Philosophy of Teaching
While
I am naturally drawn to research and, I am sure, will always have
something under investigation, my first love will always be teaching. I
was drawn to teaching initially because of the tremendous effect my
teachers at Briercrest college had on me. I have continued in this
pursuit because of the opportunity it gives me to influence my students
in the same way. I am committed to teaching that is both interactive –
giving students a chance to talk, question, and engage the subject in
ways they might not have previously – and relational – concerned not
merely with delivering data to the students, but with making an
authentic connection with them and using the data to help them find the
next step in their personal and spiritual development. Many of my past
students continue to correspond with me, sharing with me, questioning
me, and even encouraging me. Such things are not possible nor realistic
with every student, of course, but as a dominant tone and governing
direction they are, I believe, the very essence of what teaching should
be.
Research Ideology
I hold a strong commitment to rigorous and disciplined research. I believe in honouring the important questions with thorough investigations that go back to the primary sources. I believe in a scholar’s duty to engage in a responsible evaluation, which does its best to reckon honestly with our own biases, and concedes empirical claims to the governance of the evidence. I believe in the necessity of sharing that work with the greater field of scholars, so that they can participate in the discussion and offer their accountability thereby. In short, I believe in academic work that, as Larry Hurtado describes:
involves serious intellectual commitments (including rigorous self-criticism of assumptions, etc.), the hard work of building up skills (e.g., languages), knowledge (including the oceanic body of scholarship in the field), learning to limit one’s confidence to the extent of the evidence and treat one’s views as provisional and subject to correction, and, in particular, a commitment to study carefully and for understanding the views of those with whom one disagrees. It involves serious professional commitments: e.g., to contribute to the field, to engage in respectful scholarship debate and criticism (“On Being a NT Scholar”).
General Focus
My primary area of research is New Testament Textual Criticism. Though I have spent time at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Muenster studying their Coherence Based Genealogical Method, my interest has always focused more on text critical theory than on the study of manuscripts themselves. I am interested in the role that exegesis and interpretation should play in text critical decisions, theoretical questions such as the status and identity of the original text, and theological discussions such as how text critical work can be integrated into the faith and beliefs of confessing Christians, particularly in regard to issues like biblical inspiration and authority. My dissertation topic allowed me to engage most of these areas as I looked at the method of conjectural emendation and the role it can play in New Testament textual criticism. The broad nature of these interests, however, has also allowed me to remain somewhat of a generalist, exploring larger issues of theology and New Testament exegesis. (As Eldon Epp has often said, exegesis must be the final arbiter in textual criticism.) This is reflected in both my publications, and my teaching experience, which includes many types of courses, such as gospel studies, Pauline studies, and methods of interpretation.
