Loading...Another couple of posts on teaching.
As I indicated, I teach one undergraduate and one graduate course a semester. Teaching undergraduates is a passion of mine. I love doing it. These are nineteen year olds who are inquisitive, interested, and interesting. I enjoy lecturing to a crowd like that, figuring out what can make complicated material intriguing and compelling, keeping them attentive, helping them understand such important topics Some of my colleagues find teaching undergraduates a real chore; others find it very difficult. I find it to be a pleasure and it comes naturally to me. So I’m very lucky about that.
What is really HARD, though I enjoy it intensely too, is teaching graduate students. The graduate student seminar is a very focused experience. A seminar usually last three hours (meeting once a week) and it involves an intense pouring over texts in the original ancient languages (Greek, for my classes), discussion of heavy-hitting scholarship, critique of students’ work, and so on.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, WILL YA???
Bart,
I really appreciate this post. Especially because it takes its cue from the end of the undergraduate-studies program and moves toward those *determined* to acquire an advanced degree. I tell people all the time that simply acquiring a BA changes you, if only because you’re forced to complete a program in which you’re subjected to a wide range of influences, texts, and experts. I suppose one can always claim guidance from the Holy Spirit, but I’m afraid that the *Paraclete* seems to leave the student in a bit of a bind these days.
Well now, a question: do graduate students usually accomplish their language requirements in their undergraduate training, or is the learning of language open to graduate students once they decide on pursuing a PhD? I know, of course, there is no hard-and-fast rule for this, but if one were inclined to pursue a PhD but had little to no training in original languages (much less German or French, oh, that intense 19th century!!), would that individual still be able to complete a degree in 5-8 years?
Just curious. Thanks.
All of the PhD students that we admit into the program in ealry Christainity come in already having a solid background in Greek, and usually one other ancient language; and many of them have one modern language. We’ve admitted students who already have five or six languages! I don’t think it would be possible to be admitted into a decent program without at least a couple of languages — certainly Greek.
What I find really interesting is that it is not uncommon for people with the same top-notch degrees in the same fields to disagree on alot of things.
Yes, interesting and as it should be. A wise man once said something like “If everyone believes the same thing on all topics then someone’s not thinking.”
Hi Bart, I have a minor suggestion. I hope you don’t mind me bringing it up. If you have heard it before, feel free to disregard it. If you haven’t heard it before and you disagree with it, feel free to disregard it. However, if you haven’t heard this before and you do find it helpful, then that’s cool!
Before I make the suggestion, let me say that I am a huge admirer of your scholarship and contrary to the claims of evangelical/fundamentalist Christian apologists, I think you are an EXTREMELY balanced scholar. You are definitely an expert in your field and you have opened up the world of new testament scholarship to a redneck like me. 🙂
As to the charge of elitism/air of superiority that you said is thrown at you from time to time, I think a good way to avoid that charge would be to always focus in on the information/facts/evidence that is the reason why the scholarly consensus is the scholarly consensus on an issue. I think this is a better way to go than emphasizing scholarly credentials as the reason why a scholar’s views should be listened to. Now don’t get me wrong. I admire your scholarly credentials and they are definitely evidence of your new testament/historical Jesus expertise. I’m just saying that if you want have a broader appeal to the Bible thumping, fundamentalist Christian, non-college educated, Joe the plumber type, focusing in on the evidence and facts that make the scholarly consensus the scholarly consensus is the way to go. An example of this could be, “the scholarly consensus on this issue is because of x, y and z……”
Again, I hope this post is not coming off as offensive, because that’s the farthest thing from my intent. Obviously, you don’t need me to tell you that you are free to reject it. I just thought it might be helpful in dealing with those who charge you with elitism.
I love your work and I love this blog.
Great comment; I’ll deal with it in today’s post.
I missed yesterday’s entry about the growth rate of early Christianity and I have a comment and question related to that, if I may ask.
A while back, I made a comment that I thought Christianity became Hellenized as it moved into the Roman world through Paul’s efforts incorporating Greek ideas (Plato’s body / soul dichotomy) and the incorporation of mystery religion ideas and notions relating to the divinity of Jesus (a human) as the emperors were diving (also humans)….easy for those people to accept.
With Constantine accepting the legality of Christianity and with Theodosius making it the State religion, I can easily see how the Jewish roots of Jesus and the Jerusalem church would be lost in Hellenistic philosophy leading eventually to contemporary notions of the human soul peacefully moving to an idyllic place of bliss (better than the human body and the toils of the Earth) at death and the divinity of Jesus (a human) as was the emperor (also a human).
I am stating this simplistically….but can’t help but think that this transition from Judaism, observance of a tight law, and the resurrection of the body at the end times would easily change to what the Romanized and Hellenized peoples of Asia Minor would find familiar and easy to accept….easy salvation with few requirements.
To me, this seems to be a logical and understandable transition from a Judaic legalistic religion to a Christianity that is Hellenized without the yoke of the strict Jewish requirements. I think it makes sense.
Any thoughts on this?
All I’d say is that I think Christianity was Hellenized long before the fourth century; my sense is that by the beginning of the *second* century, most Christian converts were from pagan stock.
I did not intend to imply beginning in the 4th century….I think it began long before that, even during the time of Paul…in his mission to the non-Jews. We see distinct Hellenistic elements in today’s churches that are far from what is in Jewish thought and practice.
It’s a natural progression from what Jesus preached, to Paul, to the Greco-Roman World, to Western culture.
I don’t have a problem with that…I just want to be sure that I’m reading early church history correctly…thank you.
Beautiful. Why I love books from people like you and those you teach.
it seems like a process like this would weed out alot of the 1 dimensional christian conservative types and result in people serious about proper scholarship and more worldly on there view of religion. it must really annoy you when people who arnt experts in the field of NT make huge statements that generally arnt grounded in fact (like those who think jesus didnt exist),
Well, these specialized areas are crucial, even though some seem a bit esoteric, but you also have such a gift for summarizing big, crucial issues for us avid readers in the field who are not scholars, at least not scholars in this field, and we are so appreciative of those summaries (“Lost Christianities,” “Lost Scriptures,” “Misquoting Jesus,” “Jesus, the Apocalyptic Prophet,” “Jesus Interrupted,” “Fraud,” and the best of them all “The New Testament” textbook. Thanks.
It must be wonderful to be surrounded by such active minds! reading your description of the rigors of the exams makes me wish I had more time to further develop my language skills. Scholarly pursuit of ancient material is truly hampered when one has to rely on translations (more so with the Greek from what I understand in terms of nuances in meaning).
It doesn’t seem elitist in acknowledging the work put in by your students makes them an expert, its hard to juggle research and actual income earning work!
I imagine it must be something of a pain to find a subject that hasn’t been gone over before! (of course taking on a subject from a different angle is an option)
When PhD work drags onto 8 years, how do students typically finance their studies? I understand that in US universities, PhD candidates typically have to work as teaching assistant for free. But then they still need to cover their living expenses.
In our program students are funded for 5 years; after that they need to pick up adjunct teaching jobs if possible, online courses, summer school courses, and so on. Otherwise they really have to scrap even harder.
What career paths do your PhD students generally follow?
Most of them go into teaching at the college or university (or sometimes seminary) level.