sacklunch

That's a nice list, well done. I would put Emory first. NYU is underrated on this subforum, though the problem there is funding. Unless you get some sort of extra fellowship money, surviving in NYC on their stipend is difficult. I know two PhD grads from NYU in another discipline in the humanities who left during the summers because of funding issues (they would sublet their rooms). Perhaps the department of interest has extra funds set aside for the summer?

Oh wow, nice! I didn't realize Logos had the Loeb volumes. On the other hand, most universities have free access to TLG which is far more expansive and includes tagging with a variety of dictionaries (esp. specialized dictionaries like Trapp). I have only ever used Perseus when TLG is down. In any case, thanks for the info; I'll have to check out Logos at SBL.

I've seen some of the secondary literature on Logos and it looks about as user friendly as their biblical tools. Regarding Accordance's search features, I just want to emphasize how useful this software can be for finding obscure data. For example, I have the Gesenius' Hebrew Syntax module, which I have searched for specific Hebrew letter/word combos. Finding some of these references would have taken me hours (perhaps then I would learn the grammar...!?). Because my research is primarily in the ancient translations of the HB/OT, I also own all the available Göttingen Septuagint modules (see below!). Each module comes with the apparatus from Göttingen and can also be searched! You can do similar searches with any apparatus (e.g. BHS). Admittedly, this feature is not useful for many users; but, again, if you work in philology, papyrology, textual-criticism, etc., these features are priceless. They change how you do research, for the better I think (hope...!).

I'll gladly speak on the topic. I have tried all three. I have spent relatively little time with Logos, quite a bit with Bible Works, and the most with Accordance. I prefer and have owned Accordance for about five years now (I use it on my PC mostly). The biggest advantage of Accordance is the number of modules they offer. It's true that some of the modules are quite expensive. But for a 'basic' biblical package it's reasonable, I think (e.g. BHS, NA28). On the other hand, if all you ever hope to use is a basic package then the others are certainly (almost as) good (e.g. Accordance's search features with the others!). I have quite a few of the more 'exotic' modules (e.g. Peshitta, Coptic, Targums, Mishnah, Talmuds, etc.), which to my knowledge are either not available on the others or their versions are garbage. For example, I have used Bible Works for some of the ancient Aramaic translations and I was pulling my hair out (e.g. their morphological tagging is often wrong, they don't specify what manuscript/s are used as the base, the apparatus are useless if available at all). If you plan to use the software for years to come (I'm sure you are given you signature) then I couldn't recommend Accordance more.

Duke GPR (PhD) sent out invites already; as someone noted, these are unofficial acceptances. If you didn't hear anything yet then I doubt you will (note this is nothing to do with the ThD).

Hold off on the citation manager. Most schools offer free software downloads with a student login; you can usually get programs like Endnote for free once you have your login. Depending on what kind of research you do, several monitors is a great help. At least in my area, it would be a nightmare to have less than two monitors (I have four, actually...).

Many prefer to read on their computers. I do use my laptop a lot for reading, but I like to print articles/books (sorry, world) I know I will return to in the future (notes in the margins). I have a decent monochrome printer with cheap ink replacements (it's a Brother, if you care).

It could be done, though I doubt your grades would be high. If you are interested in an MTS, then I assume you have some interest in continuing to a PhD?

If you really want to establish yourself as "safe" to top doctoral programs you might also consider applying to religious studies and/or classics MA's. As for RS, apply to Duke's MA. The funding is about the same as Duke Divinity's MTS, but there is only one required class, leaving the entire remainder of the degree up to you (you can take classes in RS, Divinity, or any other department, including Classics, and at UNC-CH with Ehrman or Plese, as long as the class in any way relates to "religion"). For those looking to get into academia, there is zero reason why you would do the MTS at Duke unless they offer you substantially more funding (unlikely). As for Classics, you have enough Greek and Latin to get in, which is rare in your field (well, Latin is at least). To ND's ECS, you might check out programs like WUSTL, University of Kansas, Arizona, and even somewhere like University of British Columbia. I think all of these are fully or mostly funded. As I'm sure you already know, for Christian Origins/Second Temple period, the most important part of your application is languages. Feel free to message me. I'm at one of the top doctoral programs mentioned in this thread and there was a time when I identified my interests very close to yours.

Many are overthinking the process. In most cases, faculty are given prepackaged applications, usually related to their area of study (so the faculty heading the track for, say, ancient Judaism, receive the forms for those applicants). The faculty rarely store applications from past years. Yes, it's also true that the adcoms have them on file; and yes, if a faculty member wanted to see the past applications, they certainly could get them. But would they? It's unlikely. Will they remember you? If you almost made the cut from the year before, maybe. But it's unlikely that they are going to go dig out your old materials and sit there comparing 'how you've grown.' Who gets an acceptance is, in part, based on the competition, which will have changed from the year before. But it's also based on internal departmental politics (such and such got a student last year, this year they don't). We don't like to admit how important these factors are because we have no way of controlling them. On the other hand, you certainly stand a higher chance of being admitted if you improve your application (based upon, however, that mysterious 'fit').

I'm sure it varies from school to school and year to year, but I seriously doubt anyone would remember. Even if it 'sounded' familiar (they all sort of run together) the person reading would never take the time to dig through the dozens (hundreds) of past applications. Students are accepted largely on the basis of other applicants, especially at the MA level. Because it's unlikely that the same exact people are all applying this season, your application will blend in or stand out in new ways. You're overthinking it. You've heard it before, but it's worth repeating: fit is key. At the MA level, however, fit can be very mysterious. I would suggest you 1) reach out to faculty and ask about how to improve your application and 2) talk with the current grad (MA) students. The latter are far more likely to give you the real scoop (they are usually flattered you emailed them). good luck

I also used a graduate seminar paper, which I revised quite a bit before submitting as my writing sample. I chose the paper because it demonstrated my proficiency in several ancient/modern languages. But I knew it would be far too philological for some (most?) of the programs I applied to. But I thought it was worth the risk as language prep for those of us in antiquity is such a critical aspect of our application. FWIW, I actually addressed why I submitted this paper in my personal statement and not something less technical. I knew my application would be reviewed by those in different fields and thus thought it was prudent to make mention of my rationale.

I'll also echo that it doesn't seem to make (much of) a difference. You're better off going to a big conference and talking with them during the receptions. In fact, you're better off meeting/emailing the current graduate students. They are much more likely to give you their time, tell you what kind of students their department takes, and so on.

Regarding prep. for doctoral work: Without dismissing some of the great comments above, I'll suggest to the OP that s/he might take them with some hesitation. There is no magic formula. Everyone is different. And one 'successful' summer is a disaster to another student. I didn't let up my summer before the PhD; I basically kept trucking along (I was doing a summer language intensive program). And honestly, I was far from 'burnt out' by December. Yes, some people may have run dry come December; but plenty of us are fine (and quite happy, in fact). Only you (and perhaps your friends/family) know how you will react to the added stress. Oh, and speaking of added stress, I actually felt less stressed once starting the PhD. There was, at least to my mind, simply less at stake in the first couple years during coursework. I cared less about impressing professors for that golden letter of rec. and instead dug deeper into my own interests. I cared less about my grades (though I did care a great deal). Oh, and professors treat you like you matter and some measure of confidence (and bombast!) follows. Your toils in the trenches are far from over; but now your labors do not go (entirely) unnoticed. Cheers.

Less needs to be said after Marx's helpful post. But I will add that it just depends on the grad students you are eyeing. It is far less common, for example, for those in modern subfields of religious studies (American religion, say) to have more than one M*. Most of the those with 2+ M* are in medieval and especially ancient subfields which require, inter alia, a lot of language training. Now look at the average interest of the gradcafe user: they seem to hold (in your words) 'preachy' interests and/or interest in biblical studies. I gather this is simply a reflection of broader American interests in religion (or theology as the case may be). Also: competition. Your professors do not have two M* because the pool of applicants was smaller (though there are of course more doctoral student slots across the country now). There was a time when the MDiv/MTS did not exist; those interested in ministry often got a bachelors in divinity. The unfortunate result of the divinity school M* is that it has forced those of us with no interest in theology to "compete" with many modern divinity students holding two M* (them often holding preaching interests with 'more academic' interests).

I was thinking of his recent book. I have heard two classicists (professors) poke fun at the notion that Christian artefacts survive from Pompeii ("only a Christian would propose such nonsense"). I'm not saying Longenecker is wrong; I don't know the material record well enough (though to be honest my initial reaction is very skeptical). The point I was making was scholars who approach such topics from other disciplines such as classics would be alarmed and, I think, immediately question his motives. cheers.

I don't know Longenecker, nor should I given my interests. Some of his publications listed on Baylor's website and, especially his recent book, would, however, raise eyebrows in some scholarly sectors. When I look at the publications of Levenson, I imagine a very different reaction. I don't think it's terribly productive to criticize Longenecker for (what I assume to be) deep theological commitments in his work. But others will. Even if you do not count yourself among whatever camp Longenecker may or may not locate himself, others will. But because others will, this can all work in your favor. It just depends on where you hope to work.

I have heard similar comments over the years that support Baylor being slightly more prestigious than FSU. But I'm not sure it's well-founded. Funding being equal (unfortunately, it's not), I would actually lean in favor of FSU for your interests. As you mentioned, David Levenson is a big name, bigger than anyone at Baylor, at least for Josephus. Who at Baylor do you want to work with?

As long as you don't want to teach at a (strictly) confessional school, yes. As you know, good early church history programs tend to exist outside of such schools (e.g. Wheaton). So the kinds of doctoral programs you will be applying to (and hoping to impress) will likely be more favorable towards Marquette. Some stereotypes hold water: in this case, many of the Catholic schools are strong in church history. My own experience confirms this. FWIW I work in the early church period (though I do history and have zero theological interests) and I can say I have never met a doctoral student in church history from a school like Wheaton; the ones that do come from such schools are, in my experience, almost always in biblical studies.

I would also lean heavily in Marquette's favor, even if funding was equal. They have a much stronger reputation in the subfields of church history. Maybe I'm missing something, but who is at Wheaton studying early church history? Looking at their MA in "History of Christianity" I see only one faculty member studying the period.

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

So far as I know in all subfields of antiquity it is customary to note in either 1) the columnar text of your paper in parenthesis (*translation* "my trans.") or 2) in a footnote (with the same "my trans.").

Balance, my friend; that looks different for everyone. At least for me, none of my close (actual) friends study what I do. I also live with other grad students in various other fields. It's rare that I talk 'shop' with my friends/roommates.

I don't know Penn's reputation for Islamic studies, but for religious students in general it has a very good reputation. Though that reputation, it seems, is built on an older generation of scholars, at least in fields of Judaism/Christianity in antiquity. At least in religious studies, they have a fairly small department (faculty and grad students) when compared with some of the other big names (Harvard, Chicago, Duke). I'm curious, how many faculty work in Islamic studies at Penn? How many grad students do they have?

I'll echo many of the comments above, especially Joseph and telk. First, it's worth emphasizing one of telk's comments: "It's not that the top schools have the brightest students, it's that they have the resources to provide the structure with the best guarantee of success. The list of schools that fit this criteria is very short. Depending on field, it can be as few as 3 and as many as 20, many of which are obvious (Ivies), but not necessarily so." This is the gist of it all. FWIW, I am at a tier one (for a PhD) and I know many others at a tier two in my subfield (late antiquity). Those at the latter are just as gifted and motivated as the rest of us; but their funding is awful and their teaching requirements are unreasonable. The last statistic I read was 20% of those with PhDs in the humanities have a tenure track job. The rest are either adjuncts or working outside academia. The only thing I should add to the helpful comments above is that, regardless of whether you are at a top school, you should only do a PhD in the humanities if you are okay with the possibility (some would say inevitability) that you will never work in academia. Even if you "make it" the sacrifices you will have made produce very real consequences, personal and financial. But at least for me--and I suspect others here as well--doing a PhD at a good school offered better financial prospects than had I done something else, at least for 5-6 years. Had I not done the PhD my "salary" with a BA and two M* in RS would have no doubt been lower than my current and rather generous stipend. But had I gone to a second tier school this would not likely be the case; the much lower stipend and bloated teaching expectations would have made it much more difficult financially and personally (and, in turn, would have hindered the already bleak prospects of securing any permanent job). In short: only do it if you are okay with "walking away" from academia at the end of the PhD and only if you are compensated sufficiently.