If you are interested in pursuing a linguistic topic in your doctoral program, here are a few considerations to keep in mind. This is a follow-up from my last post.

Find an expert and carry their bags

If you want to excel at something, then find the most qualified person you possibly can to mentor you. This is the strategy I learned in Boy Scouts, where each merit badge had a counselor that was knowledgeable in the topic area. He’d help you get grounded in the topic and guide your learning. I have used the same strategy in learning about building, real estate, church health, and linguistics. Once I found someone, I took every opportunity to hang out with them that I could find. I refer to this as “carrying their bags.” This required me to research about their field and approach before contacting them so that I did not waste their time with silly questions. If you want to engage someone of this caliber, then do your homework before talking to them. Writing and saying you are a big fan will not impress most of them.

As you consider doctoral programs, you need to think long and hard about your adviser. Do they have the necessary background to supervise this topic? This may sound like a silly question, but it seems to be ignored in the case of interdisciplinary studies. If someone had only ever read about the synoptic problem but never published on the topic, would you want them advising you?  Of course not! So then why ask to pursue a linguistic topic under someone who has not published in the area? In the case of interdisciplinary study, some seem willing to take on topics which they do not have the background to supervise. In a perfect world, your adviser will be your expert.

In my own experience, it is difficult to find one person who has everything. If they have the necessary background, they may not be at an institution that grants doctoral degrees. They may also not have all of the components you need. So besides your adviser, is there some specialist from the secondary field with whom you could (in)formally interact? Their primary role would be guiding the development of your theoretical framework. If it is not properly formulated, the conclusions that come out of your model will show it. Actually, let me rephrase that. Your conclusions may impress your primary field, but they will be rejected or ignored by the secondary one. “Two are better than one…” Keep this in mind.

External readers

What are the qualifications of your external reader? Is she an expert in the secondary field, or did she just play the part of one on TV? While students have no control over such matters, institutions need to think long and hard about their selection. Although we want our students to complete their program, it should not be at the cost of quality. Just because a plausible argument is presented does not mean it is valid or correct. It is crucial to involve experts from the secondary field in order to guard against this. Only utilizing NT scholars to review NT linguistic topics has led to an inbreeding of sorts. While it may look like consensus, I consider it to be a sign of something else. The fact that such ideas are not being adopted outside our discipline should be a harbinger.

If you want to do quality work it behooves you to gather high quality criticism as early as you can in the process. This may sound masochistic, but it really is in your best interest. Ideally, this would begin at the proposal and lit review stage, not at the external review. Get feedback on how you should shape your question, on your theoretical framework, on your preliminary conclusions. If you only pitch your ideas to non-specialists, you simply defer the criticism. Get outside NT studies and see if your ideas hold water. I can assure you that if some of the NT proposals about word order or verbal aspect were presented in the SBL “Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew” section or at the Linguistic Society of America, the results would not be pretty.

Engage counterarguments

This should go without saying, but I often see strawman-(dis)engagement of opposing ideas in NT linguistic studies. “Their definitions are too imprecise, their model is not empirical enough, therefore it is to be rejected.” Unfortunately if there were significant linguistic arguments against a position, few in NT studies would know about it. But even if there are major disagreements within NT studies, then get to know them well enough to understand why they exist. If an idea has gathered a significant following, then it is probably addressing some shortcoming of the competing theory. You see this in the work of N.T. Wright, correcting inadequacies of traditional views. However, part of the process of correction is often overstating the problem in order to bring about change. Defenders of the status quo will also tend to overstate their point in response. There is a reasonable chance that BOTH are wrong at some point. Mike Bird has a great paper exemplifying such issues in the Wright/Piper debate entitled “What is there Between Minneapolis and Durham?” This is not just a “why can’t we all just get along” appeal, but a respectful critique of both sides. I wish this happened more often.

Is the disagreement about presuppositions? About definitions? Understanding your detractors will strengthen your model, so long as you are willing to learn from them. If people like Dan Wallace and Peter Gentry hold to differing views on a language issue, then try to figure out why. Both scholars know their stuff; neither is stupid or naive.   They each see some key ingredient that leads them to disagree; figure out what it is and you’ll be in a better position to advance the discussion. Doing so may also more support for your proposal if the two camps see that you have meaningfully and respectfully engaged their arguments. Engage counterarguments, do not ignore them.

Primary versus secondary

If you are interested in interdisciplinary studies involving linguistics and biblical studies, I am coming to believe that it would be better to swap primary and secondary disciplines: major in linguistics and simply apply it within biblical studies. The complexities of the verbal system (in both Greek and Hebrew) demand a high caliber background; so too understanding information structure or connectives. The people whose work I most respect are linguists first and exegetes second.

Think long and hard about what you want to do when you grow up. If you want to specialize in a single book, then major in NT studies and minor in linguistics or whatever. If you want to contribute to linguistic discussions, then major in linguistics. There are a few programs where you can have it both ways; Nick Bailey’s experience at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam is a great example. The Classics program there has world-class Greek specialists doing some mighty fine linguistic work. University of Edinburgh also has a great reputation for interdepartmental projects between theology and linguistic sciences, exemplified in the work of Margaret Sim. On the other hand, two of my heroes–Stephen Levinsohn and Randall Buth–both pursued PhDs in linguistics proper, at University of Reading and UCLA respectively.

Moving forward

Interdisciplinary studies hold great potential only if they are properly pursued. I wish more NT programs said “No” to topics they were not qualified to supervise. This would greatly reduce the publication of findings that have not been adequately vetted. They may sound impressive to non-specialists, but specialists would recognize the weaknesses.

Students themselves can also affect the outcome by going outside NT studies to gain the background they need. This may mean an MA in linguistics or doctoral focus in linguistics. The latter is a risky move if you intend to teach in NT, one that several scholars tried to talk me out of. You see, I have a DLitt, not a PhD. I am neither OT nor NT, but specialized in biblical languages. These scholars told me that if I chose a non-traditional path like this, then schools would not consider hiring me because my degree was not from within the discipline. To be honest, they were right! Of all the teaching positions for which I have applied over the years, only once did I make it beyond the initial cut. The advice of these scholars has been prophetic.

So why risk pursuing a linguistically-focused degree? Because I knew that a traditional NT doctoral program would not have equipped me for my present research program. The projects I am pursuing are precisely the ones I set out to do ten years ago. In 2000, I decided I wanted to do the kind of research that I saw Levinsohn, Buth and others pursuing. The key distinction was to do it in a more approachable manner and focused on exegesis.

One of my career goals is to see students not have to take the same kind of risk I did. At some point it will be possible to help supervise doctoral students. In the meantime, I have a number of research projects that are best pursued in my present position as scholar-in-residence. Besides that, I am reluctant to give up my cool job title! But seriously, I think it will be another 5-10 years before a research-based theological institution would consider hiring a linguistic specialist. NT linguistics has over-promised and under-delivered long enough that schools are legitimately skeptical about its potential. I am not optimistic about how long it will take to change this perception.

I fully support interdisciplinary research, but only so long as it is properly pursued. It is high time we in NT studies do a better job of policing interdisciplinary study, particularly when it comes to linguistics. Being more honest about institutional and personal limitations would be a great place to start. If you need a specialist on your faculty then hire one, even if they are not NT scholars. If you insist on allowing such work, then tap into the resources of SIL. There you will find gifted, well-qualified linguists who are passionate and knowledgeable about biblical languages. You might also be surprised at what a linguist could contribute in areas like hermeneutics or homiletics. In the meantime, students must take responsibility for shaping their education based on their research goals. If that means a non-traditional path or involving an informal adviser to help guide your program, then do it!

Interdisciplinary studies are not a silver bullet, and cannot just be adopted in name-only. Like we used to say at scout camp: Be for-real, don’t Beef-a-Roni. If you want to specialize in linguistics, then do everyone a favor and really specialize. If you don’t really want to specialize there, that’s fine too. Just pick a topic that does not require it.

[Update: an image has been changed from the original post at the request of a reader.]