cadences

So, aliens?

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

Two cents worth: in addition to what newenglandshawn has said, I think Notre Dame is a great option for HB/OT theology as well; and the best part is, they all cut their scholarly teeth on the ANE (all the HB full professors there are students of the late Frank Moore Cross, and they just hired Gary Knoppers), so you get the best of both worlds. I'd definitely try really hard to get into their MTS.

If you're applying to an MDiv program, this is fine.

If you're applying to a PhD program, not fine.

MTS would be somewhere in the middle

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

^ Some excellent points made by theo. One that stands out is how 'confessional' the school/department is and to what extent you are/are not. If you are secular (as many of us are), doing an MTS at ND, Duke, and maybe Yale (MAR) would not be a great time. You can make it work (I know...), but you would feel much more at home at a place like HDS, Chicago, or (better yet) in a RS department. Though, as theo also rightly points out, your interests/methodologies/etc. will be greatly influenced by whatever sort of department you land in--secular and confessional alike! I'm just trying to say if you want to actually do 'theology' then a 'confessional' department is not such a bad thing! The reason I mentioned Duke's MA in RS is because it would allow you to ride both 'sides' (studying in both RS and Div) without the burden of having to check a bunch of boxes off for your degree requirements. 

RedDoor,
 
The best person to ask would be Bockmuehl himself, actually. It's quite standard in the UK fo potential supervisors to be contacted by prospective students to see if they are available for supervision; besides, in the UK, I believe the one who ultimately decides how many doctoral students he or she will be taking on for each year is the professor himself or herself. So, do drop Bockmuehl an email and see what happens from there. Good luck! I hope it works out!

KU's program may honestly be more competitive than HDS or YDS (MAR/MTS). Shoot for the best programs, mate! I wouldn't waste my time with Claremont or Loyola; they don't even have enough money for their doctoral students!

What? I thought Goodacre didn't believe in Q.

Lots of people have thrown out some great advice already, but I just wanted to add something else.
 
I'm going to be a bummer and bring a little bit of negativity...  ...but hopefully it can become positivity!    Please do not take this the wrong way, since all I know about you is from your story that you've posted. Think of this as some "tough love" I guess: You seem like you're in an idealistic phase right now, and you need to get through it as soon as possible if you want to get real about a PhD program.
 
Three things tell me that.
 
1)Yes, your story and this thread demonstrate that you know you need to do something about your undergraduate career. But you set up your story as "Look I'm not after that idyllic job--I want this one which is way more realistic!" It's really not though. Any of us, even those of us already in programs, would be crazy to just assume we're definitely going to get a job at an Ivy League school when we're done. The vast majority of us will not. But the jobs you're talking about are negligibly easier to obtain than a job at a tier 1 university. So in a sense, we're equally crazy if we think we're just going to waltz into even a community college with our PhD in hand, slap it down and say, "Now where's my office?" I know--you don't want to hear about the job market. But that tells me you maybe don't want to hear about other potential obstacles as well. Your response to Kuriakos' question about the SBL Facebook page seems to confirm that. You have to be realistic about the job market because that's going to help you figure out what programs you should be aiming for and thus what your preparation now should be.
 
2) People are going to tell you things you don't want to hear, and they're going to do it in a not nice way. It's not because they think you're a bad person for wanting a PhD (well, maybe some do) but it's because when a person comes on to a page like that or a board like this leading with dreams of a cozy little office at a liberal arts college or whatever and what is to me sort of an odd instance on an interdisciplinary studies program, a red flag immediately goes up signaling that maybe this person has some blinders on that need to be removed. Be open to the possibility that you do have some blinders on right now. So instead of saying, "I don't like that answer," take those responses very very seriously. If you want to make this happen, you need to take every step you possibly can toward the goal of just getting into a PhD program without already deciding on what sort of job you're going to have when you're done.
 
3) Lastly, it's confusing why you would shy away from one of the major div schools or seminaries in favor of an IS program. I would very seriously take into consideration the level of language prep that derewigestudent is suggesting. I would also take seriously the suggestion that an IS program may not be the best prep for a PhD in New Testament. At the very least, it will close some doors for you that an MDiv, MAT, MTS, etc. from a well known div school or seminary would not. Why do you have your heart set on an interdisciplinary studies program aside from the fact that it combines religious studies and classics? If you went to Harvard, Duke, Yale, etc., you could easily take courses in classics, religious studies, languages and you'd be earning a degree that would be far, far more competitive than the Oregon program.
 
Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. The sooner you really face the reality of your situation, however, the easier it's going to be for you to really figure out what it is you need to do to get into a good program. I think all of us at one point or another went through a phase like this. And as I said at the beginning, you're obviously on the right track in owning up to the fact that your current preparation just isn't going to cut it. Recognizing these other things will go a long way in being able to properly assess your situation and prepare accordingly.

I would add from my experience that writing a statement of purpose is like writing poetry to a girl who you are pretty sure has never noticed you before and who has a lengthy history of spurning poetry from better-looking guys. Perfect agony. Is death preferable to writing nearly a dozen such statements? Perhaps.

lol no

It disturbs me that this is how someone applying to an MDiv, the ministerial preparation degree, would respond to being rejected. Especially the idea that "earned" would be a relevant category, and that any amount of work you do should get you what you want by manner of course.

9/211 is about 4%, not 0.5%  

Accepted off wait list at Princeton Theological Seminary. Yay!!!! I got an informal email from DGS informing me to expect a formal offer! So happy. 

No, actually, they didn't. I asked because, as runthejewels and Rabbit Run have pointed out, the MATS is only for international students, and PTS usually gives very generous funding to those who get in to that program, so I thought it strange that they told you there's no financial aid available for the MATS. But since you're a domestic applicant, their response makes sense.

Hi Pantherpunk87,
 
His/Her nick's BowTiesAreCool, just fyi. "Doubleshot" refers to his/her 'rank' on the Gradcafe forums based on the number of posts s/he's put up. Newcomers often make this mistake, so I figured that I should tell you off the bat. Welcome to the forum, btw, and good luck for your apps!

I think phdapp's comments here are very helpful for clarifying some of the consequences that follow selecting a school.
 
If you go to some schools (probably the ones phdapp recommends), there's a good chance you'll emerge from them thinking thinking places like Fuller and Wheaton are beyond the pale, that you and an extremely small, homogeneous set of people are the only true/real Christians. You might think you are continuing a historical tradition, but you'll only be able to maintain this illusion if you don't read much of the writings of earlier "Chrisitans." This is what some people want.
 
Or, you can decide you don't already have all of the answers before you've started thinking about them, and go somewhere else, and perhaps end up believing that the people at Wheaton haven't strayed from "the conservative views of the Bible"(!!!!).
 
My advice, if you have confidence in the strength of the conservative side in theology, understanding of the Bible and church history, you'll be fine choosing from a lot of places. (I think the recommendation to look at Gordon-Conwell is a great suggestion, for example. It's a conservative school, but you're in collegeville and you could take some classes from other places). If you're scared though of ending up a bit different at the end of your education than how you began it (and from the positions of other people who never studied these topics), there's nothing the rest of us can do to stop you, but that's the reason why the rest of us don't take those places seriously.

Shavedice, how much education does your church want you to have? A 3-year ordination-track degree is a significant commitment, especially if all you really need is a year-long certificate program for a lay ministry.

While I think lots of theological education is a good thing, it isn't always necessary and this may be one of those times when it isn't the best idea.

I stand absolutely corrected!

It's a sign!

You might be an exception, but most here want the "best" whether they admit it, or not.  If they didn't want the best, they'd get their degrees online rather than battling it out for 1 of 5 slots out of 200 plus applications.  But I know younger generations have been taught to minimize language that promotes competition, hierarchy and ranking despite fully engaging in practices that promote exactly what their language minimizes.  That's why you see so many posts about "best" being relative and depending on what you study, etc.  No one wants to make the faux pas of being honest about their unbridled ambition to soar to the "top."           

I don't think it's so much as them wanting to be on the list as it is you just being an obnoxious twat. I'm sorry, but somebody had to say it.