Thank you for taking the time to engage with our article, even from the bleachers, as you put it. Since you’re observing from outside the ongoing debate, it may be helpful to note two things:
First, as with any complex game, much of the nuance and strategy becomes visible only from the field. Many of the “rules,” both methodological and evidentiary, that shape the current conversation are best understood by those who are active participants in the scholarly debate. That context often clarifies why certain approaches or critiques carry weight within the field. This particular debate is especially intricate, as it involves not only linguistic analysis but also textual, literary, and other disciplinary dimensions that interact in subtle and often contested ways.
Second, our article was meant as a brief synopsis rather than a full exposition. For readers looking for more sustained argumentation, including fuller engagement with data and alternative models, we’ve already published these discussions in more detailed venues (as cited, e.g., in HLBH and “Currents”). There, we take up exactly the kinds of issues you raise here with a broader evidentiary base and more extensive argumentation.
Third, you note that you are not a player in this debate, but since you’ve read Hornkohl’s book and presumably have a good command of Hebrew, we’re genuinely curious to hear what specific reasons led you not to be convinced by his main thesis, namely, that the entire Pentateuch and its language date to before 800 BCE. That kind of critical engagement would help advance the conversation constructively.
Again, we appreciate your thoughtful remarks and the opportunity they offer to clarify our intentions.
Dear David,
Thank you for taking the time to engage with our article, even from the bleachers, as you put it. Since you’re observing from outside the ongoing debate, it may be helpful to note two things:
First, as with any complex game, much of the nuance and strategy becomes visible only from the field. Many of the “rules,” both methodological and evidentiary, that shape the current conversation are best understood by those who are active participants in the scholarly debate. That context often clarifies why certain approaches or critiques carry weight within the field. This particular debate is especially intricate, as it involves not only linguistic analysis but also textual, literary, and other disciplinary dimensions that interact in subtle and often contested ways.
Second, our article was meant as a brief synopsis rather than a full exposition. For readers looking for more sustained argumentation, including fuller engagement with data and alternative models, we’ve already published these discussions in more detailed venues (as cited, e.g., in HLBH and “Currents”). There, we take up exactly the kinds of issues you raise here with a broader evidentiary base and more extensive argumentation.
Third, you note that you are not a player in this debate, but since you’ve read Hornkohl’s book and presumably have a good command of Hebrew, we’re genuinely curious to hear what specific reasons led you not to be convinced by his main thesis, namely, that the entire Pentateuch and its language date to before 800 BCE. That kind of critical engagement would help advance the conversation constructively.
Again, we appreciate your thoughtful remarks and the opportunity they offer to clarify our intentions.