An Open Letter to Ph.D. Admissions Committees

Dear Intrepid Google-searcher:

Thank you for your interest in my Ph.D. application! I appreciate the time and effort you have put in to find out more about me as a candidate, and as you have arrived at this blog, you are in just the right place. Over the past few years, I have maintained this blog as an outgrowth of my academic scholarship, as well as an outlet for my personal thoughts on politics, Christianity, television, technology, and whatever else might strike my fancy.

To the right, you will notice two sidebars: "The Best" and "The Rest." As should be apparent from their titles, these represent archives of all materials that have appeared on this site since September 2007, when I began maintaining it in earnest. "The Best" highlight posts that I think represent either the most popular or most well-written entries. If you are looking for some of my entries on textual criticism, these posts include my thoughts on the Pericope Adulterae and the original text of the New Testament. If you are looking for my work on feminism, particularly as it relates to biblical studies (and its presence on the internet), I would suggest using the search box in the upper-left-hand corner of your browser window.

As you look through these materials, I would ask only that you keep in mind the medium of a weblog. Few of these posts are meant to be academic; much more often they are reactions and meanderings, meant primarily to entertain myself, and the small number of people I might count as readers. Which is not to say there is nothing upon which you might evaluate my status as an applicant. Only that what is here ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Thank you again for your consideration. Happy searching!

All the best,

Tim Ricchuiti

2010 SBL Regional (SWCRS)

Like John, a paper I am co-writing with a fellow master's student has been accepted for the 2010 Southwest Commission on Religious Studies. The title and abstract:

Title: From “God” (θεός) to “God” (ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ): A New Discussion and Proposal

Abstract: The Sahidic Coptic version of the New Testament is among the most important early versions of the New Testament. It is regarded as an excellent representation of the Alexandrian text-form, and in turn serves as a significant resource for textual criticism and the history of interpretation. Because of this significance, this article will explore the Sahidic Coptic's translation of the Greek nominative singular θεός. No current publication examines whether Sahidic Coptic translators uniformly translated the nominative singular θεός, particularly with respect to the issues of definiteness and the Greek article. This article will attempt to answer two distinct but interconnected questions: (1) Did the Sahidic Coptic translators uniformly translate the nominative singular θεός? (2) How can the assessment of the Sahidic Coptic translators inform a discussion of history, transcription, and translation of John 1.1c. We will begin by establishing criteria for the relevant texts in order to form a database of New Testament references. From that database, we will evaluate four possible solutions with respect to the Sahidic Coptic translational patterns and John 1.1c: (1) were the Coptic translators attempting to indicate the presence or absence of the Greek article without making an interpretive distinction; (2) were they trying to make an interpretive distinction regarding the definition of θεός in John 1.1c; (3) were they trying to clarify a syntactical issue; or (4) were they making a stylistic distinction.

The 2010 meeting will be in Dallas, so if you're around, come out and see us!

time to go dark

in a few minutes, a post will go up for admissions officers who might be searching about me in the coming weeks. i've been applying to phd programs, and the deadlines are finally coming 'round. in a decision as much as for my own sanity as anything else, i won't be posting anything else until i begin to hear back from those programs. hopefully, i'll have good news in a month or so!

if you really must continue to have my wit and irreverence in your rss readers, i suggest following my twitter feed.

hey, mac users

should i be using quicksilver? i've tried before, and just couldn't get it down.

Biblioblogging Notes

A few things lighting the biblioblogosphere on fire this cold month of December:

• I'm a couple days late with this, but Doug did a fantastic job putting together this month's BSC (48, for those counting at home).
• However, based on the amount of work he had to put in for it, Doug's unsure how much longer the current paradigm can hold.
• Dan Wallace posts on some of the difficulties evangelicals can have being taken seriously in the academy. 270 comments and counting at Parchment and Pen, in one of the most civil comment threads I've read in a long time, along with a host of reactions (I like James McGrath's, and there's an interesting comment thread on Joel Watts). I've had a couple thoughts since I first read the post and some of the comments:
  

  (1) Everybody's got stories. You'll read about the evangelical student who was dismissed without even a thought to her extensive education and preparation, followed by the rogue professor dismissed from his conservative institution for having the temerity to deviate from the company line. The liberal institution that judges applicants solely on merit, regardless of their beliefs, and the conservative seminary that prevents students from graduating because of theirs. There's no reason that such stories can't ALL be true. The best light to read Dr. Wallace's critique, in my opinion, is that there is a particular irony in the fact that some scholars (SOME) who claim to be so open-minded can nevertheless hold inaccurate prejudices against a certain set of people (in this case, PhD-pursuing evangelical seminary students). Furthermore, it would be better for everyone if this weren't the case.
  (2) Similarly to the discussion of women in the biblioblogosphere from a few months ago, if someone were to make me aware of how my prejudices have affected them negatively, I don't want to list for them the ways in which I think they are wrong and ought not to have taken offense. Instead, I want to find a way to understand where they are coming from, what their struggle is, and how I can make that just a little bit easier.
  (3) In that line, I am happy to report that my own experiences in the PhD application process have thus far been overwhelmingly positive (in this way, I echo Mike). I've had some great interactions with various professors via email, and I hope to be able to report some positive news in a couple months!
  (4) As a bit of a side note, I was surprised by how many people focused on Dr. Wallace's definition of "Christian." Do people not know that Dr. Wallace is an evangelical Christian? 'Cause that's how most evangelicals define "Christian." He wasn't saying that anyone had to accept his definition; he was just describing the state of SBL for the readership of a blog that is quite conservative. Is anyone arguing that he wasn't describing the membership of SBL accurately?

• Finally, the word of the day for this blog is vindication. Vin-di-ca-tion. (Reax: Mark Goodacre, Stephen Carlson, Jason Staples, James McGrath, Jim West, Pat McCullough [who I think was the first to notice])

Prepare to have your mind blown

This is not trick photography:

My other favorite was the one with the dump truck. I really had to look to find him: