Honestly, I don’t understand why we have to overstate our positions and continue to insult people. James writes:
An honest scholar will not say, to give a comparison, that “there is no evidence for a historical David,” but will acknowledge that there is indeed an inscription referring to a “house of David,”
via Exploring Our Matrix.
But, James, there are a LOT of honest scholars who would argue quite the opposite. You might as well have just insulted most of the European academic institutions with this statement. It ‘might’ be evidence of a historical David. There are other readings of this that have been offered, and the context of this is still under debate and has been for over a decade.
Being honest means being able to acknowledge the limitations of one’s position, James. An honest scholar wouldn’t dishonestly claim to have evidence for something they don’t; instead, one would use more cautious language when discussing the evidence. One is, of course, acceptably permitted to state your opinion about the data (i.e. you find the evidence compelling that it refers to a historical David) but it is quite another thing all together to mislead people about it.
Someone who criticizes others for misleading people about the state of the evidence should not fall into the trap of doing the same thing in an attempt to counter those they criticize!