by MDiv is somewhat confusing as a choice, unless it is because of ordination requirements (with which schools differ on their comfort). The common shorthand here on gradcafe of just saying "master's degree," with no distinction between the actual pedagogical differences of MDivs vs. MAR/MTS vs. STM/ThM is deceptive. Because, as @sacklunch pointed out in less explicit terms, the MDiv is a generalist degree while the MAR/MTS (except in cases like Duke or Yale's comprehensive MAR) is specialized. The movement from generalist to specialized (MDiv --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) or specialized followed by more specialized (MAR/MTS --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) makes sense on a trajectory towards the PhD, which is highly specialized. The movement from specialized to generalist (MAR/MTS --> MDiv) does not make as much sense, and will raise questions. If you are applying to a more top-tier school to balance out what you perceive to be a less rigorous conservative seminary*, then you should apply to the MAR/MTS. 
 
* Note that this is a common assumption that isn't well-founded. There are a number of PhD students at Yale, Duke, Princeton, Chicago, and other top-tier schools whose M* come from "conservative" institutions. Having a degree from a conservative institution does not disqualify you from admissions from a top-tier program. 

A hearty echo of @sacklunch. Folks mentioning having multiple M*s are right, to an extent, about the "normalcy" of such things. But the order here does matter. There's a difference between having, saying, a couple of MAR/MTSs and or having an MDiv followed by an MAR/MTS. But the order MTS followed by MDiv is somewhat confusing as a choice, unless it is because of ordination requirements (with which schools differ on their comfort). The common shorthand here on gradcafe of just saying "master's degree," with no distinction between the actual pedagogical differences of MDivs vs. MAR/MTS vs. STM/ThM is deceptive. Because, as @sacklunch pointed out in less explicit terms, the MDiv is a generalist degree while the MAR/MTS (except in cases like Duke or Yale's comprehensive MAR) is specialized. The movement from generalist to specialized (MDiv --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) or specialized followed by more specialized (MAR/MTS --> MAR/MTS or STM/ThM) makes sense on a trajectory towards the PhD, which is highly specialized. The movement from specialized to generalist (MAR/MTS --> MDiv) does not make as much sense, and will raise questions. If you are applying to a more top-tier school to balance out what you perceive to be a less rigorous conservative seminary*, then you should apply to the MAR/MTS. 
 
* Note that this is a common assumption that isn't well-founded. There are a number of PhD students at Yale, Duke, Princeton, Chicago, and other top-tier schools whose M* come from "conservative" institutions. Having a degree from a conservative institution does not disqualify you from admissions from a top-tier program. 

We should distinguish the usefulness of comments from administrators and those of professors (the latter making the decisions for doctoral admissions--not the admins). The comments above are understandable: for it's rather easy to contact e.g. HDS and talk to an admin about what they recommend (and it's rather difficult to discuss these issues with professors). But the opinions of admins on one's academic trajectory are honestly not worth much. It is simply a fact that many doctoral students at the top schools (at least in this country) have two, sometimes three M* before starting their PhD (I am such a one/fool). The notion that there is little point in doing an MDiv after after an MTS has some support, but only from the admin perspective: an MDiv and MTS are awarded on the basis of filling certain requirements and since both degrees have overlapping requirements, the notion of "taking the same class" over again seems an utter waste of time (and esp. money). But from an academic point of view, this is simply wrong. You will not, I trust, be retaking e.g. "Introduction to X"; the point of the second degree is to explore further those interests already cultivated at the first school. 
On the other hand, many MDivs, at least at the 'top US schools', will require you to (re)take the "Introduction to X". Each school is different, however; so only apply if said program allows you to take advanced classes. There are other considerations you should have in mind such as the ability to take classes in other departments (e.g. philosophy). Again, each school has a different policy. The academic freedom available at MDiv/MTS programs in Boston (many courses available through the BTI) comes to mind. Duke Divinity is unlikely the right program for you (you would be much better served in the MA in Religious Studies, which allows you to take any classes you want, even outside of Religious Studies and is generally better funded). Speaking of funding, this is the only real reason why I would chose an MDiv over, say (as others recommend) an MA in Philosophy or Religious Studies. The latter almost always allow the freedom to explore interests in greater depth--depth that is simply not possible in many (all??) MDiv programs. The 'problem' with the MDiv is it's serving two masters: the 'church' and the academy. This makes sense given the professional goals of most divinity students. If your interests overlap between 'church' and academy (which it sounds like they might), then, sure, an MDiv might make sense. But outside of funding, I see no reason to pursue an MDiv over another terminal degree. In sum my advice is apply widely (MDiv, MTS [yes some PhD students have two], MA in Philosophy, RS, History, etc.) and see what funding is offered. The last step should weigh the academic freedom afforded at each program. 
cheers

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Very much agreed on all the above. Before any piling on of extra things to do, do this. I make it a habit to take one entire day off a week, except in the direst of straits. Go to a museum, watch a movie, wander around a park, sleep, work on a puzzle, anything. Sabbath was commanded for a reason, and it's a commendable practice.
Academically, make sure to explore outside of your area of study, even if your program doesn't require it. I don't just mean occasionally looking at something closely related but by someone in a slightly different field. I mean totally different. Take a whole class that has (apparently) little to do with what you think you want to do. The deeper you get into a PhD, the greater the pressure to nano-specialize in your field. While this can be good for rigor, I can see my colleagues increasingly incapable of thinking or talking (even casually, socially) outside of their narrow scope. This runs in the face of humanities/liberal arts scholarship, and can actually really make your scholarship suffer by closing yourself off. Coursework is likely the freest you'll be for years to come in being able to do your own exploration, and by the time you're at the dissertation, it could be too late. 
A final word: work on your writing. The state of academic writing is truly terrible. Prose can be impenetrable. Conference papers bore to tears. Read really great writers, starting with fiction writers especially. And write regularly yourself. Do creative writing exercises. Keep a writing journal. Not for academic writing, but for experiments in writing. I promise, despite the weirdness, it does wonders. And if you're able to communicate your thoughts more beautifully, persuasively, artfully, all the better for your scholarship.

Number 1 best practice: Find time for yourself.
Seriously, it cannot be overstated. All of us could theoretically read and write 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if our bodies allowed it. First year PhD students often feel like they're not doing enough, not reading enough, not attending enough talks and lectures, not in enough reading groups, not writing enough, not presenting enough, not publishing enough (though this last one is a fair concern for all PhD students if we're talking peer reviewed journal articles.) I'm not saying don't try to publish one book review a term. If you feel that's manageable for you given all other requirements of your program, then go for it.** Most people have no problem figuring out how to fill their days with academic work. It's not hard for us because it's the only thing that we can see ourselves doing professionally, so we're just drawn to doing it. Yes, it's good to practice languages regularly, to read regularly, etc. All of that is definitely important--but I think those are the things that come naturally to us (more or less.)
What doesn't come naturally to some of us is finding time to just go see a movie. Get a beer with colleagues and don't talk about your work. Explore your new city. Take a day and just binge watch something on Netflix. 
It's easy for us to feel guilty about doing these things, but we shouldn't. Honestly, they're healthy, and they'll help you be more productive when you need to be because you're able to take regular breaks without feeling crushed by stress and guilt. Cultivating that early on is really helpful once you no longer have the structure of a course schedule to help manage your time.
**Quick note on book reviews: They're great practice for the process of publishing something because they're easy to do relative to publishing a peer reviewed article in a major journal. They give you a small window into the editing process, etc. However, they're not going to help you get a job. Even if you had more than two or three reviews published, you wouldn't load up your CV with book reviews. All that to say, once you get a couple under your belt, you might consider taking a break from them to focus on exams, prospectus, etc.

A ThM from one of the top tier schools at which you'd be absolutely bowled over to attend for a PhD is good. ThMs from other schools range from fine to waste of money. 

I often have a footnote in papers, typically after the first biblical quotation, which says something along the lines of "all biblical quotations are the author's own translation unless otherwise noted." But more and more I just don't translate. My writing sample included non-translated Greek, Hebrew, and French. If you quote the languages without translating them then people will know that you know the languages. 
I do NT. This might be different for other sub-disciplines, but I'd imagine it's similar.

The short answer is yes, but with some qualification. I think Marcion is by and large right above that Ivy schools do have top RS programs whose graduates get jobs. But I do think two things need to be disentangled; namely, top tier school in RS and Ivy League school, especially because the impression on this thread seems to be Ivies=Best, Everything Else=Second Tier. Are the RS departments at Ivy League schools top tier? Yes, for the most part. But if we're looking strictly at departmental reputation, placement record, etc., then a lot of other schools, including non-elite universities, have top tier RS departments. For example, I would never consider FSU's RS program second tier, especially if you study American Religious History. And therein lies the rub--the strength of your program's ability to help you on the job market really does depend a lot on your subfield and who your advisor is. The bottom line, to answer your question, is you need to look at the departmental fit and not the school's overall reputation which really only matters for undergrads. Is FSU a highly ranked undergraduate institution when we're considering it on a general scale of all undergraduate institutions? No. But its RS PhD program is very good for particular subfields.
Departments are always strong in particular areas and not so strong in others. Some departments provide amazing faculty support and at others, some students find it very very difficult to get any face time with their advisor at all. Some students will find the latter a major problem and others no problem at all. Some departments provide great interview coaching and job market training. Some, Harvard for example, provide no such coaching or training (or such opportunities must be sought rigorously on a student's own initiative) and it really shows. I'm sure many of us on this board already in programs have witnessed some pretty atrocious job talks given by Ivy products. As someone has already said, Ivy names will often get an applicant a closer look and probably help toward landing an AAR interview. But the interview weekend cannot be saved by a school name. At that point it's all you and only you.
I think there are three factors you need to consider: funding, fit, faculty. One of the reasons people on the board emphasize schools with funding over those without or very little (beside avoiding debt) is because people with funding simply have more time to do better work than people who have to work an outside job to support their studies. They have more time for grant applications, to write and publish an article, etc.--things that aren't requirements for obtaining a PhD but go a long way toward job marketability and success. Two students of equal ability will likely have different success if one is in a fully funded program and the other is not. Schools that offer funding also just tend to be better resourced overall in terms of fellowship offices, internal grant competitions, etc. But again--that doesn't have anything to do with whether a school is an Ivy. There are fully funded state school programs--Indiana, UVA, UC Santa Barbara, UT-Austin, UNC, and FSU for example--whose graduates get jobs with, I would guess, a frequency competitive with that of the Ivies. Many of the private programs, e.g. Duke and UChicago, are already considered on par with the Ivies, but others, Syracuse, Stanford, Northwestern, etc. are also either historically strong or have become strong recently.
As to fit, if you're not comfortable in your program--i.e. where comfortable means studying with people, both students and faculty, and in an environment that is conducive to your growth as a scholar--you're not going to succeed. PhD programs are too emotionally draining. If an Ivy turns out not to be an environment in which you will thrive, it is not worth your emotional, mental, and physical health. People who choose Ivies over a better fit elsewhere struggle mightily (unless they're academic robots). Being in a place where you feel you belong and can be part of an active scholarly community is really vital to being successful.
With regard to faculty, there are some really great, well-respected, well known scholars who teach at non-Ivy league schools. Bob Orsi and Sylvester Johnson are at Northwestern. John Corrigan at FSU. Ann Taves at UCSB. These are people whose name literally every RS scholar working in a department would know. If you have a person like this as your advisor, no one is going to give two shits that you didn't go to an Ivy. That doesn't mean that you must have someone who is known that widely across RS as your advisor. But if your advisor is well known in your subfield and writes you stellar letters, that will get some traction on the job market.
To your specific dilemma: It's really not possible to say where UC Davis's RS program ranks at this point because it's too new--no one has graduated from it. I did meet a grad student from it, however, who presented in my department's grad student conference back in October. He seemed to be really enjoying it and felt like it was a good fit for him. The UC system is by no means the bastion of well-funded public PhD programs. That being said, it's still regarded as the flagship of public university systems, and Davis is near the top of the middle/bottom of the top of those schools overall. But if you run through those three criteria above, funding, fit, faculty, I think you'll have a better sense of whether or not it's the right choice.

Well, the question was not whether reputation correlates with program quality. It was whether one could get an academic job without a shiny name on the diploma. 
Shot (link)
Chaser (link)
 
Sounds like what OP really wants to do is work in academia.

"A PhD is a PhD." This attitude is why there are so many unemployed PhD graduates out there. Nobody thinks a PhD is a PhD. Not applicants (who almost always pick the best program they get into), not academia (who hire almost exclusively from elite institutions), not even your average person on the street.