Category Archives: Faculty

How to Apply for an Academic Job in the UK

Dr. Holmes

We are grateful to the Rev. Dr. Stephen R. Holmes for composing this helpful post on UK-based job applications. Dr Holmes serves as the Head of School for St Mary’s College. You will find his research profile here.

 


I don’t, off-hand, know how many appointments I have been involved in within the UK university system—I do know that I have been doing it for about twenty years, and I have done six in 2017 alone (and I’m about to start another one). I have read, down the years, many hundreds of applications, some from hopeful newcomers who haven’t quite finished their PhD, some from famous names applying for prestigious chairs, and of course many from people in between. I have spent many evenings (it tends to end up an evening task) reading through application after application, and I can say from experience that most (75%?) of the applications are bad—and that this proportion strangely doesn’t change much up and down the seniority ladder.

I’m not saying that the candidates are bad—a few are, but in recent appointments I’ve been very struck by the general quality of people applying: faced with a stack of around a hundred applicants, you actually find yourself hoping quietly that half of them will be obviously poor and easy to reject quickly; for us, presently, it is around 10%. Perhaps 70% are various shades of ‘if he were the only applicant, we’d certainly at least talk to him’—and about 20% are ‘we’d be really lucky to get her!’ The candidates seem very strong—but the applications are depressingly weak.

The worst part of this is that we tell candidates exactly what to do to put in a good application; we work hard to make it very clear; and then three in four or so ignore what we’ve told them to do. Let me explain.

UK universities are not quite public sector bodies, but we are generally held to the same standards. This means, inter alia, that we follow received best practice in appointment processes, which means a ‘competency based’ approach. When we have a vacancy, we are required by our HR department to specify carefully what experience, skills, and knowledge—what competencies—we are looking for in a candidate, and how we will evaluate whether a given candidate has these competencies.

So, when we write a set of ‘further particulars’ for a vacant post—the document you download if you click the link in the advert—it has a list of the things you will need to prove to be considered for the post, and of where we will be looking for proof. In St Andrews, the list comes in the form of a table, with three columns. The first lists ‘essential criteria’, the second ‘desirable criteria’, and the third ‘means of assessment’, under which we typically list ‘application’, ‘presentation’, or ‘interview’.

For an academic post, probably the first essential criterion is ‘PhD in a relevant discipline’, and the ‘means of assessment’ listed is ‘application’. I get your application; I scan it for evidence that you have a relevant PhD. If I can’t find that evidence, your application goes on the reject pile, because this is an ‘essential’ criterion. (Actually I don’t use piles; I have a custom spreadsheet. If I can’t see evidence of an essential criterion, I type ’N’, and the cell automatically turns red. End of story.)

The moral? Make it easy for me to see that you have a PhD. I mean, really easy—I might be reading a hundred of these things, and I am only human; the small print on page 17 might, I confess, pass me by (and I can say from experience that anything after page 50 or so of your cv will very definitely pass me by…)

Of course, something like a PhD is a brute matter of fact—you have one, or you don’t (or, just possibly, you soon will, and we might be able to finesse that). And no-one misses their PhD off their application in my experience.

But: ‘Essential: evidence of excellence in teaching. Means of assessment: application.’ This is where wheels start to fall off. Every candidate will list their teaching experience, often in excruciating detail, but we’re not asking for experience; we’re asking for excellence. How, on your application form, are you going to give me and my fellow panel members credible evidence of excellence? There are lots of ways. A report from an external reviewer is probably the gold standard, but copies of student evaluations are pretty good; any sort of prize for teaching scores loads of points; a history of attending training courses or membership of something like the HEA will certainly get you over the line for a junior post. At worst, give us a teaching philosophy that shows you have thought a bit about what excellent teaching means. Give us something—or don’t bother applying; you’re wasting your time and ours.

Probably 50% or more of our candidates get the point about teaching excellence. I generally end up shouting at my computer screen over another issue. In St Andrews, an inevitable criterion (generally ‘desirable’ not ‘essential’) is called something like ‘credible plans for applying for external research funding’ (‘means of assessment: application’).

Look, at this point we’re placing the ball three yards out, tying up the goalkeeper, and inviting you to have a shot. And 80% or more of our applicants fail to score. ‘Credible plans’—at the lowest level you don’t need to have done anything, to have any experience, to have done anything more than noticed the point. You just need to say ‘Yup, I want to apply for some money for something’. Do ten minutes’ research on available funding sources, name a plausible scheme, and you are several steps up the ladder here. And—even at chair level in my experience—a large majority of our applicants will look at the ball, glance at the open goal, and then disdain to kick the one towards the other.

I confess that the word ‘moron’ has passed my lips on observing this, even when I know that the candidate concerned is far more academically able than I am.

So what should you do? It’s not rocket science (although the same rules would apply if it were): we’ve given you a list of things we either need or want to see in your application materials. Show us them. Re-order your c.v. to highlight what we’re asking for. Write a covering letter that goes through the points one by one and shows us the evidence. Send us a video demonstrating how you fulfil each criterion through the medium of interpretative dance (actually, don’t do that one…). Just somehow make it really easy for me to type ‘Y’ on my spreadsheet and see all my boxes turning green.

This won’t get you a job. It will (100% guarantee) get you on the longlist for a job, though, and it might well get you on the shortlist, and so to an interview. And if you get to an interview, you’ve always got a chance, because seemingly excellent candidates routinely shoot themselves in the foot, or indeed the mouth, on interview days.

But that’s a subject for another time.

Master’s in Systematic & Historical Theology – Reimagined

An interview with Prof. Judith Wolfe, Professor of Philosophical Theology at the University of St Andrews

The Roundel: Systematic & Historical Theology at St Andrews has been changing. Can you tell us about some of what’s new?

JW: Over the last few years, Systematic & Historical Theology has built closer ties with the interdisciplinary Institutes within the School of Divinity: the Institute for Theology, Imagination and the Arts, and the Logos Institute. Each of these Institutes runs its own Master’s and PhD programmes, but staff work together closely on research projects, seminar series, and conferences. (The Institute for Bible, Theology and Hermeneutics is a smaller collaboration without own teaching programmes, which has traditionally organized our Scripture and Christian Theology conferences.)

These exchanges have kept the field vibrant and active during the time of transition that followed the death of Prof. John Webster, who was very much at the heart of our work in Systematic & Historical Theology.

During this time, we were also searching for someone of international stature to succeed Prof. Webster in the 1643 Chair in Divinity. I’m happier than I can easily express that Prof. Dr Christoph Schwöbel is taking up that post. I hope I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes by saying that he is perhaps the greatest living theologian in Germany today, who holds the senior chair in Tübingen and has shaped contemporary work within the fields of Systematic and Historical Theology, within the Lutheran church and its ecumenical initiatives, and increasingly within the interdisciplinary spheres that are so important to us.

The Roundel: Yes, we PhDs are very excited about this appointment. When does Prof. Schwöbel arrive, and how much will he be involved in teaching and PhD supervision?

JW: Christoph and his wife Katrin Bosse will be with us from September 2018. Both will be involved in undergraduate teaching in theology and religious studies. But Christoph’s main focus is likely to be the graduate community. He is accepting applications for PhD supervision, and will be co-running the Theology Research Seminar. As you know, we usually read a text or group of texts together in Martinmas term, and have guest speakers in Candlemas term. Next Martinmas, we plan to read Anselm of Canterbury, on whom Christoph has done some very interesting work.

I’m especially glad that Christoph will lead our MLitt in Systematic & Historical Theology. We’ve just informally agreed the programme for next year, and to be honest, I wish I could go back to school and take it.

Reading group

The Roundel: Are you able to tell us about the programme?

JW: Well, nothing is official until the course catalogue goes to print in March or so, but the plan is to offer a coherent, integrated programme that will give students a secure sense of the architecture and the development of Christian thought. We want to anchor theology in its most basic and enduring form, the reading of Scripture, by beginning with two complimentary half-semester modules: The Origins of Christian Theology (co-taught by T.J. Lang and S. Holmes), which traces the development of theological method and thought from Paul to Nicaea with close attention to primary texts; and The History of Biblical Interpretation (M. Elliott), which focuses on the ways different biblical themes were read through the centuries.

At the same time, we want to give students a rich historical sense of the development of major Christian loci. So in the second half of the first semester, students will take The Doctrine of the Trinity (C. Schwöbel), following developments of that central doctrine from Nicaea to modern times; and in the first half of the second semester, they will examine the development of Christology (C. Schwöbel), particularly in Scholastic and Reformation theology, and again up to modern times.

These thematic modules will be complemented by two modules that encourage the close reading of theological texts, and closer attention to different theological methods, by focusing on single theologians. In the first half of the second semester, students will take A Selected Medieval Theologian: Bonaventure (W. Hyland) and in the second half, A Selected Modern Theologian: C.S. Lewis (J. Wolfe).

Students will be able to substitute some of these for modules from our other programmes, if they’d like to specialize more. But this, we intend to be the standard programme.

 

The Roundel: C.S. Lewis isn’t often taught in theological programmes, is he?

JW: I don’t know of any other Theology department in the UK that teaches him. But I think he’s an immensely deep and rich theological thinker, and that he’ll be remembered as one of the 20th century’s most important. Although – or maybe because – my main field of research is 20th-century philosophical theology, particularly Martin Heidegger and his circle, I find in Lewis a better conversation partner than in almost any other 20th-century theologian. So I’m very much looking forward to this module. Since our Journal of Inklings Studies has its editorial office here at St Mary’s College, I’ll also be scouting for talent of course.

The Roundel: Some of our graduates are part of the editorial team, aren’t they?

JW: Yes, exactly.

 

The Roundel: You’ve mentioned modules, but no dissertation. There is one though, right?

JW: Yes, sorry, I got distracted by Lewis. The capstone of the programme is a dissertation of about 15,000 words – that’s 50-60 pages double-spaced – on a research topic of the student’s choice, under the supervision of a member of staff. Most of the dissertation work is done after coursework finishes, so between May and August. Of course students are encouraged to start discussing and reading things earlier.

The dissertation is intended equally for those who are applying to move up to the PhD (which, as you know, is entirely dissertation-based) and for those who take the MLitt as a free-standing degree or for professional development. Those who are preparing for PhD work can try out a topic to test its potential for a longer project – or they can get something out of their system that they don’t think they’ll want to work on again, but would like to try their hand at. Those who take the the MLitt as a standalone degree often come with particular questions or challenges, and the dissertation gives them the chance to spend a significant amount of time on that question with an academic guide and conversation partner.

The Roundel interior

© SierraWhiskeyBravo

The Roundel: In the Roundel, where the PhDs work, tensions usually run high in March, just before the first-years submit their probationary review papers. I remember the MLitts feeling that way in early August. It usually seems to turn out alright….

You said you wish you could take the MLitt yourself?

JW: I often think it’s a shame that we academics can’t do more coursework – in fact, to be honest, many of the conferences I organize, I intend as sort of surrogate classwork for myself. But I said it about this MLitt in particular because I think it does something that’s hard to find nowadays. Increasingly, I think, undergraduate degrees in theology and religion offer so much choice that students get a really good sense of particular themes, theories or loci, but often come out of their degree without a secure grasp of the overall coherence or interrelatedness of Christian thought, or of its complex historical development. That’s exactly what we’re hoping to provide: both the knowledge and the tools to receive, integrate and innovate. And I’d love to take classes with Christoph, or Bill, or the others.

 

The Roundel: That does sound great. Where can folk get more information if they’re interested?

JW: All the official information is on the University of St Andrews’ postgraduate course pages. There’s additional, more informal information on the MLitt page of Systematic & Historical Theology’s WordPress site. And of course people are welcome to email any of us staff.

 

The Roundel: We students are also happy to talk to folk who are interested in coming. I think all our profiles are on the WordPress site.

JW: Yes, both current PhDs and current MLitts are listed at http://theology.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/people/students/. Thanks for that offer.

 

The Roundel: Pleasure. Thank you very much for your time; this is all very exciting.

JW: Thanks for giving me the chance to talk about it.

Job Opening: Chair in Divinity (est. 1643)

The School of Divinity (St Mary’s College), University of St Andrews, invites applications to its senior Chair in Divinity, established in 1643 and most recently held by the late Prof. John Webster.

The School is seeking a world-leading scholar with expertise in Systematic and/or Historical Theology.

The advertisement can be found here.

The closing date is 31 May 2017.

Further Particulars and contact information for informal queries can be downloaded below or from the advert.

Further Particulars

St Mary's College

St Mary’s College © SierraWhiskeyBravo

 

The Theology of Professor John Webster

Prof Webster. Photo courtesy of St. Mary’s College.

In this week’s post, we are grateful to offer a contribution from Dr Darren Sarisky, Tutor in Doctrine and Ministry at Wycliffe Hall in the University of Oxford. Dr Sarisky served alongside R. David Nelson and Justin Stratis as a co-editor of a festschrift in honour of Prof Webster entitled Theological Theology: Essays in Honour of John B. Webster (T. & T. Clark, 2015).

For an overview of Prof Webster’s legacy, consider starting with this official press release from St. Mary’s College and this remembrance piece from the Rev Dr Stephen R. Holmes.


Almost a year after his sudden death at age 60, I am still getting used to writing about Professor John Webster in the past tense.  Not long before he died, I had been in touch with him to see if he was interested in doing an interview with an online publication once he had completed a miniature systematic theology he was trying to finalize.  John was known to have rewritten the material several times, trying to get it right, and I was under the impression that he was nearing the point where he was happy with the text and could hand it over to the eager publisher.  I wondered if he would like doing an interview to bring some attention to this work on which he had labored for so long.  John’s response, for which I was not totally prepared, was to say he was unsure whether he would live to bring even his brief systematic theology to completion.  I was uncertain whether he was being entirely serious: would anyone really say something like that about himself except in jest?  In hindsight, I can see that he probably was serious, as he died not long after that.  He passed away before he could finish this preview of his larger theological project, and before he could complete even one volume of the multi-volume work that he had imagined as the culmination of his career.  Those of us who knew John personally cannot help but feel a sense of loss at his passing, as do those in the field of Christian systematic theology who were anticipating being able to read and ponder his presentation of Christian doctrine.

John was never one to seek the spotlight (so perhaps I should have known he would not have been keen to do an interview), and even in his death he would not want too much attention directed to him.  Ultimately, the reason John did not seek attention for himself is that he saw himself as a witness.  What is a witness?  In Karl Barth’s lectures on the prologue to John’s Gospel, entitled Witness to the Word, Barth writes the following, quoting Augustine, “‘Direct your eyes to me and your hearts to him [i.e., God].  … See, you lift your eyes and your bodily senses to us, and yet not to us …, but to the Gospel, to the Evangelist, and your heart, that is to be filled, to the Lord.’  Let us each see to the heart and whither it is lifted up.”  The witness proclaiming the Word directs his hearers’ attention to the text of the Bible, and via it, to that to which Scripture offers testimony, that is, God.  This is what it means for a theologian to be a witness, to direct the gaze of one’s audience to God as he is revealed by the biblical text.  John saw this as his role.

In this post, I want to commemorate his life by sketching out a few of the guiding principles of his theological thinking.  Though he did not live to complete the constructive project toward which his prior work had all been leading, John was so prolific in his short life that it is sufficiently clear what some of the main themes of his synthesis of Christian doctrine would have been.  With full awareness of the irony John would have seen in distilling this into a blog post, I summarize some of the key themes of his theology as follows.

First, theology must begin with God.  As John says in his address Theological Theology, borrowing from a theologian who would be virtually unknown to many of his colleagues, “For theology as Wollebius envisions it, the being of God is not simply a hypothesis into which theology inquires, but rather the reality which actively constitutes and delimits the field of theological activity.”  This ultimately means that theology must offer a depiction of who God is in himself, as the triune Lord who subsists in utter perfection and graciously reveals himself within creation.  Basing all of theology’s talk of God on the fullness and perfection of the immanent Godhead meant that John held a more traditional view of God than many of the theologians who wrote so exuberantly of the economic Trinity in the twentieth century.  For John, the immanent Trinity was by no means to be reduced to the revelation of the divine persons in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the advent of the Holy Spirit.  Rather, that revelation was a function of the fullness of the immanent divine life itself.  John never weighed in formally and directly on the debate about the relationship between election and the Trinity that has exercised many of today’s best constructive theologians, but there was no question that he himself was not persuaded that an act of divine election constitutes God as triune.  As John saw it, because of divine aseity, God is fully himself apart from and prior to both his work in creation and even determinations made without any reference to the world.  Though John’s position was by no means unprecedented in the Christian tradition, his skill as a theologian allowed him to expound this view with insight, verve, and sparks of creativity.

Second, the final standard for what theology says about God is the testimony provided by the scriptural text.  The Bible directs its readers to the triune God and is the touchstone for whatever theologians say about him.  John’s monograph on the Bible, entitled Holy Scripture, is arguably the most important doctrinal work on Scripture since David Kelsey’s Providing Doctrine was published in 1975.  The most original part of John’s presentation is his application of the notion of sanctification, usually reserved for the domain of soteriology, to the text of the Bible, and indeed its entire process of formation prior to taking on its final canonical form.  There are many ways to make the point that the Bible is both a product of human activity and a field of divine speech, such as comparisons between the text and the two natures of Christ.  But the advantage of John’s development of sanctification is that it speaks not only of the final form of the text as one in which human authorial activity testifies to the reality of God, but of all the processes that led to the formation of the text in its received form—the editing of preexisting sources, the reliance on historical memory, and so on—as works that are both genuinely human and simultaneously actions caught up in the process by which God makes himself known.

Third, theology speaks of God, as was stated above, yet the Christian God brings contingent reality into existence with his act of creation, and thus theology must speak of God and all things as they relate to him.  In addition to depicting God in himself, theology should characterize the world sub specie divinitatis, in light of the God on whom it depends for its very existence, and toward whom it is oriented as its goal.  John derived this insight especially from Thomas Aquinas.  Though John made his mark with scholarship on Karl Barth, as he began to work quite directly toward writing his systematic theology late in his career, he tacked toward Thomas, who helped John to broaden his circle of dialogue partners beyond the Reformed tradition.  Just as John’s book on the Bible argues against a zero-sum relationship between God and created reality when it comes to saying what sort of work the Bible is, so also John’s work on creation stresses that the distinction between the transcendent God and the immanent world order is not one in which the two terms are in any tension with one another.  Creation’s dependence on the divine creator does not diminish its status, but invests it with being and orients it toward the fulfillment of that being.

Finally, the process by which human creatures come to know the God who is their creator is marked by dying to self and rising to new life in Christ.  Human beings are not spontaneous subjects, free to orient themselves according to sources of moral guidance that lie within themselves, rather than being external to them.  Instead, their choices ought to be responsive to God as he reveals himself and marks out determinatively that in which a good life consists.  This means that the dynamic of the entire Christian life will be one of letting go of lesser things and constantly reorienting oneself toward God.  This is the pattern that defines the way in which God comes to be known by rational creatures.

The above is a maximally brief listing of what would have been some of the leading themes of John’s systematic theology.  Though this text will never be written, it is possible to find anticipatory citations of it in recently published books.  That the project will never come to be is indeed a loss for the field about which John cared so deeply.  His systematics has the sad distinction, among all contemporary systematic theologies, of being the best that never was.  What Ivor Davidson wrote about John at the end of a biographical essay about him—ad multos annos (a wish that he might live many more years)—was said in vain.  John’s whole life seemed to run in fast forward.  He passed away before his time, but in his sixty years he gave all those interested in Christian theology quite a bit of food for thought.  Because of all that John was able to do in the time that he was given, we all have reason to be very thankful to him.  And so it is only fitting to close this post with an expression of gratitude for his influence on me personally as my doctoral supervisor, and for all the theological work that he produced and that we will have the opportunity to think through in the years to come.

Formation and Interpretation

It’s three weeks until our upcoming Formation and Interpretation: Ways of Knowing and Knowledge of God conference.

Register here (£5 to cover refreshments, free for students of St Mary’s College)

We pause to meet one of our presenters Dr Tim Baylor. Tim, can you please tell us about your research?

“Much of my research focuses on Christian theologies of divine justice. I’m interested in the way that God’s justice informs our ideas about the nature of the moral life. This topic has real importance for a whole host of doctrinal questions about the character of God, the end and goal of God’s government, and the nature of God’s redeeming work. But it also has more immediately practical implications. For example, take Christian discourse in the public square. Christians routinely appeal to divine justice in support of their particular social or political visions, but they often disagree in fundamental ways about the nature of those visions. And these disagreements often stem from more basic differences in thinking about the nature of God’s justice.”

What’s your interest in “Formation and Interpretation”?

“Though my research focuses on the nature of God’s justice, one of the questions that interests me is how our moral formation actually shapes both our view God and the world. Scripture emphasises that there are some truths that we can understand only by faith and love. But if this is true, then it raises some important questions about how a sinner, a person whose love is disordered by sin, can learn to discern what is right, true, and good. This is particularly important when it comes to forming our beliefs about of God. To what degree can sinners (even redeemed sinners) have true knowledge of God, rather than simply an idol of their own making? One of the ways that the church has sought to cultivate the moral dispositions necessary for knowing God is by the imitation of Christ, and by the related discipline of meditation on the vanity of the world, sometimes referred to as the ‘contemptus mundi’ tradition. My paper will examine the reception of this spiritual tradition within a strand of Protestant practical theology. I think this will illustrate the complex relationship between Christian spiritual practice and moral reasoning. And hopefully, it will shed some light on a familiar problem, namely, the proper nature of and conditions for right moral reasoning.”

St Andrews is a beautiful place to visit anyway but why should people come and listen to you on this topic?

“Spiritual and moral formation is one of those topics where the common interest between the academy and the church is most obvious. Pastors and church leaders labour in the ministry of the Word and Sacrament in order to form the church so that it might better inhabit the gospel and offer a clearer witness to the love and faithfulness of God. And spiritual practice often grows cold and ineffective where it is not critically examined. On the other hand, in order to remain true to its subject matter, academic theology needs to be reflective about its own practices. In particular, it needs to consider whether its methods are capable of cultivating the kind of faith and love that are necessary to know God. In that respect, I think a conference on the relationship between personal formation and theological practice addresses not only a topic of considerable academic interest, but a deeply ecclesial interest as well.”

See here for details of other speakers.

Register online and direct inquiries to Rebekah Earnshaw ree3@st-andrews.ac.uk

In Appreciation for the Works of Prof. Mark Elliott

The St. Mary’s College community celebrated recently when Mark Elliott received the title Professor of Divinity. To express appreciation for him and his work, many St. Mary’s students and staff attended Prof. Elliott’s inaugural lecture. In the coming weeks, to honor Prof. Elliott for his achievement, we will offer posts that describe his contributions to the life of St. Mary’s College. We begin with this piece that introduces some of Prof. Elliott’s published works. It is written by Dr. Eric Covington, a student whom Prof. Elliott supervised.


On February 1, 2017, Mark W. Elliott, Professor of Divinity at the University of St Andrews, delivered his inaugural lecture as a professor entitled “Giving Providence a Chance.” The topic of the lecture—the notion of divine providence—is something that has been of particular interest in Prof Elliott’s recent research. While his publications range from the Patristic era to the Middle Ages and to the Reformation and all across the biblical canon, they all reflect a particular interest in biblical theology and the history of scriptural interpretation. Most recently, Prof Elliott has pursued both of these concentrations through the lens of the doctrine of providence.

Prof. Mark Elliott

His most recent monograph, Providence Perceived: Divine Action from a Human Point of View, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 124 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), is an overview of significant historical works and interpretations concerning the doctrine of providence ranging from the Patristic era to works published since 2010. As such, it provides an account of the ebbs and flows of the doctrine in theological works spanning 2,000 years.

His previous volume, The Heart of Biblical Theology: Providence Experienced (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012) surveys both modern and ancient approaches to the task of biblical theology and offers the suggestion that the doctrine of providence might be a profitable way forward in the task of constructing a biblical theology. Also released in 2012 was Prof Elliott’s book, Engaging Leviticus: Reading Leviticus Theologically with its Past Interpreters (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012). In this work, Prof Elliott surveys theological perspectives on the book of Leviticus from the first century to the twentieth.

In The Reality of Biblical Theology, Religions and Discourse 39 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008) Prof Elliott examines different scholarly approaches to the question of the relationship between exegesis and dogmatics. This book pays particular attention to German scholarship and helpfully brings these discussions to light for an English speaking audience.

Prof Elliott’s first book, The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church, 381–451, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Reprinted: The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church, 381–451. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011) is a published version of his Ph.D. thesis undertaken at the University of Cambridge. This work analyzes early Christian Christological interpretation of the Song of Songs and already reflects Prof Elliott’s particular interests in biblical theology and the history of scriptural interpretation.

In addition to these monographs, Prof Elliott has co-edited four books in the last ten years. Most recently published, Biblical Theology: Past, Present, and Future, edited with Carey Walsh (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016) brings together a group of scholars who have examined particular aspects of biblical theology in a series of conference sessions at the International Society of Biblical Literature meetings from 2012–2014. Prof Elliott also contributed to the publications of volumes associated with the St Andrews conference on Scripture and Christian theology in 2009 and 2012. Papers from these two conferences were published as Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, edited with Scott J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright, and John Frederick (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014) and Genesis and Christian Theology, edited with Nathan MacDonald and Grant Macaskill (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). Prof Elliott has also edited Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Isaiah 40–66, Old Testament 11 (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), which provides excerpts of commentaries and interpretive passages from Patristic writers concerning Isaiah 40–66.

Prof Elliott’s wide-ranging interests and expertise in the Bible, theology, and church history and his humble friendship and mentorship are an important part of the School of Divinity at the University of St Andrews and, in particular, the work of the Institute for Bible, Theology, & Hermeneutics (IBTH). We would like to extend sincere congratulations to Prof Mark W. Elliott on his inauguration to the post of Professor of Divinity, and we look forward to the continued results of his interests and research in the areas of divine providence, biblical theology, and the history of scriptural interpretation. —Dr. Eric Covington