Just in case anyone missed it. . . . Tim Widowfield of Vridar posted a rather insightful and well-researched article addressing a slight weakness in Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus.
The Function of the Term: “Born of a Woman”
The TW post incidentally addresses a very common deficiency in biblical scholarship that has long been noticed by a few lay readers but that has yet to be addressed by the mainstream scholarly elites who have a vested interest in correcting “misperceptions” about their arguments as they appear on the world wide web.
I will be adding this post in due course to our archive on related articles @ The “Born of a Woman” / Galatians 4:4 INDEX
Related Posts
Another review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus
Carrier, Lataster and Another Small Stumbling Block- Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”
“Born of a Woman” — Sober Scholarship Questioning the Authenticity of Galatians 4:4
The Function of the Term: “Born of a Woman”- Reply to Hoffmann’s “On Not Explaining ‘Born of a Woman'”
2 Comments
Pingback: Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #3: crucified by demons or Romans? |
Pingback: Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, point #4, “James, the brother of the Lord” |