JIM WEST is misrepresenting my published views once again, and I'm getting pretty tired of it. Having to put up this post is one of the most unpleasant experiences of my blogging career.

In Jim's post "Washed in the Blood of Peer-Review", in the context of the discussion of "open source" biblical studies, he writes:

A while back Jim Davila and I were discussing things historical concerning the so called "Solomonic Temple". I suggested that we needed hard evidence before we could speak confidently about the existence of said temple and Jim suggested that unless such a suggestion appeared in a "peer reviewed journal" he really didn't have time or interest in discussing it.

Jim's devotion to peer reviewed journals struck me as a bit narrow (for it implies, doesn't it, that unless an idea is found in a peer reviewed journal it is of no value and need not be considered).

The debate came down to whether any evidence apart from the archaeological -- narrowly construed as architectural, apparently excluding epigraphic -- could be admitted to show that there was a First Temple. I'll just refer you to what I subsequently wrote here. Jim's efforts to debunk the First Temple don't add up to much and he doesn't seem to take them very seriously himself.

But that's a side issue. More to the point, I said in the relevant post (after discussing Jim's ideas at some length):

As I said, I've not seen the position Jim is taking here in a specialist peer-reviewed publication, and I'm not inclined to put a lot of my time into debating positions that haven't passed that hurdle.

Jim posted a similarly distorted interpretation of this (followed by some sarcastic comments):

Hence, if a position isn't found in a "specialist peer reviewed publication" it has no merit and isn't worthy of the time it may involve to discuss it until it "passes that hurdle". Okie dokie, fair enough. The matter is thereby summarily concluded.

In response, I expanded on my comment in an update to the same post (emphasis now added):

This, of course, is not what I said and, given the amount of time I've spent this weekend discussing his position, is rather ungracious. Jim either thinks there was no Iron Age II Temple or else wishes to act as devil's advocate for that idea. Fine. But so far he's given me no indication that he is anything but a congregation of one. I have asked for publications on this idea and so far have received no answer. The only argument Jim has produced in favor of the idea is the lack of archaeological evidence, which I have addressed above. Somehow this is transformed into "no evidence" and "no proof." I have pointed out the matter of the Deuteronomistic History. It's certainly a mainstream position (I'm not saying a consensus) that Dtr was published either in the time of Josiah or not long afterward, and this seems to me to be the most persuasive view. Not everyone would agree, and that's fine. It's worth discussing. But Dtr is not "no evidence" and "no proof."

I'm willing to spend some time discussing speculative ideas, but there's a limit to how much, which is what I said above. I did not say that such an idea "has no merit and isn't worthy of the time it may involve to discuss it." It depends on the idea and the context of the discussion, doesn't it? Jim is putting words in my mouth that I did not say. He did this to Judith Weiss as well and it is not an appealing rhetorical tactic.

And it still isn't. Of course I discuss ideas on this blog that haven't appeared in peer-review journals. I never said I didn't. I discussed Jim's ideas about the Temple. But, as I did say, there's a limit to how much of my time I'm willing to spend on such things -- especially on a poorly thought-out position that no one has suggested in a serious publication and that no one, including Jim, seems actually to believe. Blogs can be good for discussing the merit of ideas in their early stages, and I do some of that here, but ultimately progress in the field comes from the peer-review system. It's far from perfect, but it's better than anything else anyone has come up with. To assert that "it exists simply for the preservation of power" (by "white boys," no less!) is silly.

To put it very simply: I never said that I "really didn't have time or interest in discussing" ideas not yet published in peer-review venues. I do discuss them sometimes on this blog. Nor did I say that such an idea "has no merit and isn't worthy of the time it may involve to discuss it" or that "it is of no value and need not be considered." What I said (again, after actually discussing one of these ideas) was that I am disinclined to spend a lot of time debating these positions and that how much in any given case depends on the position, how much merit I see in it, and the context of the discussion (e.g., I take time to refute Palestinian Jewish-Temple denial not because it has merit, but because the PA and others use it as a political tool).

Jim West persists in attributing views to me which I do not hold and, this time, which I have explicitly repudiated. Whatever excuse one might find for his misreading of my first, brief comment, there is no excuse for his neglecting my detailed clarification of it. He has ignored what I actually said and insists on saying in public that I hold silly, extreme views that I do not hold. In his latest post he does not even do me the courtesy of linking to my actual comments. If he had, it would have become clear to his readers that what he said was incorrect.

Jim West owes me a retraction and an apology.

I have no more time to waste on this and will not be replying to anything else he says about me. I advise my readers simply to ignore it.

UPDATE (31 August): Ed Cook comments on the issue of peer review.