October 24, 2020

John Sailhamer Week: 1 — The Big Picture of the Pentateuch

Vermont View 2014

John Sailhamer Week on Internet Monk (1)
The Big Picture of the Pentateuch

Last week, the most influential professor in my life died. John Sailhamer, my Hebrew and OT prof at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School throughout the 1980’s, succumbed to Parkinson’s and Lewy Body dementia, and went into the care of the God who loved him and called him to the work of understanding and teaching the Scriptures.

I dedicate this week on Internet Monk to him. I will share some of the biggest lessons he taught me about the Bible and studying the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis and the canon of the Hebrew Bible.

We begin with a post reflecting one of the greatest lessons I learned from Dr. Sailhamer: Read the stories of the Pentateuch in the light of its “big picture.”

The most influential, yet subtlest, feature of an author’s rendering of historical narrative is the overall framework within which he or she arranges it.

The Meaning of the Pentateuch, p. 29

Sailhamer observed that there are fundament structures that are characteristic in the Pentateuch, used by the author as a framework for the stories within it.

  • The first involves how the author structures his entire book around two dominant characters and their faith or lack thereof — Abraham and Moses.
  • The second involves the author’s use of poems at the end of narrative blocks.

I have reworked an earlier post from 2013 to show you in more detail how John Sailhamer used these observations to develop a perspective on the overall message of the Torah.

• • •

The Big Picture of the Torah

The canonical order of the Hebrew Bible differs from the order of the books in the Christian Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible is “Tanakh,” the three consonants TNK being an acronymn for its three major divisions.








Joshua         Isaiah

Judges         Jeremiah

Samuel        Ezekiel

Kings           The Twelve



Psalms       Ecclesiastes     Nehemiah

Job            Lamentations    Chronicles

Proverbs     Esther

Ruth           Daniel

Canticles     Ezra


The Torah, or Pentateuch (fivefold book), is the first major section of the Hebrew Bible. Its story takes the reader from creation to the days when Israel prepared to enter the Promised Land.

Here are a few statements about the big picture of the Torah.

(1) The Torah is to be understood as a single book (a “pentateuch” — a five part scroll with an overall unity).

The word “Torah” is often translated “Law,” but this gives an inadequate understanding of what the word means and what the book is like. It is not a book of legal statutes or moral commandments to be followed universally, though it contains many laws. The word “torah” is better understood as the teaching of a father.

The Pentateuch is primarily a book of narratives, containing many different genres of literature, including stories, genealogies, poems, sermons, speeches, liturgical rites, songs, as well as collections of laws, statutes, ordinances and commands. Together, these are designed to inculcate wisdom in those who read and absorb its teachings into their lives — originally those exiled in Babylon.

(2) The Torah is a book of narratives containing laws, not a law book.

It tells how God dealt with his people from creation to the end of Moses’ life. The sections of law are part of the story. We learn about the laws God gave to Israel under the Sinai Covenant and why he gave them. We learn how Israel was to live while under these laws and examples of how they actually lived. We find specific commentaries about the law and what it could and could not do for them.

The Torah is not a book of law in the sense that it is a manual of rules that we are to follow. It is a story-book that includes a description of the laws that were pertinent to the story. It is a book with laws, not a book of laws designed to make us all good Israelites. The Torah is the account of the people of Israel and the laws God gave them. What happened to them under the law provides the author with a perspective on Israel’s future and what she must hope for from God.

That does not mean we have nothing to learn from these laws. They reveal the character of God and provide examples from which we may learn. But we do not live “under” this law. These are the rules of the covenant that God gave to Israel under Moses in the context of the story the Pentateuch is telling.

(3) The Torah is essentially a two-part biography about faith.

Most of the material in Genesis is about Abraham and his family, while Exodus-Deuteronomy focuses on the Moses and the Hebrew people.

Abraham, chosen by God to be the founding father of Israel, is portrayed as a model of faith. He was counted righteous before God because he believed God’s promises (Gen. 15:6). Even though he lived long before the Sinai Covenant, he is described as one who fulfilled the Mosaic Law (Gen. 26:5). God’s ultimate promise was that he would bless the whole world through Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 12:1-3). Though flawed and sinful, Abraham and his family were heirs of God’s promise by grace through faith.

Unlike Abraham, who lived before the Law, Moses lived under the Law. God raised him up to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt to Mt. Sinai, where he made them his chosen nation by entering into a a covenant with them. A large part of the Torah is devoted to the time the infant nation spent at Mt. Sinai, where God gave them laws for their life together and their religious practices. Though Moses was a faithful servant of God, he was ultimately prevented from going into the Promised Land because of unbelief (Numbers 20:12).

The Torah thus contrasts the life of faith apart from the Law, which leads to justification and blessing within God’s promise with life under the Law, which leads to unbelief and exile from God’s place of rest and blessing.

By giving Israel this book of stories which draws a contrast between those who lived before the Law (Abraham and his family) and those who lived under the Law (Moses and the people of Israel), the Torah has been transformed from a Law book into a book of instruction (which is what torah really means) that encourages Israel to trust in God. It urges the exiles who received this book to find their hope and future not in a Law-shaped identity, but in another, which we explore next.

Vermont View 2 2014

(4) The Torah is a book shaped to encourage eschatological hope in God’s coming Kingdom.

When Dr. Sailhamer examined the literary structures in the Pentateuch he found the following pattern of narrative/poem/epilogue, which shapes both the smaller units and macro-structures of the entire work.

In the early chapters of Genesis, the author establishes a literary pattern:

  • Stories are told in narrative prose.
  • And the end of the stories, there is a poetic speech.
  • The speech is followed by an epilogue.

So, for example in Genesis 1-2:

  • 1:1-2:22 — stories of creation
  • 2:23 — poetic speech by author
  • 2:24-25 — epilogue

And, in Genesis 3:

  • 3:1-13 — stories of temptation and sin
  • 3:14-19 — poetic speech by God
  • 3:20-24 — epilogue

And, in Genesis 4:

  • 4:1-22 — stories of Cain and Abel
  • 4:23-24 — poetic speech by Lamech
  • 4:25-26 — epilogue

Having noted this pattern, Sailhamer than stepped back and looked at the Torah as a whole. He discovered the same literary style at work in the larger structures of the work.

  • Genesis 1-48: stories from creation to Jacob’s family
  • Genesis 49: poetic speech by Jacob
  • Genesis 50: epilogue
  • Exodus-Numbers 22: stories from Mt. Sinai and wilderness
  • Numbers 23-24: poetic speeches by Balaam
  • Numbers 25: epilogue
  • Numbers 26-Deuteronomy 31: stories and sermons from the plains of Moab
  • Deuteronomy 32-33: poetic speeches by Moses
  • Deuteronomy 34: epilogue

What Sailhamer discovered when he looked at this more closely is that each poetic speech in the larger structure of the Torah contains significant eschatological passages.

Each poetic speech is a summarizing “blessing” passage in the Torah at the end of an important era.

  • Gen. 49 — Israel’s (Jacob’s) blessings on his twelve sons (end of patriarchal stories)
  • Num. 23-24 — Balaam’s blessings of Israel (end of wilderness journeys)
  • Deut. 32-33 — Moses’ song and blessing of Israel (end of Moses’ life)

Each poetic speech is given by a main character who calls an audience together and proclaims what will happen in “the last days.”

  • Gen. 49:1 — Jacob tells what will come to pass in the last days
  • Num. 24:14 — Balaam tells what will become of Israel in the last days
  • Deut. 31:28-29 — Moses tells what will happen after his death, in the last days

Each poetic speech contains a promise about a coming King (Messiah):

  • Gen. 49:10 — Shiloh, the coming ruler, the lion from the tribe of Judah
  • Num. 23-24 — The royal Star that will rise from Jacob
  • Deut. 32:43 — The one who atones for sin and brings joy to the nations (see Romans 15:10)

By shaping the Torah in this fashion, the editors of its final form transformed it from a book of history into a book of eschatology. It is more focused on the future than the past. Though it contains many stories from the past, they serve as pointers to future events. The past events, in fact, foreshadow the future.

The exiled people of Israel who first received the Torah in this final form were meant to take hope from this book that illustrates:

  • the failure of the Law,
  • the blessings of faith,
  • and the ultimate triumph of God’s Kingdom.


  1. William H. Martin Jr says

    So we run with the cloud of witnesses who saw from afar what we have today, Plan A which always was,is and shall be. Somewhere in the dust a hand reaches for ours to say don’t stop. These witnesses came to encourage and even die physically so we might be able to continue the race. The same one that always has me out of breath and barely holding on truth be told. If I’m last please try to cheer me on……w…. If you are then I will stop and go to hell so you won’t be. Hell I was built for I’m not so sure of everyone here.

  2. CM, this is some really good stuff, maybe the best in a long time. The big picture. Sorely needed. Evangelicals openly espouse the inductive method of Bible study, call it that by name, tho little picture would work too. Look up a word in your Strong’s and look up all the single verse references and weave another law like some folks weave sleeping mats for the homeless out of plastic bags. The opposite of inductive seems like it should be deductive, but I’m not so sure that deductive and big picture are synonymic. Maybe more that induction and deduction is like a ping pong game you play to get to the big picture. Getting to the big picture may be another way of saying getting to the promised land. Sailhammer seems to be exceptionally good at it. I really look forward to this week. Wish one of my neighbors was a Jewish rabbi to get their take on this, or maybe wish we had Jewish rabbis and congregants hanging out here along with our Orthodox priests and congregants.

    This week is the perfect time for this series. It seems to me that this week is highly significant in a way like the week leading up to the first Passover or the week leading up to the Crucifixion, but maybe even more the week leading up to the entry into the Promised Land, and big picture thinking is crucial to understanding what is going on. I’m not getting much big picture thinking in the commentary here as of late aside from the philosopher William H. Martin Jr, and it seems needed to still the hand-wringing and give direction. Maybe the big picture is what Moses got when he climbed up to where he could see the whole shebang before leaving the planet. Maybe if Moses could have sent a comment here from there he might have said, “Stop whacking the rock!” Apocalyptic indeed.

    Is there consensus as to which of Sailhammer’s books would be the best one to begin with or to put in a time capusule?

    • Big picture is the way to go. Take a step back, get up on a mountain like Moses, look at the promised land from a distance before you go in and try to micromanage the milk and honey.

      Charles, related to the inductive method of bible study seems to be the trend to insist upon expositional, or expository sermons. Not mentioning any names. Their aim is to drill down into the depths of little bits of scripture to get the core meaning, and then insist upon that as gospel. But what about the big picture?

      Expository preaching–or study–may work well academically, but I’m not convinced that it works for the person in the pew. And, I’ve come to believe that there aren’t really any expository sermons anyway; they’re really topical (not that there’s anything wrong with topical) but have been tweaked and rebranded as expository. It may be a marketing scheme.

      In mixing metaphors, let’s get up on the mountain so we can see the whole picture, the whole forest in front of us. Studying only individual trees will cause us to miss the reality of the forest.

      • William H. Martin Jr says

        Agreed Ted, Deuteronomy says take the tithe and go and enjoy it to the place that was appointed by Your God, If you find it to far then sell it and take the money and go and buy what you need and anything your heart desires including strong drink ( not wine) and enjoy it with thy God and don’t forget on the 3rd year to put away for the Levite, foreigner and widow in the land so they might enjoy Him too………Forward to Malachi ….You rob God by not putting the full tithe away. Do this and see if I won’t open the windows of Heaven to pour out blessing to you… My thoughts not money but time is what the Father’s heart wanted. After all the cattle on a thousand hills are His. He needs our money???? Really???? He desired to be with us and was even making a way we might understand. Wish I could do this now. This shows love and how He has always yearned for it like all the laws were suppose to be. Later we see Jesus turned the tables as to show his passion for His house. All tied together from beginning to end. The place of the tables was for the alien and the poor to come and worship and love God. This is why He called them thieves. The Jewish didn’t consider it worth it. They were suppose to share Him not be the ones to rule the world. The very things He refused in the wilderness as temptations. Sorry for run on. The OT wasn’t a stop but that which is forwarded to the complete story.

        What I long for and hope for here is those that see it the whole way through like I do tithing. Father’s love exhibited in early on and law to prophet to Jesus very much in accord with each other…….. My hunger is His Love….

        • William H. Martin Jr says

          I’m sorry what I missed it is impossible to spend time with the Most High and not be blessed by Him and the windows was a statement not a challenge. Because love doesn’t challenge it invites. It was an invitation. How I see……w

      • Expository preaching will seem topical in the sense that there is still a main subject, or there should be, that is being preached. The difference of course is that an expository sermon will focus on primarily one passage of Scripture, and not claim to be covering a topic by hopping all over the Bible giving no context to the verses that are read. Of course good expository preaching will often give a big picture view. The passage that is focused on should be informed by the totality of Scripture and shown how it is a part of the larger whole. There is a lot of stuff called expository that is not really expository. It may be using a passage of scripture as a platform for my hobby horse, or really a word study disguised as expository preaching. But that doesn’t mean that there is not good expository preaching, or that it is not good for the church. And to call it just a marketing scheme is just ridiculous.

    • –> “CM, this is some really good stuff, maybe the best in a long time. The big picture.”

      Yes, this is quite insightful and useful!

  3. David Cornwell says

    “Evangelicals openly espouse the inductive method of Bible study, call it that by name, tho little picture would work too. Look up a word in your Strong’s and look up all the single verse references and weave another law like some folks weave sleeping mats for the homeless out of plastic bags.”

    Charles, I’m afraid you do not understand “inductive method.” I had several seminary classes using the inductive method. I promise you, it’s nothing like you describe. There may be some popular presentations claiming to use this method, but they misrepresent the real thing. Properly used, the inductive method leads to an understanding of the whole. On a popular level this can be a good way for laity to study the bible. However it demands a structure for guidance.

    Or it can lead a pastor to a better understanding of a book of the bible and enrich his preaching. It isn’t used on a verse or chapter level, but to the understanding of a book. If it is limited to small bits that do not lead to understanding of the whole, it is being misused.

    Anyway, this is just a method, a way of getting to the truth. It isn’t the only way, and used correctly it does not claim to be.

    • Can inductive method Bible study be done without a firm grasp on history and how languages change over time?

      • David Cornwell says

        It really depends on deep one wants to go. The first course I had was confined to English translations. And this is as far as most laity will ever go. But, rather than start with individual verses, it always started with a reading of the whole thing. Several times looking at an entire book to see what the general subject and purpose might be, and to arrive at an understanding of the general and paragraph structures. Verse divisions are artificial many times and a paragraph can cross chapter divisions. After the major divisions of the book are looked at, one might start noticing themes, etc.

        I think it is properly used on a lay level, or as a starting point for a pastor or teacher. I had a Greek exegesis class later that went much more deeply into the original language.

        This had nothing to do with expository preaching. It was simply a method at arriving at a better understanding of scripture. If one had time, it could greatly assist in one’s preaching. Most pastors do not end up with a lot of time for bible study.

        The problem with the inductive method, or any other method, is that one’s background and life always have an effect on interpretation. Baptists will be predisposed to view some passages one way, while a Lutheran another.

        • David Cornwell says

          Also, I think that the inductive method can be taken to extremes. One could work forever on one book or chapter of the bible. But to what end?

          It can be enjoyable, or it can become a legalistic chore.

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says

            Also, I think that the inductive method can be taken to extremes. One could work forever on one book or chapter of the bible. But to what end?

            The comment threads at Wartburg Watch have horror stories of “expository preaching” that takes months to go through A Single Verse.

    • Thank you, David. You may be correct that I do not understand “inductive method” as you understand it. Fair enough, I am always open to being corrected by someone who genuinely knows more than I do, but to be told I am clueless without then explaining what you regard as correct seems to me neither fair nor helpful. Perhaps you are speaking of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I don’t know as you don’t say. What I do know is that I am not after correct doctrine, I am after the big picture, and when I run across someone who seems to be able to see patterns and the big picture, my intuitive bell goes off and I want to know what else this person is seeing. Doesn’t mean I’m going to buy the whole nine yards, but it is so rare for people to have this ability to see the big picture, I jump to attention when I find it. I’m not so sure it has much to do with methods, tho I would be interested in what Sailhammer had to say on that as well, if anything. What I do know is that I have not run across very many seminary-trained professionals who are able to see beyond their training, and that is the area I want to explore, the beyond. So far, sounds like it might be familiar territory to Sailhammer and I want to give him every opportunity this week to tell his story.

      • And yes, David, I see your further responses showed up when I posted. If you are calling reading a whole book at a time to gain insight “inductive method,” I would say this was good for getting the big picture and recognizing patterns, but we just evidently have widely differing ideas of what inductive thinking is. As Ted points out above, I’m after the forest, not the trees, tho you can’t figure out the forest without identifying some individual trees.

        • Reading a book at a time seems like a much better way of understanding what Scripture is saying instead of letting “the whole of Scripture” interpret Scripture. There are centuries in between books, how can they said to be similar unless you hold to a very faith based personal revelation interpretation of God’s word.

          tl;dr the same word in two different places may not mean the same thing, and we shouldn’t use one to interpret the other

          tl;dr even further – word studies are often pointless

          • William H. Martin Jr says

            Dear Stuart, Yes a book and pick one you want to hold up…..anyone…. Doesn’t matter. Bible a book or a collection of books. How could we ever explain before, here and now all in on yet even then pertaining to what was going on. God paradox…….Hmmm…. I’m sure I’ve not the answer but yet the differences and the same have the common….What would it be and can we see it as inside you and me us so different and yet an in common to what we have so dear not so much to us sometimes in our ability to be the other side of the same coin. Not so vague. Jesus stood and quoted OT and said it is fulfilled before your eyes. I expect for those to have seen it how hard it would have been to see it.

          • Stuart, I myself think it is clear that the Old Testament was compiled and edited so that it makes a coherent whole. That’s not the same thing as the “faith based revelation interpretation” you mention. It means that the Jews in exile and in post-exilic days were trying to make sense of their history and future, and put this massive collection of books together to give some answers.

            That’s the human perspective. Of course, many of us think God was somehow involved in that process so that his truth and perspectives can be gleaned from it.

            • William H. Martin Jr says

              Edited? By whom???? Really???? You so lose me at times……..

              • William, the OT was not just “written” like today’s books. It was written and collected over centuries. And when Israel was in Exile in Babylon, the religious leaders took those writings, edited them and put them together into a final “book” we call the Old Testament.

                For example, a long time after Moses, someone added chapter 34 to Deuteronomy to tell of Moses death and to say that no prophet like Moses had arisen throughout Israel’s subsequent history.

                • William H. Martin Jr says

                  Edited was the ?… Sorry if I don’t understand your answer. Who Edited it since your sure of it? Not trying to be smart I’m just asking. You said edited but it seems by someone from sometime and it seems from time of exile and I’m suppose to believe it because I’m not post modern. Not.

                  • William I can’t give you a list of names of who edited and created the final form of the Hebrew Bible. Heck, we don’t even know the original authors of the materials found in it! All I can tell you is that the Jewish community collected, kept, and watched over various sacred texts that were later put together into what we know as the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. Scholars know that was done during and after the Exile, and it took time and was not a simple or clear-cut project.

                    Actually the primary purpose of the Old Testament seems to be to help the Israelites in Exile come to terms with their history and find hope for the future.

                  • William H. Martin Jr says

                    Just to follow as why it wouldn’t have been stated as edited by in the Babylonian exile……. By who soever And why wouldn’t the spirit of God been so upon them that anonymous would have been the answer? Nope we can’t have it because it is human and the mankind’s hands are upon it. Okay I’ll give you that….. Mankind’s hands wrote it but just maybe the love of God was behind subscription. If it were not so then why ever do we need Jesus if we can do it ourselves. Why isn’t so hard to believe that during said exile it was then it seemed worthy to write it down so it could be for more than just Jewish people and be spread abroad so more could know of the Most High God. That which He obviously wanted from the beginning. If this wasn’t so then again no need for Jesus.

                    Never was it plan B and if it were so then plan B would mean an imperfect God but more so Plan A was the love that always was in His heart and exhibited in Christ for before and now and ever shall be. Edited yes but by who and why and for what and leading where? Let us not walk on corn flakes because or egg shells because. Why do you stir me up so?

  4. Burro [Mule] says

    For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.

    This Scripture in John 5 always sticks in my head when dealing with the Chumash. There are a lot of places where the light of Christ shines through clearly, but if you don’t already know about Eucharistic theology, there isn’t much in Leviticus and Numbers that points to Him and its real easy to get sidetracked into the minutiae of sacrificial rituals, which is what the Jews basically did.

    There is something that always bothered me about Christians looking to the Synagogue for help with the OT. The Orthodox sidestep it by making the LXX authoriatative over the Masoretic text, which really grinds on my R.U.P [ Residue of Unresolved Positivism].

    • Burro [Mule] says

      It dawned on me that R.U.P. [ A Barfieldian phrase ] could as easily stand for Residue of Unrepented Protestantism.

      • William H. Martin Jr says

        Really….Okay…Where is that Balaam’s animal when we need it…….Oh heck I’m not it’s voice….be interesting though..

    • Stuart Blessman says

      Honest question: does the light of Christ shine through the Old Testament, or did we just have some very clever stretching and legend building of Jesus from early Christian writers? Obviously finding Jesus in documents written hundreds if not millennia earlier is more of a faith thing than a historical thing, but just curious.

      I took a seminary class once on Christology in the OT or something, and I remember thinking how incredibly vague and what huge leaps of logic there were to fit some OT passages onto Jesus.

      • –> “I remember thinking how incredibly vague and what huge leaps of logic there were to fit some OT passages onto Jesus.”

        Reminds me of literature classes I’ve had. Teacher: “What the author/poet was trying to convey here is…”

        What?!? How’s you come up with THAT?!!?

      • “…does the light of Christ shine through the Old Testament, or did we just have some very clever stretching and legend building of Jesus from early Christian writers?”

        Well, yes and yes. 🙂

        Yes, when I read the OT, I can clearly see Christ in its pages; however, I do not think the original audience would look at a particular passage, say, Isaiah 53 and proclaim, “Oh, look! Our Messiah will be crucified on a cross!” and all the other images from our Christian perspective we see in those passages.

        And, there is no doubt the writers of the NT did some “creative reinterpreting” but, they did so in light of what they had experienced in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Likewise, our own experiences should cause us to reexamine what Scripture says. For instance, Scripture says the earth was created in six days but our experience tells us otherwise; this has caused us to reexamine what meaning the first chapters of Genesis were really attempting to convey.

        To quote Pete Enns: “Simply put, seeing the need to move beyond biblical categories is biblical—and as such poses a wonderful model—even mandate—to move beyond the Bible when the need arises and reason dictates. Being a ‘biblical’ Christian today means accepting that challenge: a theology that genuinely grows out of the Bible but that is not confined to the Bible.”

        And to second Rick, yes, Hebrews does a great job of “reexamining” the OT in light of Jesus.

      • Jesus himself invites the Pharisees to do the same thing we he asks them to learn the meaning of “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

        • Exactly. All that OT stuff was pretty much in response to the people’s desire to know “How separated are we from You?” It’s almost as if God told them, “If you really want to know, here’s what it would require to get in good standing with Me.”

          To me, “Jesus” is God telling us, “Look, enough of trying to do this on your own and turning it into pointless ritual. Let me close the gap and seal the deal now and forever.”

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      This Scripture in John 5 always sticks in my head when dealing with the Chumash.

      To me, “Chumash” is a tribal people of the Central California Coast.

  5. Heather Angus says

    Emily Dickinson’s comment on Moses:

    It always felt to me—a wrong
    To that Old Moses—done—
    To let him see—the Canaan—
    Without the entering—

    And tho’ in soberer moments—
    No Moses there can be
    I’m satisfied—the Romance
    In point of injury—

    Surpasses sharper stated—
    Of Stephen—or of Paul—
    For these—were only put to death—
    While God’s adroiter will

    On Moses—seemed to fasten
    With tantalizing Play
    As Boy—should deal with lesser Boy—
    To prove ability.

    The fault—was doubtless Israel’s—
    Myself—had banned the Tribes—
    And ushered Grand Old Moses
    In Pentateuchal Robes

    Upon the Broad Possession
    ‘Twas little—But titled Him—to see—
    Old Man on Nebo! Late as this—
    My justice bleeds—for Thee!

    • William H. Martin Jr says

      Moses never minded dear one he did for Him his friend and interceded for the ones His friend loved, The Arch Angel Micheal did not consider it worthy to argue over the bones of Moses. He just said I rebuke you Satan. God wanted those bones. Love….Jude I think….. The whole Book and writing….