Thanks much, Ken.

Oh I certainly agree with that. I don't think it detracted from your overall critique. It's just that if I'm going to cite or quote you to others I'll need to make sure I've checked out what you say as thoroughly as you've checked out Copan.

Absolutely. As well you should.

Too right!

I appreciate that, Evangelion!

Thanks, Fortigurn.

I readily concede that there are other scholarly views on the provenance of Aaron's calf, and it would have been better had I rather said, "There are a number of scholarly views on this, and the majority of them do not take this at face value." And then offered the position I take. I am fully persuaded by Friedman et al on the provenance of the story, but a more qualified statement would have been preferable; you're right.

At any rate, I think that was really a minor point that I made in passing; I didn't expect to persuade Copan or conservatives by making the statement; I just intended to make it clear that Copan's statement was based on uncritical assumptions. I really did intend for it to be a jolt just to raise awareness to the fact that scholars have more to say about this text.

I responded to all three posts this morning on Religion at the Margins.

It's my fault that they responded the way they did. I started it. I just spoke with Paul Copan on the phone and we've made friends.

Fortigurn, I always welcome any corrections to any errors or misrepresentations in my work.