Polemics, rehashing old claims, fighting over perceived biases and trying to blame each other for whatever will not solve this problem. I perceive that the fundamental premise of the dominant editors holds that any critique of the prevalent analysis in this article must begin and end within the terms set by the proponents of that analysis. This is not logical. To elucidate and support an alternative proposition is not bound by any other disciplines a priori, asserted or even purported evidentiary claims to knowledge. Historical-critical biblical theologians have no automatic nor exclusive claim to authority in this matter. Neutrality in this instance is clear. The article must provide context to the reader about the question, show the various positions and approaches taken in different fields, and ensure that no single claim to exclusive authority or evocation of essentially meaningless and conflictual universal generalisations is present. It can not possibly be any clearer. The article is fundamentally flawed in two ways 1)claims to exclusive authority and 2) circular and self-referential evidentiary support. If we welcome a diversity of perspectives, educate the reader, and all show more respect and dignity to each other we will surely end up with one heck of a great article. What do you think?