Walston's Potch Dissertation Online

“One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.”
—R. A. Heinlein

 

Have ANY of you men of God bothered to READ Walston's dissertation before you decided to consign it to the flames?

If you haven't, aren't your academic improprieties even worse than his?

 

consign it to the flames??

Bill

OK, if you just cannot buy the position that Biblical interpretation at the academic level PhD level dissertation requires the use of research tools at that level, then I will now look at the text!

No one suggested "consigning to flames"!

 

sorry for the over-abundance of "levels."

 

I saw Dr. Walston's dissertation a few months ago and skimmed its contents then. I was particularly interested to see what his conclusions were and whether he specifically interacted with Max Turner of London Bible College. I am quite confident that there is nothing in it to change one iota of what I've said here. Beside, even if I had not read any of the chapters, the bibliography of sources is a dead giveaway. You simply can't overlook that many standard sources and write a solid dissertation. Neither can you fail to employ liberal use of the biblical languages or necessary modern research languages. When such things are absent, you can say with certainty that a dissertation in this field is lacking. And if you'll look at my first post, you'll see that several standard sources on that very topic are conspicuously absent. There's no guesswork here.

Understand that pneumatology (the general topic of Dr. Walston's dissertation) is one of my areas of speciality, and one in which I myself am pursuing doctoral studies. In other words, I know precisely what to look for in a competent dissertation on this topic. When you're dealing with your area of speciality, it doesn't take long to determine what is and is not a sound resource. Give me any book in the field of pneumatology and a few minutes to examine its table of contents and index, and perhaps a moment or two to skim a few relevant chapters, and I'll tell you whether it's of research value or not. I assume the same is true with others in their fields of specialty.

I have been quite objective, I have backed up my assertions by specifically naming major works absent in the dissertation, and I have been quite gracious in noting the effort and potential value of Dr. Walston's work. In that regard, I find your sarcasm misplaced.

 

That is one of the amusing things about reviewing dissertations and abstracts I suppose. Someone I was talking to the other day mentioned being amused at the quality of some of the Ph.D. dissertations he had seen. Truly, some do not look like they are making an original contribution to any field. Even Steve Levicoff has mentioned that some dud dissertations have gotten by Union Institute. When the contentville.com site was up there were some amusing abstracts.

North

 

You know, I see two criticisms here:

1. That his scope is too narrow, and
2. That his topic has been done to death.

Has it occurred to you folks that his scope is so narrow precisely because the topic has been done to death, and a more specialized treatment is in order?

I also notice that you folks are still treating it as if it were a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies. It's a Ph.D. in Theology where the research is on the topic of New Testament studies, just as Steve's dissertation in Religion and Law focuses on an indigenous prison church. If we judged Steve's dissertation as if it were written for a Ph.D. in Prison Ministries, it might come across as lightweight; but for a dissertation in religion and law, it's fine.

This strikes me as one more case where people see what they expect to see. If you judge Rick's dissertation as an actual dissertation, comparing it with the average theology dissertation at any well-known university, I think you'll see that it's up to par.

But if you want to cast stones, don't let me stop you.


Cheers,

 

Bill,

This is a good, fair question. The issues being discussed here are precisely concerned with academic propriety. What our New Testament experts are telling us is that there are certain elements that must be properly in order before dissertation examiners would even consider a submission to be ready, or worthy, to be read. For example, they have cited the need for essential sources to be referenced. Usually, these shortcomings would be caught by an appropriately astute research supervisor prior to one's ever being cleared to submit his work.

I don't think the folks gathered here are consigning this thing to the flames any more than would be an examination committee that simply says, "Sorry, Mr. Seibel, you clearly haven't prepared this thing to the extent we feel necessary." It is not so much a black and white question of whether a given piece of research has credibility as much as a nuanced question of levels of credibility. The question at hand is that of whether or not the preliminary indicators of academic "propriety" suggest that this is PhD level work. It is possible to draw conclusions about the stability of a structure by studying the blue prints without necessarily having ventured into the building itself.

All this being said, I agree that the final, most informed assessment can come only as a result of having read all 110,000 words. However, this does not invalidate the sort of critical dialogue that can take place prior to reading.

Cory Seibel

 

Cory, and others,

I do agree that we should be interacting with current resources for developing our points. I would not use the "popular" theologians (Swindoll, etc.), except maybe as an illustration of a point, or to verify the popular view of a certain item. Certainly, Fee is the foremost theologian/scholar in 1 Corinthians, and I would begin (were I writing on 1 Cor. 12), with his bibliography, and then go on to more current works.

It might be good to ask Rick himself what his intentions were, although he says it in Chapter 1.

I guess, whatever we might think, Rick's thesis was judged to be of Ph.D. quality by a major, respected university. This is what makes one a Ph.D. Potch apparently got the depth it wanted. SA institutions look for that, rather than breadth.

The challenge to us (especially those of us who are doing postgraduate work through Potch), is to do better. If we think Rick's thesis is wanting, then we should strive to do better, by doing all the things we think Rick should have done.

Craig

 

I guess I am with Tom on this one. Potch does expect the scope of a thesis to be narrow (emphasis on depth). Again, the prima facie evidence that it is Ph.D. level work is that a degree has been awarded for it (after who knows how many revisions incorporated into the text.). The Faculty and Senate at Potch thought that Rick did the work necessary.

Craig

 

Bill

Now I have looked at two chapters. I'll stand by my position.EG,

Dr Walston when he chooses to quote Calvin finds that quote in "Pulpit Commentary." He cites from such as "Christianity Today". In dealing with Ephesians 2:20 he doesn't address the issue of whether these are OT or NT prophets..a question central to his discussion. In discussing Eph 4:11 by refering to five gifts he fails to treat the issue of the Granville Sharp rule concerning the second substantive being anarthrous which grammaticism is much discussed. Perhaps he elsewhere did, but I saw these issues not treated in the chapter on prophesy. He gets his lexical "evidence" from Vines..a Sunday School Teacher's tool.The chapters I looked at seemed to be written for laymen. Nothing wrong with this, very useful, but not for a PhD dissertation!

If you maintain that this is PhD level Theology
, I'll have to repectfully disagree!

 

One can disagree all he wants, but in the end, Rick got a Ph.D. out of it, so apparently it is Ph.D. level theology. One does not have to try to "feed the giraffes" to do credible theology.

Craig

 

Interesting perspective Bill.

North

 

the prophets speak, the others judge

Craig

Right you are, the whole point is to get the coveted PhD..isn't it.

Forego connecting the research to prior research found in the journals, don't worry about feeding giraffes(ie, doing sound exegesis??),let not minor things like the meanings of words, the relations of words, and the significance of unimportant things like grammar in the originals trouble you. Quote second hand, don't bother with the original. Argue by citing popular magazines your case. For,

You got the doc! So, when old Bill dares to evaluate, rely on Craig to come and point out that this is all inconsequential cause Potch passed you! So, unlike even the prophets in 1 Cor 14, your words should not be judged as to their quality! How dare I?

 

Some people are so arrogant that they're oblivious to it.

 

No need to be snide

Bill,

I am simply pointing out, that regardless of the criticisms (however valid they may be), it was judged by men with Ph.D.'s to be of Ph.D. level. Sure you may critique it, but then you weren't the one awarding the Ph.D. I would not give a plug nickel for John Sanders' Ph.D. thesis, but apparently UNISA thought it was worthy. Does ETS judgment on the merits negate UNISA's decision? Hardly.

Do you think that the men at Potch were not thinking of the same kinds of things when they examined Rick's work? Who has the bigger ego here?

Craig

 

I would never post a dissertation online because it would be ripped to shreds, regardless of the quality of the coursework!

Everybody is a judge!

 

I've said nothing about the quality of Walston's dissertation. I haven't read it, and I probably never will, since I'm not interested in its topic.

I simply pointed out that dismissing a text without even bothering to read it is an intellectual impropriety.

 

For those who might be interested, here are the specific guidelines used for evaluation of theses at Potchefstroom.
---------------------

1. Is the topic worthy of research/topical, and has the field of research been delimited in a meaningful and applicable manner?

2. Has the problem statement been clearly formulated, is the problem scientifically relevant, and have the general and particular objectives been specified; are they adequate and feasible?

3. Does the candidate give adequate evidence that he/she has a satisfactory level of the relevant (also recent) literature, and in the study does he/she implement that knowledge in an argumentative, scientifically critical manner? Or are the sources used only in an informative or supportive manner? Does the work give evidence of adequate theoretical reflection?

4. Is the central theoretical argument clearly presented?

5. Is the candidate thoroughly conversant with the relevant research methods and techniques, and have these been used in a responsible and justifiable manner? Are the methods used correctly to contribute to the achievement of the aims of the study?

6. Is the work as a whole systematic, and has it been logically and well structured, and is it balanced and clear with regard to the total? Is the line of argumentation clearly deployed from the problem statement through to the conclusions? Are the chapters logical steps in the argumentation or is the line of argumentation broken or affected by material that is redundant or absent, or presented in the wrong place(s)?

7. Does the candidate come to an acceptable solution for the problem outlined at the beginning, and does the candidate achieve the aims set out? Are the deductions, conclusions and generalizations logically justified? Are the candidate’s findings insightful and of interest?

8. Has the work been documented in an acceptable manner (bibliography, and where applicable the use of references, tables, figures, notes, illustrations, and photographs)?

9. Is the work acceptable as regard language use, stylistic and technical finish? (As regards the latter, the shape and placing of the table of contents, the title page, the cover page, the appendices, summary and list of references, the quality of the typing and the binding?)

10. In what does the contribution of the work lie (with regard to the thesis)?
---------------------

I am not arguing that Rick could not have done better, but simply that the thesis was judged to be of Ph.D. level by Ph.D.'s.

When you're on a thesis examining committee, Bill, have at it. Take someone's years worth of work, rip it up and down, leave it in shreds, reduce them to tears, run them out of the room begging for mercy, just for the benefit of a "Ph.D. level" education.

I had a seminary professor who once said of a colleague (who had recently done his Ph.D. and spoke in a manner few could comprehend)-- "It'll take him about five years to get over his Ph.D." (He also made the same remark about us M.Div. students). It sounds as though some here need to "get over" their education.

Craig