Paul’s Christology really is Divine, you know!
My good friend, Volker Rabens, pointed out to me yesterday that details of my first book have been put up online on the Mohr Siebeck webpage here. It is a strange and rather nice feeling seeing it there, no longer merely in the electronic world of my NotaBene word-processer! And it is of course an honour for me to find a place for my work in the terrific WUNT II series (323, to be precise!)
I will say more about the whole thing at a later date, but I am already very grateful for some generous comments from a couple who have read earlier drafts, here and here and especially here.
But of course, the thing hasn't been published quite yet, and something Mark Goodacre wrote a while back has been haunting me. Responding to the recent RBL innovation, namely immediate scholarly rejoinders to reviews, he writes:
“I must admit to mixed feelings about this. On one level, it could help to hold reviewers to account. But on the other hand, it is part of the academic experience to learn to cope with reviews of your work with which you may disagree. I wonder if the ease of a blog-comment response will encourage too many authors to respond too quickly and too negatively to critiques of their work that may -- on reflection -- help them”Truly wise words, these.
(see Goodacre’s entire post here)
So in anticipation I have generated a selection of responses to the critical reviews I sincerely hope my argument generates:
- “You sayin that cos yo momma's so fat her cerial bowl comes with a lifeguard”
- “After that review, you should do some serious soul-searching. Maybe you'll find one.”
- “I would agree with you, but that would make us both wrong”
- “Random jabs at a keyboard could have produced a more coherent criticism”
- “Had I eaten a bowl of alphabet soup, my bowel movement could have produced a better argument than that”
and my personal favourite, that wonderful onamatopoetic word: