I’m a little surprised that Andrew so blithely accepts the disciplinary boundaries that the rest of the article seeks to critique. He writes: “if I never taught a course on the classical Mediterranean again.. it would surely be one of the most normal things in the world.” But a course dealing with ancient Israel IS a course on the classical Mediterranean, and a course involving Egypt IS a course on the classical Mediterranean. It *is* a problem if Religious Studies professors don’t think they are addressing issues in the ancient Mediterranean, just as much as it is a problem for Classical scholars to ignore or marginalize the Near East. Not only are we all humanists as Andrew asserts, but we are in fact dealing with the same material simply with different disciplinary tools. And we don’t help our students by not being clear about which tools their lab is equipped with.