I am not a player in this debate, but I thought I would put in a few comments from the bleachers. First, the claim that Hornkohl’s work is “an old paradigm trying to survive in a new era” seems disingenuous. I get the sense from everything I have read – and I don’t think I would be alone in thinking this - that the basic methods and conclusions underlying Hornkohl’s work (and being questioned here) are alive and well in the scholastic world. Second, I do not see any reason to think Hornkohl is discounting data that would reveal his argument to be a house of cards (the implication of saying he “highlights evidence that fits the preconceived model while sidelining anomalies and counterexamples”). If Hornkohl’s arguments really did amount to that, it should have been easy enough for this post to give readers that data instead of a few “illustrative examples” that by no means overthrow Hornkohl’s conclusions. Third, to say that Hornkohl fails to “fully grapple” with the complex compositional and transmissional history of the Hebrew Bible is not a valid criticism. No one could ever “fully grapple” with all of it. Nor should anyone try to. Not all data is either equal or relevant. And the parts that Hornkohl *does* grapple with are sufficiently discussed with caveats and alternate evidence and with reference to multiple textual sources (like the Samaritan Pentateuch or biblical and non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls). Fourth, this whole post is mostly concerned with disagreeing with some of Hornkohl’s underlying methodological conclusions, but unlike Hornkohl's work which is being criticized in this post, no solid argumentation and analysis is provided in this post to give those disagreements weight. After reading Hornkohl’s work, I am not convinced of his main thesis. But not because of his methodological errors or inability to analyze a wide array of textual data that might or might not support his arguments. The authors of this post would be well-advised that my conclusion in that respect will not be limited to me.
I am not a player in this debate, but I thought I would put in a few comments from the bleachers. First, the claim that Hornkohl’s work is “an old paradigm trying to survive in a new era” seems disingenuous. I get the sense from everything I have read – and I don’t think I would be alone in thinking this - that the basic methods and conclusions underlying Hornkohl’s work (and being questioned here) are alive and well in the scholastic world. Second, I do not see any reason to think Hornkohl is discounting data that would reveal his argument to be a house of cards (the implication of saying he “highlights evidence that fits the preconceived model while sidelining anomalies and counterexamples”). If Hornkohl’s arguments really did amount to that, it should have been easy enough for this post to give readers that data instead of a few “illustrative examples” that by no means overthrow Hornkohl’s conclusions. Third, to say that Hornkohl fails to “fully grapple” with the complex compositional and transmissional history of the Hebrew Bible is not a valid criticism. No one could ever “fully grapple” with all of it. Nor should anyone try to. Not all data is either equal or relevant. And the parts that Hornkohl *does* grapple with are sufficiently discussed with caveats and alternate evidence and with reference to multiple textual sources (like the Samaritan Pentateuch or biblical and non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls). Fourth, this whole post is mostly concerned with disagreeing with some of Hornkohl’s underlying methodological conclusions, but unlike Hornkohl's work which is being criticized in this post, no solid argumentation and analysis is provided in this post to give those disagreements weight. After reading Hornkohl’s work, I am not convinced of his main thesis. But not because of his methodological errors or inability to analyze a wide array of textual data that might or might not support his arguments. The authors of this post would be well-advised that my conclusion in that respect will not be limited to me.