TP 17

I was sorting out my notes this morning when I came across some markings from the church a while ago. A friend of mine was teaching on a proverbial saying in Galatians 6:7,

"Whatever one sows, that will he also reap."

I suddenly saw his teaching in a totally new context - in a PhD context! He had three things to say about the passage, and here is his wisdom applied to a new circumstance.

1. We reap what we plant
What he wanted to say is that we will reap similar things than what we planted. As the seed will determine which kind of a plant will sprout, so will our outcome be in relation to what we have sowed. If you sow youtube videos and comics, you will not probably reap the most deep dissertation.  On the other hand, if you are sow lot's of academic books, give it some time to sink in, water and nourish it with good chocolate and coffee, you might end up with a solid dissertation in your hands.

2. We reap in a different season
This must be the most painful aspect of the PhD 6:7 truth - it will not be finished overnight. The last two weeks are not for the writing of the dissertation, they are for the final revision of the dissertation. You are not probably interested but I'll give it to you anyway. There is a kind of seed that is put into ground in the Fall, and it needs to be under the ground over the winter. It will survive against all the odds and give its harvest the next year. I can imagine the PhD harvest is a similar one - its quality will be determined by what you do now, two years in advance, three years in advance. Even if you are not producing that many final lines right now, man, are you sowing or what!

3. We reap more than we planted
I must admit that this third point seems to be off but I trust my friend. But what we can do now, is to believe in the magic what happens when the man put the seed in the ground and it grew in secret, and the man did not know how. There is a relationship between our toil and the outcome, but some parts of it are beyond our control. Even though we might have some idea about our life after the dissertation the truth is that we cannot possibly know what effect our dissertation will have on our lives and careers (ugly side of the truth is that if we have planted those youtube seeds we will be reaping more of those than we imagined too).

That said, read a lot, give it some time to grow, trust in the magic of growth, and there you have it! Isn't it easy? Thanks Bob!

TP 16

How to fool oneself? Joan Bolker in her Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day (Amazon UK, US) has some crafty insights into behaviorism, and how to use these tricks - well, not really against oneself, but against one's tendencies to do anything else but stay focused with the PhD dissertation writing.

One of such useful tips is, "Set up deadlines so they involve rewards, not punishments." Deadline is a nasty sounding word, isn't it? But if you can fool yourself to wait for the deadlines, you can conquer mountains and fall in love with deadlines. How??

Firstly, you have to think what either motivates you, or what you find difficult to resist while writing/doing research. Secondly, you have to set (moderate) goals. Some will need several goals per day and big goals every weekend. Some find it easier to set goals relating to how many pages they have written, or when they have finished a sub-chapter or chapter. Thirdly, you have to decide how much each goal is worth, and how you are going to reward yourself.

Again, Bolker says, "Be a blatant behaviorist and bribe yourself shamelessly..."

I use this trick every day: I allow myself to go to Facebook after I have translated a whole chapter from Greek/Hebrew Bible or read a chapter of a book (sometimes I am too excited that I skip the "reward". Facebook equals with news and email, too. Except that I try not to open my email more than few times a day; it is easy to skim through few entries in Facebook, but usually emails require some action from you. I haven't come up with good rewards concerning bigger goals, partly because this system still works for me, and partly because I couldn't afford bribe myself with rewards that would be really worth pursuing for. I am sure that day comes when I will desperately need big carrots hanging over my keyboard, but until now, Facebook and its other silly friends will have to do. It is fun to fool oneself!

TP 15

Something happened in the bus today that was both fantastic and terrible (not at the same time). Before you can understand what I am going to say, and in order to relate to it, there needs to be a short(ish) introduction to the matter at hand.

I meet with my supervisor and one other PhD student to read Greek New Testament and to talk about some pieces of literature we have been reading biweekly. They both have so beautiful Greek NTs with wide margins, nice fonts, and most importantly - they look like they have been used. Maybe it is just me, but when I see people carrying their Hebrew Bibles or Greek New Testaments, I subconsciously have to inspect how worn they (the Bibles, not the scholars) are.

I am very proud of my Finnish Bible that has been falling apart the last decade or so (mostly on the NT side), but obviously I cannot use it here in the UK. I left my old trusty NA27 back home and brought only the 2-in-1 Biblia Sacra with me. I thought it would be handy having both the Hebrew OT and Greek NT in one, and there was only so much I could take into plane or ship here. The problem? It is so new (I just got it this spring) that it lacks all academic credibility (besides being really big).

Well, today in the bus on my way home I was reading Mark 8, and I noticed a cross-reference to 1 Chronicles. When I flipped there two pages came off. My first reaction was, "Wow, finally I am becoming a true scholar!" Sadly, almost instantly the joy turned into sorrow over my pricey Bible, especially because I knew deep down there that it was falling apart either because of me misusing it, or simply because it was not bound properly.

The saddest thing is that I know it matters very little how used my Bible looks like...

TP 14

I had a nice chat with a research fellow few days ago at a birthday party. He said that doing a PhD involves three phases (actually four, but we'll get to that later). The three phases - freely paraphrased - are...

1. You know everything. Everyone else is either stupid or wrong. You think you are the first one to see your research topic (thesis) clearly. Nobody has actually bothered to research that before, and you wonder why.
2. There seems to be nothing original that could be said about the topic. Those scholars were geniuses - how could they have said it so clearly? How could I have been so stupid? How am I going to get out of this mess?
3. You realize you can leave your small thumb print in the research area after all. You recognize it does not have to be anything spectacular (like new theory of relativity). You have a voice and you have been given a chance to use it. 

He also said that these phases follow the years spent for the study. Thank you for the tips my friend from the birthday party!

And the fourth phase? It is the major academic hangover after the dissertation is finished (and possibly published), and it might take years to recover from that. I'll have to start piling up so ibuprofen for the future...

TP 13

I was reminded of a piece of advice - or should I say wisdom - our OT professor in my previous studies gave us. He said that anyone could become a world authority on OT by learning really well three books:

• Hebrew (/Aramaic) Old Testament
• BDB Hebrew&Aramaic OT Lexicon
• GKC Hebrew Grammar

I am sure he was exaggerating - but not much! He stressed the point that the Hebrew Bible is the primary source, and therefore it would make perfect sense to know it inside out.

My colleague shared a few weeks ago that his advisor had instructed him to be reading the particular book over and over again that he is going to do his dissertation on. That means no commentaries, nothing but the Bible and it in its original language(s) - the whole semester!

Another instructor, whom I had several years ago when I was doing my BA, said that he belongs to the generation of scholars who still know their Bible. He did not want to critique younger scholars because of their youth (he was about 55 at that time), but because he had seen that it was possible to "theologically shine" just by knowing your commentaries.

Since theology means words about God, why would you want to concentrate on the secondary sources? I understand it as kind of a temptation of a scholar, when the tempter takes you to the Tyndale House at Cambridge, and offers you a great career and extensive knowledge (and the books, of course). Jesus resisted the tempter by quoting the Bible that he knew by heart. I guess quoting the commentaries would not have had the same effect (and everybody marveled since he taught with authority, and not like the pharisees and the scribes). Therefore I have determined to do what it takes to familiarize myself with the primary source(s), and to do it in the original languages, no matter what it takes.

TP 12

Often times the small words are the most important ones. You probably are familiar with the old saying: "whenever you see a therefore in the text you have to see why it is there for." This of course applies only to those bible readers who would respect the meaning of the context.

Consider Matthew 6:25 (ESV) as an example of this: "Therefore I (Jesus) say to you: do not be being anxious about your life, neither with what you might eat nor with what you should clothe your body..."

The Greek text (Διὰ τοῦτο) suggests a more wooden wording: "For this reason... / because of this..." Therefore, our text is not an independent saying and command not to be anxious; it is an application of what has just been said by Jesus about serving two masters.

It is impossible to serve two masters, especially if they are God and Mammon. Worrying about food and clothes suggests that one is actually worshipping a different god. One's anxiety reveals that he is not trusting in God. How disturbing it is that worshipping idols requires only our distrust. On the other hand, how reassuring it is that Jesus teaches us to relax and trust in His providence. In neither one of the cases is any action required from us - it is all in the attitude.

TP 11

The relationships between history and faith is not an easy topic. Especially so if we are talking about sacred writings, about the Bible. Some would disregard the whole book as totally non-historical, and in doing so would only show how ignorant they are about the study of history on a general level. It is easier to prove that Jesus existed than to prove that Julius Caesar existed.

This does not necessarily lead to say that the Bible as a history book - it is not! Bible is historical, but it is not history book. Its purpose has never been to present a history of mankind, of Jesus, of the Church... Think about all the literary genres in the Bible: would you say that poems are history? that epistles are history writings?

It is different to be as certain about the Gospels. The Gospels seem to have been compiled as histories, but the Western idea about chronology seems to be less important factor.Think about Luke who begins:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke follows certain order, as he says in v3. It appears that his account is historical and trustworthy, as he refers to sources he used, and explains a bit about his methodology. But then it gets complicated: can a history have a motive, a purpose?

I would say that all histories have a purpose, and that all historians have their motives and presuppositions. Somehow supporting someones faith with historical grounding is more ugly motive than receiving a paycheck from a dictator or using the opportunity to present the history in a way that promotes ones agenda (even if by a tiny bit). What Luke does is that he puts his motives in there quite bluntly - at least he is an honest historian!

ESV's use of 'narrative' is noteworthy. It could also be translated as 'account', but narrative translates the idea better. Luke narrates the historical story by placing bits and pieces together from multiple sources. He explains what Jesus did, how did people react to that, what people were thinking, and reveals sometimes what was happening behind the curtains - in the Spiritual realm or in the temple where the religious elite was plotting against him. This is what any honest historian would do - gather as many sources as possible and put them together them in a meaningful way that has a message to people that they would want to read.

Luke's immediate audience was Theophilus, and he wanted to ground his faith in facts, not in fairy tales. We do not know who he was, nor do we know how successful Luke was in helping him. However, even going back to the 1st Ct, we can learn that facts (and history) are not opposite to faith. Bible does not promote faith that would not be well grounded. This should challenge every believer to work on the foundations of his faith. We have been called to be wise as serpents, not stupid as cows (Matt. 10:16).