Charles,
Isn’t it amazing how quickly this article has made an impact. This is the third blog I’ve seen that has noted it, after Evangelical Textual Criticism and Ralph the Sacred River.

It is–probably due in large part to the fact that it is freely accessible on the web. I wish more journals were like that.

I also have very grave reservations about the Oxford Hebrew Bible project. It is a flawed concept. The scholars are taking the principles of Greek New Testament criticism and applying those ideas to Hebrew. But Hebrew textual criticism is NOTHING LIKE Greek. All the evidence is that Hebrew has been copied extremely faithfully over hundreds, even thousands, of years. This is the way people in the Middle East do things. Like the Koran, which is carefully copied perfectly, or the Peshitta (Aramaic New Testament) where all copies are essentially the same. But Greek, it is all a mess. (That’s because Greek is a translation, and everyone in the first few centuries A.D. knew that).

[...] Awilum, riflessioni [...]

Buzz on blogs does not equal impact (on the field), necessarily. We so often forget that “our circle” is the only circle. But it is interesting how immediate the blogs can give feed back to an author.

[...] Charles Halton was the first (of those I read) to note Hugh Williamson’s well argued critique (PDF) of the Oxford Hebrew Bible Project. Others have noted this since, but I’ve yet to see whether any supporter of the project has answered this critique though Rob Kashow has indicated he might. [...]