But before I get to more substantive matters, let me echo Emerson’s comment: that, my dear Jimbo, is one snazzy looking haircut. Well done! (Also, I’m glad you didn’t do this book recommendation in your overalls!).
Ok, jesting aside, I do thank you for getting the book and helping to raise its profile here. I invite you to blog, or even video blog, some of your thoughts as you read along.
To respond to a few of your comments:
1) Re: not mentioning bloggers, I could be topical and say it was just a “trick.” But alas, I won’t. In seriousness, I started blogging originally because Chris Heard was blogging, and it was his ‘Dynamics of Diselection’ that first got me interested in Genesis and ultimately led to me pursuing it further. Also, Laurence Turner, who has authored two wonderful volumes on Genesis (his ‘Announcements of Plot’ is superb) and I actually met over my blog and have since dined with him at SBL and kept in regular contact. And Jim, really . . . really . . . you think Tilling has anything to teach me (wink).
2) Re: your comment about my “intentional literary method” meaning I probably ignore all aspects of theology . . . all you have to do is read the (long) subtitle to the book: ‘a THEOLOGY of deception and YHWH’s fidelity to the ancestral promise in the Jacob cycle.’ Moreover, the Siphrut series itself seeks to wed literary approaches with theological insight, and this is precisely what I’ve set out to do as well. Chapter one will lay that out quite clearly. I’m trying to show that the HOW the text means can also inform WHAT the text means, and inform it theologically.
3) I have indeed mentioned meeting you at SBL before. This year I would encourage you to bring your copy along and I will gladly sign it. I won’t even put anything snarky!
In all honesty, Jim, I do hope you enjoy the book, and thanks for highlighting it here. You brought a smile to my face on more than one occasion.
Jim, one more quick bit on your quip about me ‘ignoring theology.’ In watching the video back, what I couldn’t help but laugh at was that in reading Bellinger’s blurb you actually mention that in the book I have “pressed these issues toward theology.” You just said the word “theology” about 5 words prior to making your baseless accusation! Let’s hope you read the book more carefully than you do the blurb (wink).
Emerson Fast
01/09/2011 at 14:54
Nice haircut Mr. “better-looking than Emil Brunner,”!
Chris Tilling
01/09/2011 at 15:42
Hilarious!!
Jim
01/09/2011 at 15:43
the gall that he didn’t thank us in the preface. the vile miscreant….
Jason
01/09/2011 at 16:09
Best recommendation ever!
John Anderson
02/09/2011 at 17:14
Jim, absolutely brilliant!
But before I get to more substantive matters, let me echo Emerson’s comment: that, my dear Jimbo, is one snazzy looking haircut. Well done! (Also, I’m glad you didn’t do this book recommendation in your overalls!).
Ok, jesting aside, I do thank you for getting the book and helping to raise its profile here. I invite you to blog, or even video blog, some of your thoughts as you read along.
To respond to a few of your comments:
1) Re: not mentioning bloggers, I could be topical and say it was just a “trick.” But alas, I won’t. In seriousness, I started blogging originally because Chris Heard was blogging, and it was his ‘Dynamics of Diselection’ that first got me interested in Genesis and ultimately led to me pursuing it further. Also, Laurence Turner, who has authored two wonderful volumes on Genesis (his ‘Announcements of Plot’ is superb) and I actually met over my blog and have since dined with him at SBL and kept in regular contact. And Jim, really . . . really . . . you think Tilling has anything to teach me (wink).
2) Re: your comment about my “intentional literary method” meaning I probably ignore all aspects of theology . . . all you have to do is read the (long) subtitle to the book: ‘a THEOLOGY of deception and YHWH’s fidelity to the ancestral promise in the Jacob cycle.’ Moreover, the Siphrut series itself seeks to wed literary approaches with theological insight, and this is precisely what I’ve set out to do as well. Chapter one will lay that out quite clearly. I’m trying to show that the HOW the text means can also inform WHAT the text means, and inform it theologically.
3) I have indeed mentioned meeting you at SBL before. This year I would encourage you to bring your copy along and I will gladly sign it. I won’t even put anything snarky!
In all honesty, Jim, I do hope you enjoy the book, and thanks for highlighting it here. You brought a smile to my face on more than one occasion.
Blessings and shalom!
ja
John Anderson
02/09/2011 at 17:28
Jim, one more quick bit on your quip about me ‘ignoring theology.’ In watching the video back, what I couldn’t help but laugh at was that in reading Bellinger’s blurb you actually mention that in the book I have “pressed these issues toward theology.” You just said the word “theology” about 5 words prior to making your baseless accusation! Let’s hope you read the book more carefully than you do the blurb (wink).
Hope all is well, Jim. And thanks again!
Jim
02/09/2011 at 17:38
oh i read the blurb and made the comment with intentional trickery! i can be subtle ya know!!!
Jim
02/09/2011 at 17:39
i’ve gotten a little further and, in complete seriousness, it’s well written and intriguing and im enjoying it a lot.
John Anderson
02/09/2011 at 17:41
Thanks, Jim. I’m hopeful you will enjoy it. And blog through it, engage it, etc.
Happy reading!
Shalom!
John Anderson
02/09/2011 at 17:43
And now you’re on Eisenbraun’s Facebook page, Jim. Look at that . . . we’ve made each other famous (wink)!
Jim
02/09/2011 at 17:44
LOLOLOL
John Anderson
06/09/2011 at 18:41
So Jim, honestly, have you continued reading, and if so, I continue to be interested in your thoughts. And do feel free to email them if you prefer.
Hope you are well.
Jim
06/09/2011 at 18:50
yup still reading- just not much time to interact. may well do later, when this Copenhagen seminar volume is done.
John Anderson
06/09/2011 at 20:24
Good to know, Jim. Hope you’re enjoying it and finding it stimulating and worthwhile.