Gullotta on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: One Final Irony (or Misunderstanding? or…?)

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus I will make this the final post in my series examining Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. There is considerably more in the review that … Continue reading “Gullotta on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: One Final Irony (or Misunderstanding? or…?)”


Gullotta’s Concluding Comments on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus After setting aside a discussion of Richard Carrier’s Bayesian method as “unnecessarily complicated and uninviting” (p. 325) and opting instead to focus on six points in Carrier’s argument, Daniel Gullotta … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Concluding Comments on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus


Gullotta, Carrier and the point of the Rank-Raglan classification (Or, Can Carrier’s RR reference class be justified?)

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus We finally arrive at the double-back-flip as Daniel Gullotta’s concluding word on his discussion of how wrong he believes it is to place Jesus in a Rank-Raglan scale. Even if … Continue reading “Gullotta, Carrier and the point of the Rank-Raglan classification (Or, Can Carrier’s RR reference class be justified?)”


Continuing Gullotta’s Criticism of Carrier’s Use of the Rank-Raglan Archetypes

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus Criticized for being Euro-centric and male-centric, these holistic-comparative theories have been almost universally rejected by scholars of folklore and mythology, who instead opt for theories of myth that center on … Continue reading “Continuing Gullotta’s Criticism of Carrier’s Use of the Rank-Raglan Archetypes”


Rank-Raglan hero types and Gullotta’s criticism of Carrier’s use of them

The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Rank-Raglan hero types and Gullotta’s criticism of Carrier’s use of them”


Further Daniel Gullotta Disrepresentation of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus Daniel Gullotta criticizes Richard Carrier’s purported argument that the first canonical gospel (the Gospel of Mark) constructs its Jesus primarily as a counterpoint to the Greek hero Odysseus, declaring that … Continue reading “Further Daniel Gullotta Disrepresentation of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus


Gullotta’s Dysrepresentation of Carrier’s Case for the Gospels as Myth … Part 3

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus I ended my previous post with these words: From this point Gullotta loses sight of Carrier’s own line of reasoning, sometimes erroneously conflating MacDonald’s and Carrier’s views, and even at … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Dysrepresentation of Carrier’s Case for the Gospels as Myth … Part 3”


Gullotta’s Misleading Portrayal of Carrier’s claims…. Part 2

For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus For other Archives by Topic, Annotated see the right margin. In the previous post we began to look at Daniel Gullotta’s treatment of Richard Carrier’s argument that the gospels are … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Misleading Portrayal of Carrier’s claims…. Part 2”


Gullotta’s Misleading Portrayal of Carrier’s Argument (Gospels Myth or Remembered History? – Part 1)

The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Misleading Portrayal of Carrier’s Argument (Gospels Myth or Remembered History? – Part 1)”


Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus

Here is an annotated list of Vridar posts addressing Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. Gullotta, Daniel N. 2017. “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2–3): 310–46. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-01502009. 1. Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (2017-12-13) My first-thoughts … Continue reading “Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus


Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, point #4, “James, the brother of the Lord”

This is not the first time we have seen Gullotta inexplicably fail to acknowledge that Carrier is prepared to concede for the sake of a fortiori argument the very position Gullotta is arguing. The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, point #4, “James, the brother of the Lord””


Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #3: crucified by demons or Romans?

The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #3: crucified by demons or Romans?”


Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #2: relating to Jesus’ birth and humanity

The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #2: relating to Jesus’ birth and humanity”


Continuing Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus

Earlier posts: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s OHJ: A Brief Comment How Bayes’ Theorem Proves the Resurrection (Gullotta on Carrier once more) What’s the Matter with Biblical Scholarship? Part 3 (Tim Widowfield) Who Depoliticized Early Christianity? (Tim Widowfield) Gullotta, Homer, and the Training of a Correct … Continue reading “Continuing Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus