Virtually every etymology of the expression says otherwise, including the cite provided by Earl.
It seems like he’s confusing etymology of the expression with an archeology of an idea, and losing any claim on etymology in the process.
What part of Earl’s cite disagrees with what I wrote? This paragraph from Earl’s cite seems to me to be exactly what I said:
" “Question” here does not mean “a sentence in interrogative form”.
Rather, it means “the point at issue, the thing that the person is
trying to prove”. The phrase is elucidated by William Fulke in
“Heskins parleamant repealed” (1579): “O shameless beggar, that
craveth no less than the whole controversy to be given him!” "
My post was about the word “beg”. This argument is a digression. Believe whatever you want.
"The phrase is elucidated by William Fulke in
“Heskins parleamant repealed” (1579): “O shameless beggar, that
craveth no less than the whole controversy to be given him!” "
Dio…?
Just going by the links in this thread, I don’t think you’ve shown that “beg” has ever meant “sidestep.”
I didn’t think it was necessary to provide a bunch of links because up until my post people were just giving the words asked for in the OP and nobody was getting their ass climbed into by think-they-know-it-all little prigs. Sorry for participating.
“The proof is in the pudding.”
We think of proof as being a definitive noun, and so this really doesn’t make sense, but the correct, longer version of the saying is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Even that version didn’t quite make it for me until someone pointed out that it’s proof as in “proving ground”. That is, proof is not the very last thing which makes the verdict undoubtable. It’s the testing of whatever it is you’re trying to prove.
The proof [testing of how good a cook/how good your recipe/how good your ingredients] of the pudding is in the eating.
You won’t know how good the pudding is until you eat it. Duh.
Speaking of proof, proof had another meaning of test. To prove the rule referring to exceptions, doesn’t mean the said exception proves it in the modern sense, but that it tests the rule , as in strains it by being the opposite of the given order.
Someone was ‘beside him/herself,’ meaning ‘really angry.’ “Beside” has as one of its older meanings “outside,” so it’s really meaning “outside himself.” The verse that that is taken from in the New Testament would be better translated as “out of his head.”
“Don we now our gay apparel.”
Who “dons” things now? And what about “gay apparel”?
“Kith and kin”
“Lo and behold”
Well, I still hear people, when they are trying to figure out the answer to a problem, say they’re going to “dope out” the answer.
I once wrote a story about a cross-dresser named “Don Wenow” that John Barth read and asked me about the funny names, like “Don Wenow” and then a light bulb went over his head, and he smiled.
Does anybody know what a “kaboodle” is? Or has anyone ever heard the word used WITHOUT being preceded by “kit and”?
Have you ever heard the word “bated” without the word “breath”?
Yes, when it’s preceded by “kitten”. 
Wrought is rarely used anymore except for “wrought iron” or Samuel Morse’s message “What hath God wrought?”
Handbasket. (“Going to hell in a handbasket”)
That is actually not the derivation, but a common incorrect origin story.
“The exception proves the rule” comes from a legal principle meaning “if someone makes an exception to a rule, there must have been a rule in the first place”. For example a sign saying “No Parking 10PM to 7AM” implies that parking is permitted at other times. The exception (no parking at certain times) proves the rule (parking is generally permitted).
This meaning of “prove” is pretty close to the modern sense of the word.