sacklunch

I've heard mostly positive things regarding their program and placement. FWIW, I have interacted with half a dozen of their PhD students in related subfields at a few conferences (e.g. I was at the recent Syriac conference at CUA). I know one doctoral student at a R1 religion program who did a masters at CUA (though I don't remember what department they were in). If you want to do Syriac Christianity, CUA is currently the best place in this country. No other school has as many scholars working in the field (Butts at CUA was previously at Yale and Van Rompay is retired from Duke). The 'bad' part of this is that when the time comes to apply to doctoral programs, CUA might still have the best (only....?) program. It's no secret that CUA has little money for (fully) funding its doctoral students. I think most of them have to work on the side (or take out tons of loans) to complete the PhD. On the other hand, I know of two recent faculty hires at two great schools (with more funding than CUA) that may be of interest. At least one of them is a dedicated Syriac person and the other works quite some with Syriac sources. If you don't mind studying out of country, there are some other great options (which may be relatively 'cheap' too). PM me if you want some more info.

^ Yup. They would never admit your age as a factor for admission. I suspect many will interpret your age negatively. In fact, I have heard faculty members comment on older students being at a disadvantage because of their limited time to 'produce' (and thus to make their program look good). For what it's worth, I've heard this from profs at my R1 program. Your mileage will certainly vary, though!

Hey there, You might start with Todd Hickey's "Papyrology" in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. That period of papyrology is notoriously understudied. I work quite some in late antique papyrology, which has some related graphic features. Though I admittedly don't know much about research dealing with post-fifth century papyri. Shoot me a PM if you want to chat more about this. It's a damn difficult field to navigate oneself without some guidance!

While I agree with most of what is said above....most MDiv programs will not allow you much freedom. Even if they do your third year, you still have TWO YEARS of fluff (from a strictly academic standpoint--and many are paying for that fluff). At most schools, these degrees are designed for future clergy/pastors. Yes, some do funnel students into good doctoral programs. But lots of students apply from the top divinity schools without success. Most of these schools have pretty high acceptance rates; and admins at top doctoral programs know this. Being at some of the top divinity schools gives many a false sense of security. But the truth is many smaller M* programs in religion at lesser known schools are harder to get into and one might argue are more rigorous (and thus prepare you better). Point being, if the money is more or less the same, go to the program that allows you the most freedom in your coursework. If 80% of your classes are predetermined and offer you no real advantage when applying for PhD programs, then I would pass. Tell us more about what you plan to study. My advice may be moot depending on your interests.

I assume the OP means classical Hebrew/Aramaic? But, if you meant modern (as nevermind does), feel free to message me about Middlebury's program. I've been there three summers, two of them for modern Hebrew.

Assuming your school is accredited, you should get into most of these seminaries. As noted above, even the top seminaries have somewhere between a 40-60% acceptance rate for MDivs. Having ancient languages will make little difference for an MDiv; most have little if any training in any language before an MDiv. I would be somewhat cautious about your mental illness. If it has a substantial share in your narrative, then, sure, you could mention it in your SOP. On the plus side, your past academic record will likely put any anxiety that your illness will impact your academic pursuits at X school to rest.

If you're applying to NT programs, then, yes, you need to show some exposure to academic German. I won't go so far as to say having none will keep you out; but it certainly will not look good when your CV sits alongside a slew of other candidates with Greek, Hebrew, German, and French (among others). Though your mileage will vary depending on the program (e.g. how competitive it is and whether it emphasizes philology). Quite surprisingly (and to your benefit in the case of the course under question), however, I don't know how much having an official paper trail (with grades in this case) will matter. I have heard that often professors look at your CV and only lastly (if at all) verify your claims with your transcripts. When I applied to programs (in biblical studies/reception history), I listed the relevant language courses on my CV under 'languages'. So, rather than leaving the professor with merely 'German - intermediate proficiency' (as you often see on CV's of established academics), I listed exactly the courses relevant for each language (I did this for my ancient languages, too). Since in (many?) cases the last step in assessing your application is recourse to your transcripts, I didn't want to leave anything to the imagination just in case my transcripts didn't get a glance. I remember (and I suspect this is still the case) that Harvard had applicants upload a listing of their relevant coursework; I assume they did/do this for similar reasons as I mention here (faculty don't have the time or care to mule over various transcripts, each with their formatting particularities).

I agree with most of what Doobie said. I'm also in a top PhD program in religion and much of what I imagined this life would be like turns out to be dead wrong. I'll just add that the excitement surrounding academic research is more rare--and much less funded--than most people think. Know that the excitement and money commonplace in the top religion departments and divinity schools is nowhere else to be found. It's easy to forget that places like Harvard, Yale, Duke, Chicago, and so on are the exception. Their professors are smart, well-connected, and, of course, lucky. As students we look up to our professors and mentors and assume that we too not only should follow the same path, but we will. "It will all work out in the end." "What else am I going to do with my life?" These are naive. But, I said the same sort of things; hell, I still do. The funny thing about the job market being so awful is it actually makes me more optimistic about the future. If I don't get a decent job, oh well. It was a hell of a ride. In any case, I have bad days like anybody else. But most days I am happy in this life. Oh, and thanks for the free therapy session <3.

My sense is that places like GC will better prepare you for some doctoral programs, mostly those expecting incoming students to have a strong background in biblical texts/languages. This should not be surprising given the theological commitments of GC as compared with say YDS. Several years ago I knew a doctoral student at Harvard who did 4-5 years of M* at GC. Said student worked in ancient history in some capacity and mentioned she was very well prepared at GC. If you have little interest in ancient history/biblical studies, however, I very much doubt GC would be better than not only YDS, HDS, and DDS, but also many other lower ranked divinity schools. While I do not know much about the field, I suspect one interested in comparative religion will need a fairly heavy background in theory (and quite possibly the requisite Asian languages). I suspect GC is not great for these areas. @MarXian might have some thoughts on this.

I would wager that Augustine sees a wider audience within and outside academia by a substantial margin. Even with all the caveats that go along with Amazon's sales of these authors' works, book sales are at least an indicator of something. Maybe they do not indicate that people are actually reading a particular work (though I maintain that likely possibility!). But, you're quite right that some 'pagan' authors are more popular in this country than ancient Christian ones. Homer's Odyssey is listed as #2,370, while Confessions is much higher at #6,688.

You're right that all of us are going off our own experiences! Mine are formed from taking courses in classics at several universities, some very well-known and others not. One thing that seems beyond dispute is classicists rarely study materials postdating 200 CE. And those in religion rarely study 'Greco-Roman pagan' texts from any period or region. This is really a shame. At my own current university it is so rare to see these two worlds interact with one another on any level (even on the level of philology students in religion often only learn 'koine' and remain ignorant of the most basic facts assumed in classical studies). I remember remarking in an undergraduate course I took on Hellenistic poetry (classics dept.) that Cleanthe's Hymn to Zeus reminded me a lot of not so distant Hellenistic Jewish and Christian authors. The students had no clue what I was talking about. It was simply unknown to them that 'the Logos' is a ubiquitous concept in early Judaism/Christianity (this would be one of the very first things you learn in studying, for example, the Gospels). Much like I have heard students who only study Greek within the confines of the NT voice their utter confusion on why anyone in the ancient world would need to use the optative.

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.

To your first point, yes, that is more or less my experience in classics depts. 'Fidelity' in this context hinges on the demands of (graduate) students. Admittedly I sometimes have a hard time conceding that textual fidelity ought to differ depending on audience. 'Simple' translations for early teens who are not able to catch the nuances of Cicero may, one could argue, not be reading Cicero at all. But this argument collapses rather easily. One could also argue that any English translation, however nuanced, fails to capture Cicero. In translation studies some make the argument for two types of translation techniques: one tries to bring the reader to the author and the other brings the author to the reader. To your point on biblical translations i'll just note that you're mostly wrong. I should note at the outset that I have no 'dog in this fight.' I am neither a Christian nor religious in any sense of the term (it's a shame this needs to be mentioned, but I know it is always a consideration with those who work with biblical texts!). This isn't the place for a detailed discussion (unless you want to!), but modern translations of the biblical texts highlights a lot of the issues involved in translation fidelity. Yes, older translations of biblical texts took liberties (as did early modern translators of Callimachus I suspect). The translator of that 'sacred' translation known as King James, for example, did not have any Greek manuscripts for parts of the book of Revelation. What did he do? He make up his own Greek through recourse to the Latin mss he had! As to your point about Cicero and Plutarch, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that such Greco-Roman authors see a wider audience in modern readership, than Augustine and Jerome. Yes? I have no data to back up my claims, but my gut tells me you're wrong. Even if we limit ourselves to what is being read in undergraduate institutions, the number of religion (and certainly theology) majors (not to be even speak of the many theological undergraduate schools across this country) certainly exceeds those majoring in classics (Greek and/or Latin philology). When we look at graduate schools I suspect the same trend is present (even at my own institution [an R1] we have 5x as many doctoral students in religion than in classics) and even exaggerated. There are thousands of masters students across this country required every year to read works by the early Christian Fathers in English. What's my point? Translation is done accordingly.

"Fidelity" in translation studies usually depends on the intended audience. So, a 'faithful' translation of Homer for middle schoolers is going to look different than one intended for graduate students. My (limited) experience suggests that these issues are not part of the normal discourse in classics/classical studies departments. In religious studies, however, they are always looming, as many translation projects are aimed at 'common' folk (viz. non-academic) who deem these texts sacred. What's the background of somebody interested in reading, say Cicero or Plutarch, in English? I would imagine such a person is quite different than the average person interested in a 'fresh' translation of a work by Augustine or Jerome.

It is a bit maddening whenever I hear of a 'fresh' translation of a well-known text. As Agrippina rightly noted above, there are countless texts from late antiquity (my area) without translation into any modern language. Unfortunately, classicists working in late antiquity are incredibly rare and those of us who do work in the period are usually not in classics departments. This means that many of us do not have the philological training required to translate texts efficiently or effectively. I have located myself in one of these disciplines at some point (classics and religion) and it seems that in those subfields associated with late antiquity and/or religion the expectation is you should have a broader understanding of the period, all its religions, and languages. I'm not saying classicists are not expected to have a very broad understanding of, say, Greco-Roman history more broadly. But in late antiquity (and this almost certainly means Christianity) so many damn texts survive. This means that many of us don't have the time to focus purely on Greek and/or Latin. In addition, we are often expected to study 'East' and 'West': they want us to do Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and so on. This is all complicated by the fact that few of us learn an ancient language (no less learn Coptic!) before college. /rant

It being outside the US changes things. It is quite common, as I'm sure you know, for non-EU students to get zero funding from even places like Oxbridge. Again, without specifics it's hard to say, but general knowledge is it's difficult to get a job in the US if you did your PhD abroad and you're American. Why? Because they assume you are 1) under prepared (no course work and for most Americans a lack of language prep.) and 2) conservative (it is a common stereotype that religious conservatives go abroad, esp. to Europe, to get their PhD [from my own exp. this is in biblical/textual disciplines ]). Again, this all assumes you want to stay in the US and you want an academic job (a 'secular' job in the sense that you will not be working at a theological school without ties to a college/university).

That's tough. It really depends on what you want to study and with whom. No matter where you go your interests will change a lot. Something that might make it easier is look at the structure of the programs. For example, what required classes are there? Are you going to be in class with 50+ people? Is there a maximum/rule on language courses? Can you take courses outside of your department? What offerings are available for the summer? These questions helped me decide on my first M* (I could have attended a higher ranked program, but I did not due to the insane amount of required classes/language course allowances/outside department allowances. Remember, many if not most of your peers will have zero interest in continuing on to a PhD. Programs are structured accordingly. I have no clue what your background/prep is but it is absolutely essential you maximize your time no matter where you end up. In the end, what is 40k to you? Yes, it's a lot of money. BUT if you end up coming out of a program without securing a PhD spot you will likely be no better off professionally than had you not done the free M*. Yes, the job market is rough for PhD's in religion/related fields; but is it worse for those with an M* in religion? Only the gods know.

I mostly agree with telkanuru. If you want to stay in the academy then I would say your chances of getting a job when you're done are not great. I assume this is a PhD in the US? If so, the fact that they are not funding you completely (are others getting full?) suggests the program is not well-known and then further indicates you will struggle to find a job when you're done.

Your post raises a number of important issues surrounding what academics 'do' and in particular what do scholars working in classical languages 'do' and for whom. Yes, you're quite right that many academic translations of ancient texts are great and perhaps even offer the reader/graduate student/young academic a better grasp of the material than her/his own reading of the primary text. But what's lost when students/scholars cannot access the original (or as you rightly pointed out, the 'original' created by an editor--diplomatic vs eclectic debates notwithstanding here!)? What are classicists to research and write on? "Philology" is clearly out, then. But, who cares, right? Philology is a naughty word these days. In any case, these issues still loom in the heads of many grad students.

Some of the well-known ones have been mentioned (Duke's MA). You might look at state schools. KU comes to mind. I think they offer full funding for those teaching while doing the program (TA).

Spin it to your advantage. Many of the top divinity schools in this country love the 'rags to riches' (conservative to liberal) story. If you have an interesting story to tell (in your SOP), you stand as good a chance as anyone else with your stats (GPA, GRE, and so on).

Thanks, clock!

You shouldn't have any issues. As the others have already noted, the opposite is generally more of a concern for departments. My experience with 'secular' schools verifies this when I was applying. At the time two of my degrees listed 'theology' even though I had never studied theology (what one does in that field the gods only know). When I interviewed at UVA the scholar I was speaking with straight up said 'we are a secular religious studies department.' I suspect she assumed I had theological interests and wanted to bring out any potential problems with me in their department. Those situations are a bit awkward. I saw no problem shouting from the rooftops my disinterest in theology, but I also knew going out of my way to mention it could also be harmful. It's tricky navigating these issues and it's different for every department.

Hey all. I'm looking for a free/cheap (unicode) Greek font that mirrors the sort of typeset you find in papyrological journals. The most obvious difference for this font is the sigma (c rather than σ/ς). I have found a couple older/'beta' fonts (not unicode) floating around ancient personal websites (who knew geocities was still around?), but found no indication that such a font exists/is the standard for papyrologists.

I'm a doctoral student in the humanities. I was recently asked to write a small entry for a large scale encyclopedia from a well-known publisher in my field. While I doubt anything goes for this sort of thing, I also don't think these entries are 'peer reviewed'. It's not terribly long (max of 1k words), but is still a sizable time sink at this stage in my career (I will no doubt do way more research than necessary and so on). Thoughts on this?