PhD Related

New Resource for Septuagint Vocabulary

Just a brief post here to mention the publication of an excellent new resource for the Septuagint studies community. Just last month Eisenbrauns published No Stone Unturned: Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary (CSHB 5).

Of course, I am somewhat biased in this particular instance, as the author is my supervisor, Jim Aitken. (And no, he is not paying me to do this post). But if you are interested in LXX studies and have not seen this book, you will want to pick it up. At just $26 (here), it’s a great bargain.

Septuagint Vocabulary

I have posted a few times in the past on various matters in LXX studies that have overlapped with the issue of vocabulary. Most notably is the first two posts in my series discussing the approach of modern language translations of the Septuagint (here and here). As I mentioned, there is ongoing discussion among Septuagintalists regarding just how a LXX word is to be defined. Part of the reason that folks differ on that issue is due to differing views on what the LXX actually is (or was meant to be at first), and to what extent that influences word meaning.

Inscriptions & Lexicography

The purpose of Aitken’s new volume, however, it to draw more attention form all parties to inscriptions as a primary resource. In the discipline of Greek lexicography, there are many rooms. Some of these are very heavily trafficked. Word usage and development is extremely well documented for sources like Classical works, the New Testament and related literature (Philo, Josephus, the Fathers). Other rooms, however, are quite dark and forgotten. That is certainly the case with inscriptions, which offer a range of vocabulary and registers from a variety of regions and over may centuries.

That is why inscriptions are so important, and why it is so unfortunate that they have largely been overlooked in the lexicographical enterprise (Another reason being the relatively recent discovery of many of them). Of course, there are major difficulties in dealing with inscriptions, and those wishing to incorporate data from them into their research (such as myself) will have do much of the work de novo. Inscriptions are published in specialized and scattered volumes (with obscure commentary, often in German or Italian), are rarely translated, and employ difficult and fragmentary Greek.

Fortunately, the wonderful opportunities that these challenging primary sources offer are now somewhat more accessible with Aitken’s new book. It helpfully (and briefly!) describes recent discussions in LXX vocabulary and Greek lexicography in general, explains in detail why inscriptions are important, and then describes how to do the work of using them. Grab a copy!

The 2014 Conference Season: A Review

San Diego was Awesome

It probably goes without saying, but this year’s biblical studies conference location is the best I’ve yet experienced. This was only my third year participating in these events, but 70 degrees and sunny every day sure beats the dreary, sub-freezing temperatures I was met with in both Chicago (’12) and Baltimore (’13).

That being said, it was about a 20-hour journey there from Cambridge, all told, so it did not come without pain on my part. Nevertheless, I did have the opportunity to present at both the ETS and SBL conferences, as I wrote about here.

A Study in Contrast

It should go without saying that not everyone who participates in the one conference participates in the other. Indeed, ETS, being as it is evangelical (‘E’), is quite a bit smaller than SBL. The latter tends to throw conferences that are dumbfoundingly well-organized and impressive, fueled by the huge amounts of members and funding poured into the society year after year. On the other hand, ETS is – well – poor. As a result, ETS is rarely in the same venue as SBL for these conferences, and this year the difference was particularly humorous. Both sites were nice, don’t get me wrong. But that was due largely to the fact that they were both in sunny San Diego where palm trees grow like dandelions.

I’ll let you puzzle out which conference center was the venue for which society.

Option A:

Option B:

20141121_183027009_iOS

The Papers

Naturally, I benefited equally from both conferences, however. Just because ETS is poor does not mean it’s not worth your time. Just the opposite! It’s the perfect reason to become involved. The smaller group makes it actually a bit more fun than SBL, where one tends to float anonymously through seas of scholars of all stripes.

“‘There is No Spoon’: Text-Critical Question-Begging in the So-Called ‘Acrostic’ of Nahum 1

To briefly overview the topics I presented on, at ETS I discussed the acrostic of Nahum 1, which in truth is really only a partial acrostic. If you don’t know what an acrostic is, it only gets more obscure from here. The partial acrostic in the first eight verses of the book has a few “problematic” lines, which do not begin with the “right” letters. It is fairly common, therefore, for commentators to “fix” or “emend” the text in one way or another to “restore” it. To attempt to do so is fine as far as it goes. But the problem is that most commentators go too far.

One of the challenges of OT studies is the scant textual evidence at hand. Basically, we have the Masoretic text, the versions (the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, and other translations), and the Qumran scrolls. This makes arguments for changing the MT very challenging to make well. In short, in this paper I go through the common arguments for changing the MT to “restore” this acrostic on the basis of the LXX as a text-critical witness, and pick them apart one at a time. Mostly, the arguments are poorly founded or misuse the evidence, especially when the LXX version is understood in light of its translational character.

I am hoping to get this paper turned into a published article.

The Divergent Battle Language in LXX-Judges: ΠΟΛΕΜΕΩ and ΠΑΡΑΤΑΣΣΩ

This paper is directly related to my dissertation research. I have realized that the most straightforward way to explain what I am doing here at Cambridge is to say “Greek lexicography.” Now, that may not help some people, but it is accurate. And I am using the Greek texts of LXX-Judges as a “heuristic environment” of sorts. Basically this means I’m looking at the ways in which the two Greek translations of the one Hebrew book phrase things in different ways, and then investigating why that might be the case.

The way I do that is to dive into Greek documentary evidence for better understanding of the word or words in question. Believe it or not, there is a vast body of Greek writing out there that is mostly ignored by Greek scholars. The reason (simply put) is because it is koine Greek, and not the high-flying and academically respectable Classical Greek that has been so popular for, oh, two thousand years. There is a bit of an academic tradition of snubbing koine Greek, although a major reason for that is because we didn’t quite know that koine Greek was a thing until about a century ago. Until then, the Greek Bible was about the only existing koine document, which is why scholars though it was “Holy Ghost Greek” or a special Jewish-Greek dialect.

But when huge amounts of papyri and inscriptions written in the same kind of Greek were literally dug up about a century ago, all that changed, although there is still lots of work to be done. That’s where I fit in. My paper focused on the differing terminology used for “to battle” or “battle” in both translations. I found that in the B-text, the less common and seemingly unlikely words were chosen in most places. As I investigated the data, I uncovered what I believe is a previously unnoticed semantic change in the words in question: παρατάσσω and παράταξις. These words are used in ways similar to the B-text of Judges as in koine historical literature, and so I suggest that the B-text has literary or specialized terminology in it.

Other Points of Interest

There is too much else to say about these conferences. Suffice it to say that I truly enjoyed my involvement in the Institute for Biblical Research (or IBR, here), and the Scripture and Hermeneutics sub-group (through the Paidaia Centre, here). It was also a great pleasure to meet and talk with many senior scholars in various fields. I’ve said before that attending these conferences pays for itself in terms of the conversations that are available there. The feedback on one’s work and the chance to learn about initiatives and opportunities you did not and would not otherwise know about are invaluable.

I’m already looking forward to next year! As a teaser, there are rumblings of a new Septuagint section at the next ETS conference. But we will have to wait and see what happens.

British and American Style Doctoral Programs

Punting on the River Cam in Cambridge

In a previous post, I briefly outlined my work at the University of Cambridge as a doctoral student in Old Testament. In this post, I will discuss the broad differences between British and American doctoral programs in terms of application procedure and requirements. These, at least, are differences that are stereotypically true. There are innumerable permutations to doctoral programs, of course, so what I touch on here will only be so accurate in any given institution.

British and American Doctoral Programs

Most of my family and friends are befuddled when I tell them about the doctoral program at Cambridge. This befuddlement is not always related to their incredulity at my field of interest (the Septuagint), which almost always generates obnoxious yawns when I discuss it. They’re confused by what I will actually do when I show up in Cambridge, namely not go to class (among other things). At least, classes are not the main point of my program.

American Programs

Princeton University

Most Americans are used to thinking about a doctoral degree in similar terms as a graduate degree. They imagine that you apply with your report card and letter of reference from your mother, get accepted, go sit in class for a few years, and then graduate somehow with no job prospects to show for it. Some will know there is a writing aspect. And this picture is somewhat accurate (particularly the job prospect part). In reality, most American programs work something like this:

  1. Rigorous application process, often involving several phases of elimination, and possibly a face-to-face interview.
  2. Acceptance, with an award of a major source of funding, often a full ride or even stipend for “living expenses” that can reach the $30k mark (per year!) at some of the major universities.
  3. Two to Four years of required coursework in your broad field, with mountains of reading and research papers.
  4. One to Two years of teaching assistance for a professor, which may overlap with your coursework. At larger schools, doctoral students actually teach the undergraduate classes themselves, which is a major benefit.
  5. Supervisor selection and the two to three year writing phase, where students will have finished their coursework and enter into (hopefully) unadulterated research and writing with their supervisor of choice. Occasionally doctoral students are employable at this point, having completed their degree “all but dissertation” (sometimes on faculty job postings you’ll see something like “ABD required”).
  6. Most American schools will also have “comprehensive” exams, or “comps,” required somewhere along the line, which are exactly what they sound like.
  7. Graduation.

All in all, the American system is terribly involved, extremely long, and exhausting. On the flip side, you are so completely immersed in education that you come out with a lot to show for it, including teaching experience and publications. Some or all of the steps above overlap at times.

British Programs

The British (and European) model is very different. The best way I can think of to describe it is as an apprentice-mentor relationship. When you are looking to apply for a doctoral program in the British system, you are not really looking for a school as much as for a person. The idea is that by the time you are ready to pursue a doctoral degree you should be educated enough to have a clear idea of your interests and the research that needs to be done in a certain field. Accordingly, you are left to come up with a detailed research project and to find the person under whom it would be best to conduct that work. The main criteria to determine that is whether a potential “supervisor” has the same research interests as you and expertise in the field.

How most people imagine studying at Oxford or Cambridge

Of course, where that scholar is employed also matters in many ways, since the reputation of your school will go a long way. But in theory aspiring doctoral students should be looking for the best person, over the best university reputation, since the working relationship is so closely knit that most of your education will come from your supervisor rather than the school. That is particularly true in the British system where there is no coursework required at all. Only research and writing.

So a British university’s format works more like this:

  1. Rigorous application process, requiring a writing sample related to your field, identification of a prospective supervisor (who you should have developed a relationship with by then), and a full-blown, detailed dissertation proposal identifying your research project (usually 1000 words).
  2. Offer of admission, usually with stipulation of funding, if any (a big “if”).
  3. (Your desperate attempt to find sources of funding.)
  4. Student’s acceptance of the school’s offer, usually completed by submitting further criteria such as your completed masters transcript, a financial liability agreement, etc.
  5. Three years of independent research and writing, overseen only by your supervisor at semi-regular intervals. Many programs have a probationary first year to ensure you’ve got the stuff it takes.
  6. Oral defense of your completed dissertation.
  7. Graduation.

So you can see that British programs are much shorter (about half the length), but do not necessarily come with any funding, and do not (usually) provide teaching experience. On the other hand, you spare yourself the expenditure of much youthful vigor that American programs excise, and you work personally with a scholar of your choice who is ideally at the top of their field. I chose the British path almost by default because most scholars involved in Septuagint studies are located overseas.

The University & College System

Another perplexing aspect to a school like Cambridge – Oxford is the same way – is that Cambridge itself is not formally a “school,” but a corporate, guild-like institution. Cambridge is the unified front for the diversity of colleges within it. So not only are you a “Cambridge student,” but also a student of your college, which in my case is Fitzwilliam College. The application to your college is part of your application to the university, although you pick several colleges of interest, and your acceptance to one is a separate process from your acceptance to the university.

At the doctoral level, your college is important insofar as it establishes your intellectual community, should you conduct your research there, and it also can provide funding opportunities. It is not necessary for your advisor to be part of your college. Doctoral students also work with their particular faculty, in my case the Faculty of Divinity. This is both a physical building and a group of people, namely the divinity faculty members from all the colleges.

In sum, then, there are many key differences between these two systems that important to know when considering applying for a doctoral degree. Hopefully this has been of some help to those in that position, and to my understandably confused family members.