split from: Why the Hellenistic era for ALL "Old Testament" books should be taken seriously

[neilgodfrey]

"...was the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Persians?"
Why deflect from your prediction?

Oh please behave, Stephen. That's your prediction. Not mine. Please read sources and the actual argument to which I refer -- the scholarly evidence that has been advanced to support the Persian era date.

Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?

[Peter Kirby]

"Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?"

Not necessarily on only your argument, or only the way you would have it discussed.

Otherwise I am driving now and can't read all this or deal with all this.

You're both capable of "behaving" without external help, I am pretty sure.

[neilgodfrey]

"Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?"

Not necessarily on only your argument, or only the way you would have it discussed.

Otherwise I am driving now and can't read all this or deal with all this.

Can you explain what you mean by the way I would have it discussed?

[Peter Kirby]

"Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?"

Not necessarily on only your argument, or only the way you would have it discussed.

Otherwise I am driving now and can't read all this or deal with all this.

Can you explain what you mean by the way I would have it discussed?

That doesn't sound helpful at all.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm eating dinner right now (before driving again) so my wife isn't gonna like me if I have to sit here and lawyer this nonsense.

[neilgodfrey]

What is nonsense here? I’m serious. Can we not believe the best intentions? I have raised the same criticisms as I have read them in the scholarly literature. I honestly cannot understand claims of nonsense. I have even cited the literature.

[Peter Kirby]

Your arguments are interesting.

The scope of 'nonsense' was only these two things:

""Is it not protocol to engage with my argument, not ignore it and substitute your own for it?""

"Can you explain what you mean by the way I would have it discussed?"

I can't write more than that.

[neilgodfrey]

Well I deleted my ad hominem post within minutes of posting it and before I saw your response to it. SG’s ad hominem still stands. And yes — what is improper or unscholarly in the way I am discussing the question? I truly am mystified.

[Peter Kirby]

Well I deleted my ad hominem post within minutes of posting it and before I saw your response to it. SG’s ad hominem still stands.

Sorry I am catching up on my ad hominems here. There is a possibility that I never read yours because I don't know what you're talking about. But maybe I did, since you said I responded to it? Not sure. I guess it's not there now, so I just don't know if I read it at this point. And I can _now_ see something clearly 'over the line' for the subforum from SG, yes, now that I've caught up.

[Peter Kirby]

And yes — what is improper or unscholarly in the way I am discussing the question? I truly am mystified.

To demystify: I did not say that.

I can go over what I did say in a bit.

Edited to add: and I've now said more in the post mortem that follows below (read below). But, yes, I had a different point above, which was focused more on whether certain types of argumentation should be allowed. Basically, yes, the argumentation is allowed. And yes, of course, stuff that breaks forum protocol is not allowed.