Lux Lex Pax

You should be thinking of this as a step toward the Ph.D. Doctoral programs are highly focused. So that rather than listing all the faculty teaching in a particular area at a school, you should be thinking about the one or two that'll advise you and oversee your project and hopefully write outstanding letters of recommendation. I think Herdt and Tanner will be better in these regards than Bretherton. But you should inquire with YDS to see what the possibilities of working with both are, especially given your interests. Also ask about directed studies or reading courses and if Herdt or Tanner are available to work with students in those capacities. Here are the respective strengths, as I see them, of the possibilities. Herdt will provide you a strong background in ethical theory and early Modern ethical thought. Duke won't give you that in the same way Herdt (and Hare) would because the theological commitments of some at Duke are such that philosophy and theology are deeply opposed. They'll say something different, but if you scratch beneath the surface, the opposition is definitely there. Tanner will provide you with the connections between systematic theology and economics. There probably aren't any other big names in theology doing the kind of work she is doing at a conceptual level. Bretherton, on the other hand, does a little of everything but is especially good on empirical/ethnographic work and social ethics. He seems to think about concrete issues (usury or payday lending, for example) a little more than Herdt and Tanner, and he is much more amenable towards doing social ethics (that is, thinking about our common life together) than either of the other two. Pick your poison. I think YDS might provide you with better intellectual formation. But if you really care about spiritual formation (of a certain kind) and social ethics, then perhaps Duke is your place.

If you go to Yale, temper your expectations of Volf. He seems to be very busy and nearly inaccessible. Focus on Herdt and Tanner.

I'd give the edge to Yale given your interests in theological ethics and economics. Duke has Bretherton, but Yale has Tanner and Herdt. Also, Yale, I think, has a better placement record for those pursing doctoral studies. Just something to think about.

When I was an M.Div. student I had the same critique. I thought Ph.D. students and those that aspired to be one had very narrow interests. Then, I realized how wrong I was when I got to graduate school. Think about this. Would you expect a biologist to know astronomy, or an astronomer to know geology? If not, then why expect someone who studies Hebrew Bible to know religions of South Asia or liberation theology? If you insist that someone know about these things, what unites these disparate fields of inquiry into a coherent area of knowledge that would require someone studying one of these areas to know something about the others? How you think about these connections will ultimately depend on your theory of religion. Many academics who study religion are wary of "comparative religious studies" because of the distorting effects it has on what is being studied. This doesn't mean be narrow, uninteresting, and irrelevant. It does mean, however, that at the end of the day you are someone trying to further knowledge in your field and having only enough knowledge of a variety of "religions" to bullshit at cocktail parties isn't going to cut it. Trying to balance all these considerations is difficult, especially for graduate students.

When someone poses a question like this, it's almost inevitable that people will shill for their own programs. So beware. There's this: http://chronicle.com/article/nrc-religion/124664/ I believe the info there is the most up-to-date; it's the most recent - the data was gathered in 2005-06, though. Also, rankings are pretty meaningless unless you specify your criteria and the relative weight you want to give each one. What do you care about and how much: prestige, funding, quality of faculty, faculty support and investment in grad student formation, job prospects, methodology, philosophical commitments, departmental collegiality, subject matter specialization, theology versus religion program etc. All these matter. But they'll matter to a different extent for everyone. You have to figure that out for yourself. If you give us some of this information, maybe we can help you figure it out.

Check out the programs in English and/or Literature at Duke. They have a few people you might be interested in working with or who would at least be open to your kind of project. I'm thinking of David Aers, Thomas Pfau, and Ken Surrin.

Let's keep in mind that a text like the bible is read by different communities, readings informed by various traditions of interpretation (historical-critical, confessional, etc.) and with different aims (history, theology, etc). I don't want to suggest that scholarly readings are completely separate from confessional readings, but it is useful to acknowledge that the two don't completely overlap either. I think it's legitimate for theological readings to make claims that historical readings wouldn't (or couldn't). I also think, however, that it's legitimate for historians to challenge faulty historical claims made by theological interpreters and that both (historical and theological) ways of reading can be legitimate scholarly modes of reading. It strikes me that this discussion has completely overlooked the distinctions between different communities of interpretation with their own traditions, methods, and canons of reason that individuals in those communities find persuasive. Biblical interpretation and scholarship isn't a relativist enterprise, but it is one suffused with pluralism of methods, aims, and reasons that are at times convergent or divergent or sometimes have nothing to do with each other.

Harvard Divinity is top tier because of prestige, funding, and other institutional resources; it's loaded, when compared to other div schools or seminaries. The issue with HDS is that there aren't many resources for the study of Christianity (scriptures, history, theology, ethics, etc.) for people who care about, identify with, or work within the tradition. It has a pretty strong feminist, liberationist, post-colonialist, post-Christian, etc. vibe. The good news is that, I think, most conservative or evangelical schools would gladly hire someone from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or any other prestigious institution as long as one is willing to sign the statement of confession or go through any other hoops they want one to jump through. Given your academic interests, I'd say you're a good fit for Notre Dame's Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity program. Check it out. I'm sure others will have other recommendations.

The closest thing to an official ranking of graduate programs in religion is: http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion It's based on data from the National Research Council. It's primary virtue is that it's based on concrete data collected from the departments themselves. The downside is that the information is old and, therefore, doesn't reflect changes in the field (like faculty departures). It also isn't broken down into subfields, which is probably more important than overall department rankings. Despite some claims of objectivity, the rankings game is inevitably impressionistic and subjective. Rankings rely on criteria for what counts or ought to count as "the" best. Criteria, however, are 1) value-laden and 2)vary from person to person, depending on his or her interests (especially subfield interests). One's criteria for evaluating graduate programs are not going to be the same as anyone else's unless one has the same values and interests as others and one agrees with the various judgements others make as to how the criteria apply in specific instances. That's why anytime someone puts forward his rankings of religion/theology programs others will inevitably and vehemently disagree. Perhaps it would be better, then, if rather than asking for a generic ranking of programs, you told us what you value in a graduate program and what interests you have. Then, we could help point you in the right direction. For instance, do you value prestige, mentoring, or funding or all three or some mix of them or something else? Are you interested in OT, NT, ethics, theology, history, or a non-Christian religion? What approach, methodology, thinker, or school of thought tickles your fancy? Once you've answered some of these questions, you (and we) will be in a better position to rank programs accordingly.

This is good advice, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is crucial for anyone doing modern philosophy, theology, or ethics. Period. I'm not saying that one has to agree with Kant or that his system is the best, but everyone in the modern period who came after him is dealing with him and his legacy in one way or another. Modern philosophy and theology basically begin with him.

Those are both excellent programs. I think either choice can work for you. I'd give the edge to Yale, however, because it does seem to have stronger faculty in that particular area, and Yale generally places better than Emory. Before making a decision, you should probably try to get more money out of Yale by telling them about your offer at Emory and your worry about the significant increase in cost of living in New Haven as compared to Atlanta. It's doubtful, but they might kick in some extra money.

Why switch if it isn't a problem? Seems a bit contradictory. I'd also want to check to see how easy the switch between programs really is, especially if you'd rather do the concentrated MAR.

My admittedly impressionistic take is that the PTS M.Div. has placed more students in better programs than the YDS M.Div. But that probably has more to do with the academic types going for the MAR at YDS, which has no analogue at PTS, rather than the M.Div. The lack of an MTS or MAR at PTS has the effect of lumping everyone together, both future ministers and future academics, which creates a weird division among PTS M.Div. students -- anyone who has studied at PTS knows what I mean. In short, PTS M.Div. over YDS M.Div., but I'd give a slight advantage to YDS MAR over the PTS M.Div. Another thing to consider, the PTS New Testament faculty has seen quite a bit of turnover in recent years. It lost Gaventa and Ross to Baylor and Duke, respectively, though it has also lost others. Dale Allison was a good hire, but most of the newer NT faculty are young scholars, which could be both positive and negative. Positive in that they might not be as busy and might devote more time to students. Negative in that they aren't established names in the field, so their references would carry the same gravitas as Gaventa. I would probably still give the advantage to PTS just because it has a larger bible faculty and you could also benefit from the resources next door at the University.

I second Kuriakos. I've heard other graduates of U of C describe it like marXian did as well.

Not all divinity schools or seminaries in the U.S. are as confessional as you might think. University of Chicago Div, Yale Div, Harvard Div, GTU, and probably Claremont, for starters, are places where a skeptic might not have a difficult time, and might even find it more amenable than being a believer.