Am I too evangelical for top-tier M.T.S. programs?

[jdmelin]

Here's what I have:

 

B.A. in Biblical Studies from Toccoa Falls College (probably never heard of it)

M.A. in Bible Translation from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (perhaps you've heard of it)

 

Given my evangelical background (arguably fundamentalist, though I would disagree), would top-tier M.T.S. programs even touch me with 10-foot pole? Even though I've had over 60 credit hours of biblical languages and linguistics?

 

I'm unequivocally certain that top-tier PhD programs would act as though I didn't even exist were I to apply (hence the decision to consider an M.T.S.). 

[Kuriakos]

Are you an inerrantist and is this reflected in your work?

[jdmelin]

Yes, I'm an inerrantist, but it isn't necessarily reflected in my work.

 

My M.A. studies focused primarily on basic linguistics and the application of linguistics to the biblical languages. My work didn't deal much with theological issues as much as it did with textual/translation/linguistic issues. 

[Kuriakos]

Yes, I'm an inerrantist, but it isn't necessarily reflected in my work.

 

My M.A. studies focused primarily on basic linguistics and the application of linguistics to the biblical languages. My work didn't deal much with theological issues as much as it did with textual/translation/linguistic issues. 

 

Conservative evangelicals are kind of notorious for using TC and grammar as a way to hide out in more liberal programs. I'm sure you could get into a decent MTS program somewhere, but it sounds like you want to do it to legitimize yourself without actually being open to change. I suspect that if you go into it with that intention you will have a bad time of it. You'd probably be better off applying to a UK program and hoping you're lucky enough to get funding. UK PhD programs are bursting at the seams with American conservative evangelicals who could never hack it in a US PhD program because of their convictions (or so I've been repeatedly told by people who know). 

[newenglandshawn]

You certainly wouldn't be the first inerrantist who went through a Top Tier program - nor would you be the first person who was wanting to "legitimize" yourself "without actually being open to change." Plenty of people go that route. I could name a number from my own evangelical school alone who did their doctoral work at Top Tier (American) programs and had no intention of changing their perspective - nor did they change their conservative views of Scripture throughout.

 

There are also a number of Top Tier programs that are post-liberal in their methodologies and have greater openness to studying Scripture in its final form, so I don't think your background immediately disqualifies you.

[jdmelin]

Conservative evangelicals are kind of notorious for using TC and grammar as a way to hide out in more liberal programs. I'm sure you could get into a decent MTS program somewhere, but it sounds like you want to do it to legitimize yourself without actually being open to change. I suspect that if you go into it with that intention you will have a bad time of it. You'd probably be better off applying to a UK program and hoping you're lucky enough to get funding. UK PhD programs are bursting at the seams with American conservative evangelicals who could never hack it in a US PhD program because of their convictions (or so I've been repeatedly told by people who know). 

 

Not gonna lie, part of it would be to "legitimize" myself, but I wouldn't say that I would be closed to any change whatsoever. But I don't think my goal for further education would be to drastically change my views. It would be to further my understanding of issues I'm interested in and want to utilize for my future in ministry/academia. I guess it depends on what kind of change you're talking about.

 

 

You certainly wouldn't be the first inerrantist who went through a Top Tier program - nor would you be the first person who was wanting to "legitimize" yourself "without actually being open to change." Plenty of people go that route. I could name a number from my own evangelical school alone who did their doctoral work at Top Tier (American) programs and had no intention of changing their perspective - nor did they change their conservative views of Scripture throughout.

 

There are also a number of Top Tier programs that are post-liberal in their methodologies and have greater openness to studying Scripture in its final form, so I don't think your background immediately disqualifies you.

 

That's good to hear. Thanks for your input.

[sacklunch]

Not gonna lie, part of it would be to "legitimize" myself, but I wouldn't say that I would be closed to any change whatsoever. But I don't think my goal for further education would be to drastically change my views. It would be to further my understanding of issues I'm interested in and want to utilize for my future in ministry/academia. I guess it depends on what kind of change you're talking about.

 

 

 

That's good to hear. Thanks for your input.

 

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. 

[jdmelin]

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. 

 

I understand why you'd think that, but because of my belief system that I've developed over the course of my life, I'm not interested in pursuing more education that will change the core doctrines of my faith. I don't think it's sad and misguided. It's just where I stand personally. But, yes, we have different ideas about the function of higher education, at least as it pertains to religion.

 

 

 If you are an inerrantist, then, as it was said above, you will not have a good time.

 

I don't think this would necessarily be the case. I'm not looking to study theology, per se, but rather to further study biblical languages, linguistics, history, world religions, etc. In other words, the objective aspects of the subject matters I'm interested in don't hinge on issues of inerrancy. I can handle it if people don't take the same view. Application of the study of the biblical text will differ, but I'm more interested in the observation and interpretation aspects.

 

 

Though it's also important to ask what do you consider a top program?

 

I'm specifically interested in Harvard, BU, BC, Emory, and Duke. Mostly HDS at this point. 

 

 

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?

 

A few factors:

 

1. Funding - I'd rather not pay tuition (at least not much) for another masters or a PhD.

2. Credibility - I'd like to have a credible M.T.S. to have the opportunity to get into a top-tier PhD program.

3. Location - Frankly, I'm only interested in Boston, Atlanta, or Durham at this point.

 

 

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. 

 

I'd like to have a career in ministry and academia. Ideally, I want to serve in a foreign context, working with national Christians to help get Bibles into their languages, as well as teach Greek/Hebrew/linguistics. Afterwards, I'd love to come back to the U.S. and teach indefinitely in order to train others to do similar work. 

 

I could stay in the sphere I'm already in, for sure. However, it would cost a lot more money and I would potentially have less future employment opportunities. Not to mention, if my denomination takes a turn for the worse, or if my views change enough to where I no longer feel that I can be employed at my denomination's schools, then I'd be up the creek without a paddle if I was still stuck in that "sphere." I'd rather have a foot in both camps so that my options are open.

 

I could probably throw a few more idioms in there if that wasn't enough.

[newenglandshawn]

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.

I'm not an inerrantist to the degree a Southern Baptist would be, but I do have a high view of Scripture, so I'll take a stab:

1. Hire-ability. It may seem counterintuitive, but even evangelical schools often like to have professors who went to TT programs - for many reasons.

2. Finances. We don't want to pay for our schooling either!

3. Some of us do like to hear other viewpoints, even if we have no intention of changing our own.

4. As I said before, it's certainly not the norm, but it is possible to find programs, or professors within a program, who want to study Scripture in its final form (ie., from a canonical or literary methodology).

It's, of course, quite possible that one will, indeed, find a torturous program. A professor from my school, for example, who went to a TT program in HB/OT (and is quite accomplished outside evangelicalism) once said that in his 5+ years of doctoral studies that he could boil down what he found to be usefu to him to about a single class period.

So, that can certainly be a person's experience!

[sacklunch]

It's, of course, quite possible that one will, indeed, find a torturous program. A professor from my school, for example, who went to a TT program in HB/OT (and is quite accomplished outside evangelicalism) once said that in his 5+ years of doctoral studies that he could boil down what he found to be usefu to him to about a single class period.

So, that can certainly be a person's experience!

 

 

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!

Edited October 7, 2014 by sacklunch

[sacklunch]

I understand why you'd think that, but because of my belief system that I've developed over the course of my life, I'm not interested in pursuing more education that will change the core doctrines of my faith. I don't think it's sad and misguided. It's just where I stand personally. But, yes, we have different ideas about the function of higher education, at least as it pertains to religion.

 

 

 

I don't think this would necessarily be the case. I'm not looking to study theology, per se, but rather to further study biblical languages, linguistics, history, world religions, etc. In other words, the objective aspects of the subject matters I'm interested in don't hinge on issues of inerrancy. I can handle it if people don't take the same view. Application of the study of the biblical text will differ, but I'm more interested in the observation and interpretation aspects.

 

 

 

I'm specifically interested in Harvard, BU, BC, Emory, and Duke. Mostly HDS at this point. 

 

 

 

A few factors:

 

1. Funding - I'd rather not pay tuition (at least not much) for another masters or a PhD.

2. Credibility - I'd like to have a credible M.T.S. to have the opportunity to get into a top-tier PhD program.

3. Location - Frankly, I'm only interested in Boston, Atlanta, or Durham at this point.

 

 

 

I'd like to have a career in ministry and academia. Ideally, I want to serve in a foreign context, working with national Christians to help get Bibles into their languages, as well as teach Greek/Hebrew/linguistics. Afterwards, I'd love to come back to the U.S. and teach indefinitely in order to train others to do similar work. 

 

I could stay in the sphere I'm already in, for sure. However, it would cost a lot more money and I would potentially have less future employment opportunities. Not to mention, if my denomination takes a turn for the worse, or if my views change enough to where I no longer feel that I can be employed at my denomination's schools, then I'd be up the creek without a paddle if I was still stuck in that "sphere." I'd rather have a foot in both camps so that my options are open.

 

I could probably throw a few more idioms in there if that wasn't enough.

 

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. 

[jdmelin]

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. 

 

I don't doubt that I would be challenged. Hopefully it would serve to sharpen my beliefs and help me grow academically and personally. 

 

Which schools and what'd you study? You can message me if you'd like.

[dr. t]

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. 

 

Agreed. 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that I would be challenged. Hopefully it would serve to sharpen my beliefs and help me grow academically and personally. 

 

I'm not sure that's precisely what sacklunch meant. There are many types of challenges, and not all of them are purely intellectual.

[newenglandshawn]

By the way, even though you said you are interested in biblical studies, you didn't indicate whether you are interested in OT or NT. Either way, I think of all the schools you are interested in, Duke would probably be your best bet, and would probably be the most positive experience.

HDS would, of course, be exciting, but I don't believe biblical studies is their strong suit.

[jdmelin]

By the way, even though you said you are interested in biblical studies, you didn't indicate whether you are interested in OT or NT. Either way, I think of all the schools you are interested in, Duke would probably be your best bet, and would probably be the most positive experience.

HDS would, of course, be exciting, but I don't believe biblical studies is their strong suit.

NT, but I'm interested in the translation of the OT text into the LXX. I prefer the Greek language so far, so I lean towards NT.

Edited October 7, 2014 by jdmelin

[dr. t]

NT, but I'm interested in the translation of the OT text into the LXX. I prefer the Greek language so far, so I lean towards NT.

 

So which professors at HDS interested you specifically? Bazzana?

[jdmelin]

So which professors at HDS interested you specifically? Bazzana?

Yes, exactly. I'm especially curious about his research interests listed on his faculty description, specifically concerning developing a critical theory of biblical translation.

Also, D. Andrew Teeter. My interests seem to fit well with his research interests, specifically biblical translation in antiquity.

[Kuriakos]

NT, but I'm interested in the translation of the OT text into the LXX. I prefer the Greek language so far, so I lean towards NT.

 

I'm kind of surprised by this, since the differences between the LXX and MT really demonstrate the infeasability of the doctrine of inerrancy. 

[jdmelin]

I'm kind of surprised by this, since the differences between the LXX and MT really demonstrate the infeasability of the doctrine of inerrancy.

Depends on your definition of inerrancy.

[sacklunch]

I'm kind of surprised by this, since the differences between the LXX and MT really demonstrate the infeasability of the doctrine of inerrancy. 

 

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?

Edited October 8, 2014 by sacklunch

[newenglandshawn]

I would imagine that an inerrantist would say that the original documents were innerrant - thus if the LXX could get one closer to the original documents, it would in no way threaten an inerrantist, but only aid him/her in finding the original inerrant word.

[dr. t]

My experience with NT studies at HDS has been through Bazzana, who is not particularly warm towards most positivist or historical-critical approaches to either testament. My takeaway from his course on Apocalyptic literature last spring was that the historical-critical approach to the NT is pretty much nonsense. 

 

My concern is not so direct as others. I'm sure you'll be able maintain your beliefs, incorporate the aspects of your education you find useful, and discard those you do not. Nor is the problem that you will get angry pushback. Students at HDS are universally very gentle (too gentle, IMO) with others' beliefs. The problem is that you may get no pushback; being intellectually challenged is the reason why you go to graduate school. 

 

Second, I would infer from your theological stance that you are probably pretty socially conservative, and HDS just put up trans* friendly bathroom signs on single-occupancy bathrooms to be more inclusive with regard to gender identity. In other words, a liberal social agenda matters a lot - way more than any particular theological position - to most of the people here, and you may find your two years a bit lonely.

Edited October 8, 2014 by telkanuru

[sacklunch]

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.' 

[jdmelin]

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?

 

To me, inerrancy simply means that the original autographs were without error. Each supposed "error" must be addressed in light of the intent of the author. I can't impose 21st century knowledge on someone from a few thousand years ago. So, naturally, issues of science, details of recording numbers, issues of chronology, etc. were written about differently than they would be today. 

 

As far as the LXX and MT, the minor discrepancies caused by scribal error bear no weight on the issue of inerrancy, in my opinion. Neither the LXX nor the MT are the originals. 

 

Inerrancy is a faith issue more than anything. No one will never have access to the originals, so all we can really do is compare copies against copies. And I'm comfortable with what we've discovered. What it amounts to for me is that if the Bible's claim that it is "God-breathed" is true, then I'm not okay with settling for anything less than an infallible and inerrant OT and NT.

[jdmelin]

My experience with NT studies at HDS has been through Bazzana, who is not particularly warm towards most positivist or historical-critical approaches to either testament. My takeaway from his course on Apocalyptic literature last spring was that the historical-critical approach to the NT is pretty much nonsense. 

 

My concern is not so direct as others. I'm sure you'll be able maintain your beliefs, incorporate the aspects of your education you find useful, and discard those you do not. Nor is the problem that you will get angry pushback. Students at HDS are universally very gentle (too gentle, IMO) with others' beliefs. The problem is that you may get no pushback; being intellectually challenged is the reason why you go to graduate school. 

 

Second, I would infer from your theological stance that you are probably pretty socially conservative, and HDS just put up trans* friendly bathroom signs on single-occupancy bathrooms to be more inclusive with regard to gender identity. In other words, a liberal social agenda matters a lot - way more than any particular theological position - to most of the people here, and you may find your two years a bit lonely.

 

Thanks for sharing. Food for thought. I'm an easy-going guy, and I get along with pretty much everyone, so even though I am indeed socially conservative, I'm fine if others aren't. Concerning Bazzana, I guess I'd have to sit under him for a bit to better understand where he's coming from.