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

[jdmelin]

That is, there are no traces of such 'original documents' (Vorlagen) in the ways that the early Germans sought.

 

The manuscript evidence we have seems to scream something quite different. Wouldn't the fact that there are so many similarities among the various discovered documents mean that there are originals? Are you suggesting that various traditions just happened to come up with texts that all ended up being remarkably similar to one another? 

[sacklunch]

The manuscript evidence we have seems to scream something quite different. Wouldn't the fact that there are so many similarities among the various discovered documents mean that there are originals? Are you suggesting that various traditions just happened to come up with texts that all ended up being remarkably similar to one another? 

 

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

Edited October 8, 2014 by sacklunch

[Body Politics]

[...] 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.

Does the Bible claim that for itself, or does the author of 2 Timothy claim that for the Hebrew Bible?

[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. 

 

Just curious: do you think it is any more misguided than people who spend their lives studying texts they don't believe are true? I don't mean to sound disrespectful or flippant about this! I'm just really curious about how people process these ideas sometimes.

 

 

Does the Bible claim that for itself, or does the author of 2 Timothy claim that for the Hebrew Bible?

 

We could spend a lot of time on this discussion, I'm sure, but one response to this question is that there seems to be evidence that the early apostles already believed their own writings could be classified as having inspiration to the degree that the Hebrew Bible did (cf. 2 Peter 2:14-16).

[jdmelin]

Does the Bible claim that for itself, or does the author of 2 Timothy claim that for the Hebrew Bible?

 

I second what newenglandshawn said. Some with argue against this, I'm sure, but Paul refers to a quote from Luke as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18) and Peter regards Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). The argument for the NT as Scripture isn't nearly as strong as the argument for the OT as Scripture, but I think it's still there. But like newenglandshawn said, we could spend a lot of time on this discussion. And this thread is already off track!

[jdmelin]

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.

 

Agreed.

[sacklunch]

Just curious: do you think it is any more misguided than people who spend their lives studying texts they don't believe are true? I don't mean to sound disrespectful or flippant about this! I'm just really curious about how people process these ideas sometimes.

 

 

 

We could spend a lot of time on this discussion, I'm sure, but one response to this question is that there seems to be evidence that the early apostles already believed their own writings could be classified as having inspiration to the degree that the Hebrew Bible did (cf. 2 Peter 2:14-16).

 

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).

[RedDoor]

I know I'm late, but I thought I'd chime in as well. I am not sure HDS is a good fit for you unless you are interested in pursuing a PhD at Harvard, not a ThD at HDS, and only if you are interested in textual criticism or related studies (e.g., various communities' reception of manuscripts). It sounds like you are more interested in linguistics in general (e.g., discourse analysis). I don't think HDS has an especially great program if that's what you want to do.

[dr. t]

I know I'm late, but I thought I'd chime in as well. I am not sure HDS is a good fit for you unless you are interested in pursuing a PhD at Harvard, not a ThD at HDS, and only if you are interested in textual criticism or related studies (e.g., various communities' reception of manuscripts). It sounds like you are more interested in linguistics in general (e.g., discourse analysis). I don't think HDS has an especially great program if that's what you want to do.

 

There is no longer a ThD at HDS. All doctoral degrees are now administered through the CSR, and the CSR awards PhDs.

[jdmelin]

I know I'm late, but I thought I'd chime in as well. I am not sure HDS is a good fit for you unless you are interested in pursuing a PhD at Harvard, not a ThD at HDS, and only if you are interested in textual criticism or related studies (e.g., various communities' reception of manuscripts). It sounds like you are more interested in linguistics in general (e.g., discourse analysis). I don't think HDS has an especially great program if that's what you want to do.

 

Well, I'm interested in pursuing a PhD later on. I am interested in textual criticism/related studies and linguistics (especially discourse analysis). I'm not necessarily interested in general linguistics to where I'd pursue a linguistics PhD. I'm interested in applying specific linguistics (perhaps discourse analysis) to NT Greek, for example. But I haven't narrowed down my interests at the dissertation level yet.

 

At this point I'm interested in the M.T.S. first in order to strengthen languages, get a better background on Roman and Jewish history and religion, and to basically have a better holistic foundation going into a PhD (And because I don't have a chance to get into a top PhD program without beefing up my educational experience). 

 

What do you think are good options for me for an MTS/MA or PhD?

[GREman]

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.). 

 

Having read this thread, I want to attend to your first question while being mindful of your reasons for wanting to apply. Honestly, I don't think you can go through an MTS, especially at places that require core or introductory courses, without necessitating a fairly dramatic change in your views to be very productive in classroom discussions and papers. It is not that professors will not respect your different perspective, but the experience of the MTS as a whole will be a formidable challenge to your previously held beliefs—more so in some areas than others. In the core courses themselves, lectures will focus on multiple perspectives but will also argue the merits of a particular viewpoint.

 

As a sympathizer with post liberal theology and approaches to Scripture who has been to several institutions that are formative in that area, I would also argue that such approaches to Scripture do not provide a "safe haven" from critical scholarship if that is what you are hoping to get out of it. If you go to a mainline school, you will be exposed to new ideas that will be formative, ideas that will cause seismic shifts in your thinking. I don't think you will enjoy master's work in particular if you are not open to possibly changing even foundational presuppositions. 

 

I do think you can do PhD work a lot more easily as an inerrantist, and that is pretty much the typical route of scholars like the ones newenglandshawn mentioned. I think this sort of pathway has gotten harder due to competition. They often go to a conservative seminary, especially an institution tied to their own denomination, and then only after that go to more popular institutions for their doctoral work. In such a scenario, it is not hard to imagine statements like "I can take everything that was useful to me and put it in one lecture" being made. The, at best, moderate forms of discussion you would enjoy in coursework, conversations with your advisor and fellow students, and at conferences would not have nearly the same powerful effect on your thinking as those core courses in a master's program would. The difference between making such a move at the master's level vs. the doctoral level is you are not exposed to those formative classes, and any sharing of ideas or different perspectives takes place simply through discussions, which I do not think are nearly as formative. A PhD, after all, is designed to build upon introductory degrees like the MDiv or MTS.

 

In these discussions there are at least two theories of the purpose of a theological education at work. Theological education is either a . . .

 

1. Selectivist or Individualist Task in which education takes on individualist and selective overtones. The primary task is the mere assembly of knowledge, and probably out of an ideological world that is constructed upon presuppositions you do not accept. Your goal here is to merely select from what is otherwise a large, unrelated mass of "epistemological material" those elements of their ideas that are helpful to your project. In this approach, your work is probably better spent with people whose ideological work

 

or a . . .

 

2. Formative or Communal Task in which education takes on communal and participatory overtones. You, with fellow students, are participating in the life of the school and learning about the merits of the "forms of knowledge" offered by the faculty and its students, and you in many ways see yourself resonating with them, in other ways not. No two persons here completely agree, but they still operate around a formative center of beliefs and practices that help bring to life theological projects that are at least somewhat cooperative with those forms of knowledge, build off of them, and bring the conversation into new areas of consideration. In this way you do draw particular ideas from a larger mass of "epistemological material" in this approach as well, but it is still in many ways a project of construction upon the foundation from which that "epistemological material" is built. I think this is what you will experience at institutions that are a good "fit."

 

Honestly, I think you have probably done enough masters work to get into PhD programs. A masters would help insofar as it allows you to gain recommendations from people in that area of the academy whose conversations include potential advisors at institutions where you want to do doctoral work, but it would not be helpful for the purpose of academic work itself if you are afraid of being re-formed or are unwilling to participate on a deeper level in the sorts of formative work that takes place in MTS programs. They are, after all, introductory degrees. Besides this, you will definitely ant to ask yourself how you sure you want to work with the specialists at, say, Harvard or Emory? Are they a good fit at all? Because they can only accept like one or two students a year, and they will not end up selecting you if you find yourself at an uncrossable ideological gap between them.

 

That said, I get the sense that you are perhaps anticipating the likelihood of change and seem more easy-going in this regard. After all, none of us are going to think the same things now as we will in, say, 20 years. You could find yourself in a place of denominational transition, but the solution to that particular problem isn't found by merely attending TT institutions, it is found in attending places where you can both be formed, challenged, and ultimately be a scholar that builds upon a foundation that is conducive both to your work as a PhD student and as a scholar thereafter. Besides this, most Christian theological institutions of higher learning will represent many denominational perspectives well, so you won't be found wanting if you don't go TT.

 

Further, presuming you are a part of the SBC or a smaller conservative Baptist association/convention, you could possibly transition to the CBF or even the NBC, thereby solving most of your potential concerns of denominational fit. Denominational preference is a fickle thing, especially when you don't have any particular interest in being a pastor. I know incredibly intelligent people who have changed denominations three times throughout their masters.

 

For reasons like the ones I mentioned above, I would try to re-orient your thinking about your reasons for applying and what sort of path you want to take indoor academic preparation. Every advisor, professor, and admissions director will tell you unequivocally that it is ultimately about fit—or the sharing of enough common ground to make your educational experience conducive to both your goals and their goals in educating their students. If you can make that work, I do not see why you would be nervous about what will actually be taught to you. If you find yourself nervous and against the stances each institution takes on things like biblical inerrancy or methods in linguistics, translation, etc., then you would be better off operating in institutions that share your interests and approaches more deeply.

Edited October 10, 2014 by GREman

[jdmelin]

I do think you can do PhD work a lot more easily as an inerrantist, and that is pretty much the typical route of scholars like the ones newenglandshawn mentioned. I think this sort of pathway has gotten harder due to competition. They often go to a conservative seminary, especially an institution tied to their own denomination, and then only after that go to more popular institutions for their doctoral work.

 

I don't think I have a realistic chance of getting into a TT PhD program unless I get a second masters, hence the purpose of this thread. I wanted to get opinions on whether TT MTS programs would accept me. 

 

I understand what you're saying, but if I want to get into a TT funded PhD program, I basically have to get into a respected M* program if I want I shot. I don't care so much at this point whether I'll be challenged, or won't have a good time, or have the wrong attitude, etc.

 

None of that matters if I actually want to get into a TT PhD program. If some of my views change, so be it. If they don't, so be it. 

 

It's about the facts.

 

Will a TT PhD program accept me with my current credentials? A 99.9% chance of a NO.

 

Will a TT M* program accept me with my current credentials? This is all I really care about since it's perhaps my only shot at getting into a TT PhD program.

 

Not trying to be rude in any way. I just want to be matter-of-fact about all of this. And this isn't geared at just your response. I think you said some helpful things. I'm just getting a lot of feedback that isn't necessarily addressing whether I'd be accepted, but rather what kind of experience I would have were I to be accepted.

Edited October 10, 2014 by jdmelin

[sacklunch]

 

 

I don't think I have a realistic chance of getting into a TT PhD program unless I get a second masters, hence the purpose of this thread. I wanted to get opinions on whether TT MTS programs would accept me. 

 

I understand what you're saying, but if I want to get into a TT funded PhD program, I basically have to get into a respected M* program if I want I shot. I don't care so much at this point whether I'll be challenged, or won't have a good time, or have the wrong attitude, etc.

 

None of that matters if I actually want to get into a TT PhD program. If some of my views change, so be it. If they don't, so be it. 

 

It's about the facts.

 

Will a TT PhD program accept me with my current credentials? A 99.9% chance of a NO.

 

Will a TT M* program accept me with my current credentials? This is all I really care about since it's perhaps my only shot at getting into a TT PhD program.

 

Not trying to be rude in any way. I just want to be matter-of-fact about all of this. And this isn't geared at just your response. I think you said some helpful things. I'm just getting a lot of feedback that isn't necessarily addressing whether I'd be accepted, but rather what kind of experience I would have were I to be accepted.

 

 

Our responses were aimed at whether you would enjoy your time at such schools, which, I think, may be directly related to how well you thrive in such settings. If you are 'that person' in class that is not willing to engage in the sort of standard discourse that occurs in these settings, then you may be less likely to receive good (or at all) letters of recommendation (and perhaps good grades).

An additional reason for our concerns, I think, is that the type of work you are interested in--in as much as it has crucial bearing on your core beliefs--is not carried out at such schools. These days, at least at 'top' programs, much of the 'text critical' research is done diachronically, and accordingly, synchronic research, at least without heavy considerations of diachronicity, will be heavily resisted, particular so in the field of biblical studies.

In short, the above concerns, in my view, are hinting that you may not find anyone willing to work with you on your research at 'top' schools. Of course, there is no way to know this without trying your hand in such settings. 

 

But, aside from the above considerations, and to be more direct: Yes, you stand a fine chance of getting into TT M* programs. As has been often said on this forum, admission rates for TT M* programs are incredibly high vis-a-vis other M* at such schools. If you submit a somewhat compelling SOP, writing sample, letters, and your grades are above average, you stand a good chance. So, apply, and see what happens. There is only one way to find out, I suppose. 

 

Another option, also said above, is applying to European PhD programs now. These programs are often sought out by conservatives (yes, the term is complicated) precisely because they are just dissertations. Funding varies greatly and you can expect as a general rule to shell out at least some cash for the degree. 

 

cheers

[jdmelin]

Thanks, sacklunch. That's helpful.

[GREman]

 

Not trying to be rude in any way. I just want to be matter-of-fact about all of this. And this isn't geared at just your response. I think you said some helpful things. I'm just getting a lot of feedback that isn't necessarily addressing whether I'd be accepted, but rather what kind of experience I would have were I to be accepted.

 

 

Yeah I get it, but you would be disadvantaged to ignore the nuances of this sort of question, which really circles around seemingly qualitative considerations like the ones I mentioned before. Put shortly, If your interests and convictions fit well with an institution, then that alone should be seen as a very real measure of your chances of succeeding. There are no guarantees, even with perfect GPAs and amazing LORs. I think "fit" matters more than any concern or qualifier you could throw at us. It doesn't matter where you come from so much as where you want to go.

 

That said—with sacklunch's mention of SOPs, LORS, GPAs, etc. in mind—I think you'll find every TT masters program except Yale's MAR field-specific programs have acceptance rates of at least 20%, I think Princeton's MDiv has been as high as 50%+, though they are evidently starting an MTS soon as well which may mix things up. MA programs in departments of religion (which you might find sometimes line up with your interests more than seminaries and divinity schools, since their scripture specialists tend to be linguistically-oriented, a lot of TT specialists are into integrative biblical-theological work these days) may be more of a challenge, although some of the best TT MA programs have high acceptance rates (50%+) as well. 

 

So will you get in? If you don't, I will be absolutely shocked. Apply to at least 5 if you are really worried, and make them all TT, no safety schools needed at this stage IMO. I overdid it and applied to 10 (7 TT) for my first masters, including all the ones you mentioned. I came from a school affiliated with an incredibly unknown fundamentalist/evangelical baptist denomination. I got into 8 of the 10, including all the ones you mentioned and 6 with at least 50% funding.

Edited October 10, 2014 by GREman

[jdmelin]

Very helpful, GREman. Thanks.

[RedDoor]

There is no longer a ThD at HDS. All doctoral degrees are now administered through the CSR, and the CSR awards PhDs.

Good to know!

 

 

Well, I'm interested in pursuing a PhD later on. I am interested in textual criticism/related studies and linguistics (especially discourse analysis). I'm not necessarily interested in general linguistics to where I'd pursue a linguistics PhD. I'm interested in applying specific linguistics (perhaps discourse analysis) to NT Greek, for example. But I haven't narrowed down my interests at the dissertation level yet.

 

At this point I'm interested in the M.T.S. first in order to strengthen languages, get a better background on Roman and Jewish history and religion, and to basically have a better holistic foundation going into a PhD (And because I don't have a chance to get into a top PhD program without beefing up my educational experience). 

 

What do you think are good options for me for an MTS/MA or PhD?

I think BC or BU might be worth pursuing and they may be a better fit. I've never taken a class there, but I've heard good things.

 

If you do end up pursuing HDS, you would benefit from any Gordon-Conwell class, particularly Advanced Greek with Dr. Ciampa, who works as a Bible translator with Nida. I think you'd enjoy GCTS, but it's probably more of the same that SEBTS provided you, though perhaps not as conservative. As I said before, I'm not sure HDS is a great fit for you, but GCTS would certainly allow you have a bit of familiarity in the midst of a different world. The commute's a pain though.

[jdmelin]

Good to know!

 

 

I think BC or BU might be worth pursuing and they may be a better fit. I've never taken a class there, but I've heard good things.

 

If you do end up pursuing HDS, you would benefit from any Gordon-Conwell class, particularly Advanced Greek with Dr. Ciampa, who works as a Bible translator with Nida. I think you'd enjoy GCTS, but it's probably more of the same that SEBTS provided you, though perhaps not as conservative. As I said before, I'm not sure HDS is a great fit for you, but GCTS would certainly allow you have a bit of familiarity in the midst of a different world. The commute's a pain though.

 

Thanks for the info. The flexibility of the MTS at HDS is appealing. I'd love to take one or more courses at GCTS. I'll look up Dr. Ciampa. 

[trollofinterest]

I found this thread while scanning the web for info on similar topics. My situation is similar to yours, jdmelin. I am currently attending a Baptist college that is affiliated with a denomination that is even more conservative than the SBC, to which Southwestern B.T.S. belongs. My school (somehow) has full regional accreditation, but the statement of faith that the faculty sign includes doctrines like literal six-day creationism and others that many moderate-to-liberal Christians and secularists would find laughable. I, personally, have decided to wade (much) farther out into the world of scholarship when I am done here in the spring, and I could see myself in a position that is very much like yours 2-3 years from now.

 

FWIW, (I mentioned how conservative the profs are at my school) a couple of my profs have received their PhD's from second-tier places like Saint Louis U and Loyola-Chicago within the last 10 years and have managed to publish work with some major university publishers. I know that you are aiming for top-tier schools and I'm not trying to get you to reconsider doing so, I plan to do the same in due time! However, I thought I would offer my example to encourage you in your efforts and share a couple examples with the forum of extreme conservatives who managed to make it through the world of critical scholarship. The environment in a HDS M.T.S. program will be much more difficult than a Jesuit PhD program, but if my inerrantist, 6-day creationist profs get through a NT/Early Christianity program at the schools I mentioned above, with some open-mindedness, I think you'll be fine in a liberal/secular PhD program. 

 

Also, the profs I'm thinking of got into their programs (funded with stipend) with M. Div.'s and Th. M.'s (one of them also had a M.A. from a very low-tier state university) from a denominational seminary that is much smaller and less well-known than Southwestern. Since you are aiming for TT schools, I think an additional degree from one of the big divinity schools will definitely improve your odds. But if you were to aim a little lower on the "respectability ladder," it'd probably be possible for you to get into a decent program without one. 

[marXian]

Also, the profs I'm thinking of got into their programs (funded with stipend) with M. Div.'s and Th. M.'s (one of them also had a M.A. from a very low-tier state university) from a denominational seminary that is much smaller and less well-known than Southwestern. Since you are aiming for TT schools, I think an additional degree from one of the big divinity schools will definitely improve your odds. But if you were to aim a little lower on the "respectability ladder," it'd probably be possible for you to get into a decent program without one. 

 

The problem though with this kind of anecdotal evidence is that these profs probably attended at a time when admissions to PhD programs simply wasn't as competitive as it is today. There are just way more qualified applicants today than there were 30, 20, or probably even 10 years ago. Even for second tier programs, the competition is very stiff even if not as stiff as Duke, Harvard, etc.

 

Also keep in mind that you don't want to pay for your PhD if you can help it (which you would likely have to do at a second or third tier program.) Some on this board would say that you should under absolutely no circumstances pay for your PhD. I would say that if you've already paid a lot for your undergrad and/or M*, then you should definitely not fork out more for a PhD. But since everyone's situation is different, I think the best rule of thumb is that at the very least, paying should be your absolute last resort, meaning you should give it a couple rounds of application seasons before you consider paying.

[sacklunch]

Pretty much what marxian said ^^^. 

 

Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago can be devastating. Either way, it would be interesting to see admission rates for phd applications then to now (I'm fairly certain no stats exist for that age).

 

I also want to say that while HDS may be less tolerant in some ways of your 'conservative' views, I'm not sure if such settings would be 'better or worse' than somewhere like SLU or any other Jesuit university (as you say). What I have found in my time with the Jesuits (somewhat extensive, I think), and I think by extension I might generalize a bit of Catholic schools, is that your own views on the biblical text will not be as devastating to their theology. It is simply not 'on the radar' for many scholars in such settings. Moreover, the Jesuits schools, just as many Catholic universities, are comprised (excluding the priests) of many secular academics. This brings me to another point: if and when you arrive at any of these institutions, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or secular, your views will not pit you against the mob as if in some epic. In truth, you will mark yourself, perhaps early on or slowly, as someone who is not able to engage in the common scholarly discourse. In fact, you likely won't even be laughed at. You will simply bewilder your peers and professors. And then they will go about their business, forgetting that you once stood firm in your suggestion in class that the biblical text(s) has no contradictions. 

 

cheers

[cadences]

Pretty much what marxian said ^^^. 

 

Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago can be devastating. Either way, it would be interesting to see admission rates for phd applications then to now (I'm fairly certain no stats exist for that age).

 

I also want to say that while HDS may be less tolerant in some ways of your 'conservative' views, I'm not sure if such settings would be 'better or worse' than somewhere like SLU or any other Jesuit university (as you say). What I have found in my time with the Jesuits (somewhat extensive, I think), and I think by extension I might generalize a bit of Catholic schools, is that your own views on the biblical text will not be as devastating to their theology. It is simply not 'on the radar' for many scholars in such settings. Moreover, the Jesuits schools, just as many Catholic universities, are comprised (excluding the priests) of many secular academics. This brings me to another point: if and when you arrive at any of these institutions, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or secular, your views will not pit you against the mob as if in some epic. In truth, you will mark yourself, perhaps early on or slowly, as someone who is not able to engage in the common scholarly discourse. In fact, you likely won't even be laughed at. You will simply bewilder your peers and professors. And then they will go about their business, forgetting that you once stood firm in your suggestion in class that the biblical text(s) has no contradictions. 

 

cheers

 

This is true...