This article by Margreet Steiner, published by Bible and Interpretation, does not start a new debate but it is a new article with a couple of my photos. The article is not long and gives the new “minimalist” position rather clearly. (The old “minimalist” position, adhered to by the teacher of the article’s author, Kenyon, was that Jerusalem never expanded beyond the Eastern Hill in the OT period; they can’t advocate that anymore with the evidence, so they’re trying a new minimalist approach.) I think writing a critique of this article would be pretty easy for students of my Jerusalem Archaeology class (and even better if they’ve had History of Ancient Israel, which deals with these issues on a more global basis). It’s almost remarkable that such can be regarded as scholarly work. I guess you can just ignore all the literary sources (the Bible and the Amarna Letters), but why you should be taken seriously if you do is not obvious. But of course the debate is much bigger. For the “complete picture” of this perspective, see Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. For a careful explanation for why the biblical record can’t be ignored, see the first 3 chapters of Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel. Both should be required reading for all grad students in biblical studies today.