We thank Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten for this response to our review of their book. We consider our review covers many more substantive points than just a complaint about inattention to our work (in fact we suggested that they did not engage with our methods, and noted more generally their lack of engagement with *any* recent scholarship in this field), and we did note some references to literary matters (but we argue that they do not engage with them in a substantive way). We are happy to let the reader of their book and our review judge for themselves about these matters and whether our comments are fair and in line with the evidence or merely misleading and ad hominem.
We thank Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten for this response to our review of their book. We consider our review covers many more substantive points than just a complaint about inattention to our work (in fact we suggested that they did not engage with our methods, and noted more generally their lack of engagement with *any* recent scholarship in this field), and we did note some references to literary matters (but we argue that they do not engage with them in a substantive way). We are happy to let the reader of their book and our review judge for themselves about these matters and whether our comments are fair and in line with the evidence or merely misleading and ad hominem.