Then you must be a . . . minimalist? Apparently, the categories of minimalist and maximalist in Biblical Studies exist in a bi-polar opposition. That is, you must be one or the other. Since I critiqued Anson Rainey's BAR article in my last post and Rainey is clearly a maximalist, then I must be a minimalist. This appears to be the logic used by Jim West to induct me into the quasi-facetious illustrious Guild of Biblical Minimalists. While I appreciate the honor of receiving the attention of the guild, I feel compelled to point out that I will critique all equally, and membership will not restrict me from similarly pointing out the issues, weaknesses, and logical fallacies found in the published work of the other members of the guild, especially the Council of Five. Some of their attempts to venture into Semitic epigraphy have been just as ill conceived and illogical as Rainey's mishmash of archaeology, Bible, and linguistics. You see, I'm a true minimalist . . . questioning everyone and finding everyone else is wrong. No one is safe. Besides, when you have two opposing forces driven by powerful ideological commitments arguing over an issue, you'll often find the truth (i.e., the best probable answer) is somewhere in the middle - unacceptable to each side because it brings in more of the other side than either would like to admit.