sacklunch

I would slightly disagree with the above comment. If you have something like an MTS you will be at a slight disadvantage when compared to other applicants who have 3-5 yrs of M* work (a somewhat common fact). It would be different if, say, you had an MA in Classics or your undergraduate focused on Classics/NW Semitics (and so on), but as it stands, you will likely be competing against students with strong backgrounds in classical languages (not just biblical). That said, Classics MA's are fairly competitive and it is somewhat rare to find such a program that will only allow you to focus on classical Greek (I'm assuming you have little to no classical Latin). There are exceptions, of course, but searching over in the Classics forum will be the best indicator. I thought about going this route before I did my second M* and ended up doing a religious studies M* program that allowed me to take courses over in classics. This let me focus more on classical Greek texts alongside getting deeper into Aramaic/Syraic/Hebrew. I have found RS departments to be more open about letting students work over in Classics Departments, while Classics faculty, at least the ones I have dealt with, are often bewildered when students want to delve into Semitic materials. My recommendation would be something like Pratte's Eros at the Banquet. This book begins by slightly modifying Plato's Symposium while taking the reader through the entire dialogue. Once you're in chapter 3 or 4 you are reading the unedited text. It has great notes for students needing to solidify their understanding of common classical forms and structures. The companion grammar note book that comes with it is also fantastic.

Oh dear baby jeebuz, I hope that dude(tte) comes back...and gets into a program! Maybe we should start some sorta Kick Starter to help him out..!?

Because almost all ThM/STM programs are unfunded. You would be better off doing an MTS/MAR/MA with (some) funding and applying after the first year. As to doing a full MAR/MTS after an MDiv: I know several people who did this. Another reason some decide to do the 2 year route after the MDiv/MTS/whatever, is that extra year gives them good recs from current professors. If you do a ThM/STM, at least if you haven't studied at that school prior, you will have only a few months to secure relationships with possible letter writers.

The state schools may be a bit harder to get into, though I don't know a ton about their specific programs. The 'big name' divinity schools tend to ride somewhere around 40-60% acceptance (MTS); thus your stats should be more than adequate given your SOP/letters are decent/good.

Apply to both and see what happens. As you already know, you will be applying (PhD) against folks with 3.8+ GPA's and 3-5 years of M* work from top programs. Fit, of course, will trump another person's app who may have better on paper prep. While your biblical languages are fine, many of your competitors will have classical Greek, Latin, and/or other Semitic languages. If you apply to a more text-critical/philological program, your languages will not be adequate. Again, apply to both and see what happens.

True enough. Some may argue that this is a 'Christian space' in so far as almost all of the forum's traffic is American/Canadian applicants. We are in one of the stranger fields in that many graduate students--I think even for the most part PhD students--identify 'religiously' (a fraught term, to be sure), to varying degrees, with the particular subfield they study. This has the unfortunate consequence of almost everyone I/we encounter (as PhD students) earnestly asking: Why would you study Judaism/Christianity/Islam and not be a part of that particular tradition? No one asks the scholar/student of Sasanian Persia why s(he) is not a Zoroastrian. Apparently only certain things are interesting in and of themselves. And still more surprising is that many feel their own traditions are off limits to study--at the very least to study properly--unless you are an insider. But, as they said, the times are a changin'.

^ indeed! The conversations here are a good measure of what the overall applicant pool looks like in RS/Theology. Then again, most here are applying for an MDiv/MTS/MAR degree, and happen to be predominately Christian. Either way, these sort of univocal interests occur in Jewish and Muslim majority environments, too (e.g. students interested in studying at JTS will generally not be interested in solely studying early Christianity or even alongside late antique Judaism). I agree with all of the above considerations. I would emphasize Yale (Fraade and Hayes are fantastic) and (as you did) Penn. While the latter does have Reed (an excellent scholar whom I applied to work with during my own application cycle), she doesn't work exclusively in rabbinics (as she is more interested in so-called Jewish-Christianity as of late--as am I). Penn also just acquired Steven Weitzman (Katz Center), who was before at Standford with Fonrobert (and before he was at Indiana). Also significant is for your field: Duke not long ago hired Marc Brettler (Brandeis), who will start next fall (to replace Eric Meyers). Chicago, of course, has Fishbane, though I'm not sure how much longer he will be there/taking students (anyone?). If you can suffer through the Catholic scholarly environment, Notre Dame has Tzvi Novick.

PM'd you.

Haha! There is no way that's their minimum. I suspect they don't have an official 'minimum', but somewhere around 3.5-4.0 sounds more accurate for M* programs.

Anything above 90% on verbal for doctoral programs is totally sufficient in my experience. It seems as if anything above 60-70% for M* programs is more than fine. FWIW I had scores on the border of my above recommendation for doctoral programs and I got into several top programs. Though my field is quite language heavy and my background propelled me beyond, I imagine, some other applicants who had 'stellar' scores. I've also said it on here, but it's worth repeating. Many of the people on the forum freely reporting their scores score well (90%+). There are some, of course, freely admitting to their 75% verbal, but by and large you will see plenty of 'you better have this amazing score or you're screwed' kinda reports. Some will tell you that high math indicates either proficiency in languages or simply that your great score simply reflects your long-groomed affluence (and thus something that cannot be learned quickly, as the test is 'unbeatable'). Unfortunately I have heard this sort of garbage from professors at several institutes, and in turn, I'm sure, committees across the country also buy into it. Whether or not it's true isn't what matters. Sometimes you gotta play the game in order to get your foot in the door.

As everyone said, the BHS is the standard edition for pretty much every student. While the apparatus is useful, it's not something you really need if you are just learning to work with classical Hebrew (if one needs an interlinear version). You might consider the JPS Hebrew-English pocket edition: http://www.amazon.com/JPS-Hebrew-English-Tanakh-Pocket-Edition/dp/0827607660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414081111&sr=8-1&keywords=tanakh+small The latter is nice because of its size (though if you have bad eyesight it's too small) and English and Hebrew. As for the LXX: a dated but still somewhat useful interlinear edition is Sir Lancelot Brenton's. Like most (all?) interlinear editions it is diplomatic in its base text and does not include an apparatus. Though, as someone who works quite a lot in LXX/OG studies can attest, this isn't going to hurt you much, as most of the editions are incomplete. Rahlfs' edition, while useful in some regard, is wildly incomplete in ways that BHS is not. Like BHQ, there are editions slowly released (still ongoing) under the name of the Göttingen Septuagint, which treat individual books (like BHQ) (previous attempts that are much more thorough exist such as the Cambridge LXX, though the series is incomplete as it treats only certain books). Without getting off topic here, but in response to your question if there is a 'Hebrew edition of the LXX,' I will say, no (assuming you do not mean a modern Hebrew translation of the LXX/OG). The reason that editions like Rahlfs are used, as incomplete as they are, is to support HB/OT research. They are almost always used as auxiliaries. This presumes, incorrectly, that our reliable HB manuscripts--what we often term 'the MT' dating to the Medieval period--reflect the source text with which 'the LXX' was based. Again, while there are many who argue 'the LXX' has 'more authentic' traditions (e.g. Vaticanus), the assumption is that such LXX traditions are only more authentic in so far as they reflect the MT as their base text. The problem is made much more complex by the fact that most of our reliable LXX manuscripts predate 'the divine' MT by centuries. The chicken or the egg, basically.

In short, you 'shouldn't' need the latter. Unless you are doing biblical studies proper there will be no expectation to have such languages, unless of course they are directly relevant to your proposed research. I've hardly met anyone outside of biblical studies or history of interpretation who had such training. Hell, there are plenty of people in ethics who have only Hebrew or Greek or neither. It really just depends on your subfield and the department.

Pretty much what marxian said ^^^. Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago can be devastating. Either way, it would be interesting to see admission rates for phd applications then to now (I'm fairly certain no stats exist for that age). I also want to say that while HDS may be less tolerant in some ways of your 'conservative' views, I'm not sure if such settings would be 'better or worse' than somewhere like SLU or any other Jesuit university (as you say). What I have found in my time with the Jesuits (somewhat extensive, I think), and I think by extension I might generalize a bit of Catholic schools, is that your own views on the biblical text will not be as devastating to their theology. It is simply not 'on the radar' for many scholars in such settings. Moreover, the Jesuits schools, just as many Catholic universities, are comprised (excluding the priests) of many secular academics. This brings me to another point: if and when you arrive at any of these institutions, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or secular, your views will not pit you against the mob as if in some epic. In truth, you will mark yourself, perhaps early on or slowly, as someone who is not able to engage in the common scholarly discourse. In fact, you likely won't even be laughed at. You will simply bewilder your peers and professors. And then they will go about their business, forgetting that you once stood firm in your suggestion in class that the biblical text(s) has no contradictions. cheers

Our responses were aimed at whether you would enjoy your time at such schools, which, I think, may be directly related to how well you thrive in such settings. If you are 'that person' in class that is not willing to engage in the sort of standard discourse that occurs in these settings, then you may be less likely to receive good (or at all) letters of recommendation (and perhaps good grades). An additional reason for our concerns, I think, is that the type of work you are interested in--in as much as it has crucial bearing on your core beliefs--is not carried out at such schools. These days, at least at 'top' programs, much of the 'text critical' research is done diachronically, and accordingly, synchronic research, at least without heavy considerations of diachronicity, will be heavily resisted, particular so in the field of biblical studies. In short, the above concerns, in my view, are hinting that you may not find anyone willing to work with you on your research at 'top' schools. Of course, there is no way to know this without trying your hand in such settings. But, aside from the above considerations, and to be more direct: Yes, you stand a fine chance of getting into TT M* programs. As has been often said on this forum, admission rates for TT M* programs are incredibly high vis-a-vis other M* at such schools. If you submit a somewhat compelling SOP, writing sample, letters, and your grades are above average, you stand a good chance. So, apply, and see what happens. There is only one way to find out, I suppose. Another option, also said above, is applying to European PhD programs now. These programs are often sought out by conservatives (yes, the term is complicated) precisely because they are just dissertations. Funding varies greatly and you can expect as a general rule to shell out at least some cash for the degree. cheers

Not at all! No offense taken. I guess this would depend on what we mean when we say 'believe.' For example, I work also in classical studies, and while I 'believe' that a lot of what, say, Pliny the Elder or Plutarch write, is wonderful (or I believe in its usefulness, it resonance deeply with my own experiences), it's different as I am not using such texts as part of a 'religious' canon (though a different kind of canon). We could extend this to any number of students/scholars who study philosophy, art, and so on. To be more direct, I meant that I think it's a bit sad and misguided to imagine higher education as not challenging one's core beliefs (here's that pesky word again...). I am often asked why one would study ancient Judaism ('are you Jewish, then?') or Christianity ('are you going to be a priest/preacher?') and not believe. I usually respond by saying no one questions the classicist, the ancient philosopher, the antique archaeologist, and so on, on why they find particular aspects of antiquity fascinating. In fact, to me, there is infinitely more reason to be interested in Jewish/Christian writings/history because of their impact on each of our lives, in some way or another, more than most of these disciplines that people easily accept as interesting in and of themselves. Your point on the early apostles can easily be made about the early rabbis, early Muslims, and so on, and their 'closure' of the (viz. their own) canon. Body Politics was, I think, stating that when placing all of these books together we can have a misleading picture of what counts as evidence for what (just as there were groups who, in their own canons, elide Paul's authority either explicitly or not).

No, I'm not suggesting this. My point here was aimed at historical German scholarship. The larger issue I'm suggesting is that traditional scholarship, by presuming the MT reflects the 'most pure' base text with which to compare the ancient recensions, must, by virtue of its stated methodology and goals, conclude it's either the chicken or the egg. Put another way, such research seeking an Ur-Text, a single 'original authoritative text', most often takes as its point of departure the MT, while the recensions--the so-called 'daughter' versions--become auxiliaries and thus their particularities are only such in so far as they differ from the 'exemplar', the MT. This is what I meant when I said there are no 'original documents' to begin our search. In the field we call this 'MT fundamentalism.' I'll say that I sympathize with your interests. While I have much different/secular view points about these things, many of us share an indescribable (and often couched) reverence for an 'original' and 'authoritative' biblical text (because of many years of textualizing religion and so on). It was only after years of study on the subject and my current doctoral work that I have come to reorient how I view the ancient textual 'witnesses'. There are plenty of folks who will disagree with me (I'm glad for it, actually!), as this area has much at stake for many modern Jewish and Christian groups. That said, you likely will go on your own way. If there is one thing I have learned in this field (like a great many others) is don't waste your time arguing; most folks never change. cheers

This is indeed the basic understanding and thus the purpose of early Septuagint scholarship. Though as the years have gone by we now know that this position is not reasonable given the evidence. That is, there are no traces of such 'original documents' (Vorlagen) in the ways that the early Germans sought. We may, perhaps, speak of an early authoritative version of a particular community, say a 2nd century BCE group in Alexandria. But the literature instead suggests that within and beyond the Roman Empire different groups varied greatly in their conception of what they thought an 'original authoritative source' looked like, if we can even speak in these terms. So too the 'canon' varied greatly and we have quite a lot of striking information, particularly from the Syrian realm, that 'scriptural authority' varied greatly when put alongside the traditional western sources. It is this holistic picture that has so thoroughly challenged the idea that we are able to trace the recensions back to a single Ur-Text--a presumption that is more telling of modernity and our flawed notions of the codification of texts thanks to the printing press. And thus to approach your statement more directly, I would say that the scholarly consensus (and therefore the one I think that the OP will encounter in the settings under consideration) is that the LXX simply reflects particular contexts of Hellenistic communities and scribes. In fact the NT is evidence itself to my point, namely, that the NT writers are themselves working with an interpretation of a Hebrew parent text and their final conclusions are accordingly filtered, one step removed, as it were, from the 'original inerrant word.'

Yes! I wasn't going to go there....but thankfully you already did . All joking aside, the ancient recensions teach us nothing if not that the Vorlage of our 'precious' MT is merely a shadow of its 'former' self. Even without the striking evidence we have been afforded from Qumran and the Cairo Geniza, the simple fact that our LXX/OG manuscript predate 'the MT' by centuries should be clear enough evidence to the pluriformity of the biblical text(s). Having studied with several scholars (and I continue to this current day) who specialize in the LXX/OG, the Targumim, the Peshitta, and so on, I simply do not understand how an inerrantist's views would not be deeply challenged. To be clear I'm not saying you cannot study the recensions in an 'inerrantist' way. But I am saying that at the institutions you listed such a view would be, as Kuriakos says, infeasible given their methodological approach. *edit* I just saw you reply! It's a good point. How would you define it?

I guess I just have a hard time believing that your stated interests, combined with being an inerrantist, would not be greatly challenged in such personal/academic setttings. FWIW I have personal experience at two of the schools you listed.

This is precisely my point above. And while I'm sure this professor was only partially serious (I pray to the gods she was...), such a comment is very telling!

This strikes me as a bit sad and misguided. But we have different ideas of what the function of higher education is, so there's that. If you are an inerrantist, then, as it was said above, you will not have a good time. Though it's also important to ask what do you consider a top program? I'm also curious: What makes you want to even study at a 'top' school with such views? If you mean the 'usual suspects', you will very likely be surrounded by opposing views, both from your peers and your professors. So, if not to either change or because you love to torture yourself, why go in the first place? And what do you want to do when you're done? If you want to teach at an inerrantist school, you could just as easily stay in the sphere you are already in and 'challenge' yourself in ways that already support your ideology.

What about Syracuse's MA in Religion? I've heard good things about their department (assuming you have purely academic interests).

Your background is not unrelated. In fact I think you will find you have a much stronger background than many of your fellow students wherever you end up. The fact that you have begun Arabic is a huge plus and one that will very likely help you secure a spot at both schools (generally speaking Islamic Studies tracks are the least applied to in such programs, making admissions a bit lighter). If there is anyone of interest there, you might throw YDS in the mix, only because they traditionally offer good funding. Chicago, as you likely know, is fairly stingy with giving out full rides (most get 50%, I think). Concerning the SOP, I would be more specific than "Sufism," but not so focused as to pit yourself as only interested in one particular topic. You can be specific, but just make sure you pull back a bit and, best of all, why X program will help you develop aforesaid interests.

Also, concerning your worries over my comment about fit and the like: refer to theophany's great reply. I was basically stating the obvious, namely, where you go will have a lot of impact on your interests. While this is somewhat obvious, I mentioned it because there are factors of impact that are often not considered. For example (as I initially mentioned), what kind of students does X department normally take? What courses are they (and will they) be teaching? What's the city like? Is your professor of interest available to work with you? What's the living situation like? As I discussed above, it's also really important to understand degree requirements. Some M* degrees require a great deal of coursework to round you off (this is often done because many students coming in have little to no background), while others allow you lots of freedom. Try to really think about these factors when making a decision.

^^ Generally speaking you are going to be better off (i.e. academically prepared) studying in a RS Department or in the case of BC/BU, 'theology' departments (many in these departments are of secular/other/nones vs. their 'divinity' graduate departments). Someone will have to speak for BU, as I don't know a ton about it (search the forum maybe). As for BC, your interests seem well suited to their new MA in Theology and Philosophy. You might also apply to the STM, as they are fairly generous with funding and allow an incredible amount of freedom in their MTS (you can take every single class for the degree through BC Theology Dept. if you'd like, and at least half of your degree can be from BTI schools). As for Duke, if you are applying for academic degrees (MTS), don't waste your time with the Divinity School. The RS department, overall offers better funding (at least 50% compared to the average of around 25% in the Div School) and only requires one course for the entirety of the degree (they don't even have to be in 'religion' so long as they apply to your interests, such as Classics, Lit, Philosophy, Languages, and also access to UNC-CH).