In sum I object to the scholarly mentality that sees itself as "washed in the blood of the peer review". Peer review does not guarantee truth. No one can believe it does. Hence, it exists simply for the preservation of power. It is nothing less than the old cliche of the smoke filled back room where the good ole' white boys gather around the card table to buttress the careers of their friends while they ignore those who are not worthy of their attention because "their ideas didn't appear in the Journal of High-Falootin' Research" published by Brill and costing 95 Dollars for each issue published on a quarterly basis.And largely I agree with him. I have no desire to defend the "system" it is (almost) indefensible (well it's not, and probably some biblioblogger with more desire will defend it) but I certainly don't want to defend it. And I did say, as well as some incautious stuff, that I now (thanks to Jim's good sense) deeply regret, and won't repeat ;) I did say "or some process that ensures similar rigorous standards". And will note that, in the sordid world where paid academics live, "publish or perish" is the rule, and the publish part needs to be recognised by other bodies as the equivalent of peer review else it only counts for mini-brownie-points and will not save your career, job and family income!
The only character I know of that neither Technorati nor Del.icio.us will accept is a blank space. They both interpret that as separating one tag from another. Technorati allows the + sign to join binomials and they can be access on Technorati searches as two full words. Del.icio.us interprets the + sign as something else. Both systems allow hyphens and underscores. And both allow separated words in the view field of the tag.So, my thought on such "binomials" is that since D & T both seem to they read . or - as equivalent we use whichever of the two the tagger prefers! But standardise on these two (for now at least)...
I just tried period word separators on Technorati and they work fine. Periods work on Del.icio.us also, in fact, that system seems to accept open.source and open-source as being the same tag, which is good.
So, your open.biblical.studies tag should be just fine. It will show up great in Del.icio.us. It will also work in Technorati, but Technorati might interpret open+biblical+studies as being a different tag from open.biblical.studies. At this point, I would lean toward using your tags with period separators since there is already some academic precedence for that. Similarly, with phone numbers (except in the U.S., but people in the U.S. are getting used to periods for separating parts of phone numbers).
Of course archaeology can prove no such thing. Archaeology is, once again, being asked to do more than it is competent to do.The Ha'aretz report did give a few details of what was found, basically
"An enormous trench surrounded by towers was found at the dig, which was apparently built during the siege of the city."We are left to assume that this is dated to the appropriate strata to fit with the biblical account of the fall of Philistine Gath to the Arameans. That account read:
At that time King Hazael of Aram went up, fought against Gath, and took it. But when Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem...As Christopher Heard points out, in "Haaretz on Gath digs", what seems to have been "proved" here is that Gath was attacked and defeated. There is possibly some evidence in the method employed that suggests that the Arameans may have been responsible, and there is probably evidence that suggests this occurred in the relevant timeframe.
2 Kings 12:18/17 (in Hebrew and English)
1) The trench had been manually excavated in antiquity; 2) In the area that was excavated, it is ca. 5 m deep and 4 m wide at the bottom; 3) The initial refill of the trench, after it went out of use, could be dated to no earlier, but at the same time, no later, than the Iron Age II; 4) The material that had been originally excavated from the trench had been dumped consistently by the original excavators on the side of the trench that was away from the tell, forming a "berm"; 5) The material from this "berm" covers deposits dating no later than the early Iron Age II (parallel to Temporary Stratum 4 on the tell).It's conclusion while it points in the same direction (towards the Bible text) as the newspaper report is notably more cautious:
Based on the dating of this feature to the early Iron Age II, a connection with the similarly dated large-scale destruction level on the site itself (Temporary Stratum 4) is compelling. If one takes into account the suggestion (above) that Hazael of Aram was behind this destruction, it is interesting to note that in the Zakur inscription from northern Syria, Hazael's son, Birhadad, is credited with digging a siege moat (and a circumvallation wall) during the siege of the city of Hadrach. If so, one might have evidence of a similar "Aramean" siege method at Tell es-Safi as well.Updated update:
I am neither an Arameologist (is that a word?) nor an expert on ancient Near Eastern warfare, so I don't know this text from Zahor that Meir mentions. However, this is the sort of thing that would count as good cirucmstantial evidence to suggest that the attackers were in fact Arameans.The inscription reads (in Millard's translation from William F. Hallo The Context of Scripture II) that
"Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Aram, united [a number of kings and]...All these kings laid seige to Hazrach. [Zakur's city] They raised a wall higher than the wall of Hazrach, they dug a ditch deeper than [its] ditch.Which, may possibly refer to the type of siege moat and circumvallation wall that is found at Tel es-Safi. The problem is that (at the moment) it looks like a jump from "may possibly" to "does"...
What we need is the time to devote to open-source scholarly productivity (yesterday I diverted hours from my workflow to track down copyright-safe images for Theology Cards) and the financial support that will motivate scholars to offer their research and written instruction outside the current print-publishing-prestige-profit complex.He's right, as far as he goes, and especially if you notice that he implies that time is money... But...
I understand your frustration and, as someone closely connected with this work, feel that the Time authors are somewhat to blame for not adequately illuminating subtleties in the research. I am referring to the differences between two competing neural-behavioral systems: neuroticism and extroversion. Whereas extraversion involves the desire to engage with others, neuroticism concerns an individual's tendency to experience negative emotion, including emotion surrounding social situations. The two interact with one another to produce overt "shyness", although it is difficult to disentangle the relative impact of the two systems.I'm still not entirely happy. I can see, and quite accept, that a combination of Introversion and Neuroticism may be one that needs "curing" or "treatment". But I know that the combination of Extraversion and Neuroticism does too. (I won't name you, but you know who you are!)
You are right that it is unfair to expect everyone to be an extravert. Whereas some folks need to ring in the new year surrounded by thousands in Times Square, other would prefer a quiet evening with a select few.
The judgmental tone of the article, though, is presumably aimed toward shyness that is more strongly based in neuroticism. Although some folks may embrace solitude, several others are isolated not because they wish to be, but because their physiological responses prevent them from engaging more fully in the social arena.
It is these individuals, who crave interaction but shrink from it, who may benefit from treatments for what, TO THEM, truly is a problem.
It is these individuals, who crave interaction but shrink from it, who may benefit from treatments for what, TO THEM, truly is a problem.I entirely agree, to the extent that someone desires interaction but shrinks from it they have a problem, and deserve advice and assistance. But let the person choose for them selves. Too often brash extroverts decide for us, and I still want to be alone!
SEARCH Tim's sites