1. Richard Nash

    While I don’t agree with everything Simcha says in that post, he isn’t ranting and certainly his main point is valid.

    Textual analysis is not scientific proof. We have a situation where (once again) scholars reach a conclusion before they learn the facts.

    Wouldn’t it make a whole lot more sense to get the results of the scientific tests on dating before rushing to a conclusion about the language? If the test results show modern ink was used, then it’s a no-brainer that it was forged. If the results show the ink was ancient, where does that leave us? A choice between science and opinion, and we know that the scholars who have opined that it is a forgery won’t change their initial opinions even if the science is not in their favor.


    1. Richard, you have established some really good straw-men here. Other than providing yourself with a sounding board, what else do you hope to accomplish?

  2. Richard Nash

    I think Hershel Shanks’ take is along the lines of what I was trying to say:


    Joel, you are a real head scratcher. I read this blog from time to time because I am in accord with just about everything you write about, even if your style is a bit unpolished.

    I’m just curious as to where all the personal hostility comes from. Did I kick your dog? I think my initial comment was on point and not critical of you personally. I’m not Dr. Troll. Is it because I questioned Jim West on B&I about his odious attack on Pete Enns? Is Jim a friend of yours?


    1. Jim is a friend, but I did not associate you with the Nash on the B and I.

      Unpolished? I’ll have you know… Well, that’s not bad. Sometimes, the too-polished is rather boring. This is a blog, after all, and not a journal.

      I’ve read Shanks, but Shanks is leading the witness as well. Straw men and the what not.


Leave a Reply, Please!