My understanding is that Professor Ozolins was invited to comment or respond to this article, but declined because he prefers to let his Vetus Testamentum article stand as it is. I would only point out that the present article is not really about his text-critical arguments in his VT article -- indeed, for the sake of argument, I even granted that his solution to the contradiction might be correct -- but rather about how he like many others will (mis)use their academic work in more popular evangelical contexts to reassure their readers about the reliability of the biblical text and related matters. I can only understand his decision not to engage here in the context of Bible and Interpretation, as a further indication of the flip side of the coin: evangelicals will often respond to criticisms of their views only in evangelical contexts where they are not seriously challenged to defend their views like they would be elsewhere (cf. Misusing Scripture, p. 38 with references, p. 119 n. 32).
My understanding is that Professor Ozolins was invited to comment or respond to this article, but declined because he prefers to let his Vetus Testamentum article stand as it is. I would only point out that the present article is not really about his text-critical arguments in his VT article -- indeed, for the sake of argument, I even granted that his solution to the contradiction might be correct -- but rather about how he like many others will (mis)use their academic work in more popular evangelical contexts to reassure their readers about the reliability of the biblical text and related matters. I can only understand his decision not to engage here in the context of Bible and Interpretation, as a further indication of the flip side of the coin: evangelicals will often respond to criticisms of their views only in evangelical contexts where they are not seriously challenged to defend their views like they would be elsewhere (cf. Misusing Scripture, p. 38 with references, p. 119 n. 32).