Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus”: that “born of a woman” passage (again)

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 … Continue reading “Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus”: that “born of a woman” passage (again)”


Gullotta, Homer, and the Training of a Correct Scholar

Nicholas Covington of Hume’s Apprentice has posted an excellent analysis of a section of Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Homer, the Gospels, Gullotta and Mythicism. It deserves to be read alongside Tim Widowfield’s recent reviews of Gullotta’s piece, What’s the Matter with Biblical Scholarship? Part 3 and Who Depoliticized … Continue reading “Gullotta, Homer, and the Training of a Correct Scholar”


How Bayes’ Theorem Proves the Resurrection (Gullotta on Carrier once more)

Yet I cannot help but compare Carrier’s approach to the work of Richard Swinburne, who likewise uses Bayes’ theorem to demonstrate the high probability of Jesus’ resurrection, and wonder if it is not fatally telling that Bayes’ theorem can be used to both prove the reality of Jesus’ physical resurrection and prove that he had … Continue reading “How Bayes’ Theorem Proves the Resurrection (Gullotta on Carrier once more)”


Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s OHJ: A Brief Comment

Before I address specific points of Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus here is my overall assessment. Despite having the appearance of a comprehensive review of the primary argument of OHJ (37 pages that includes a detailed background discussion on “who Carrier is” certainly has all the appearance of being … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s OHJ: A Brief Comment”


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

Having just read Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus I expect to be posting over the coming weeks a series of analytical responses. In the meantime, some overview thoughts. Firstly, the choice of journal for this review, The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. One of the editors … Continue reading “Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus


Daniel Gullotta’s Followup Podcast on the David Fitzgerald Discussion

Daniel Gullotta followed up his Miami Valley Skeptics podcast discussion with another podcast interview, this time on Logicast. The Logicast page and Daniel himself speak of the discussion as a “debate” with David Fitzgerald. This week I was invited to join the Logicast podcast to share my thoughts on New Testament scholarship, Biblical history, and talk about my recent debate … Continue reading “Daniel Gullotta’s Followup Podcast on the David Fitzgerald Discussion”


Highlights of the David Fitzgerald-Daniel Gullotta Discussion on Miami Valley Skeptics

For anyone who was too lazy or too busy or too technically challenged to listen to the discussion between David Fitzgerald and Daniel Gullotta on the historicity of Jesus here are my notes. Of course things said on the fly are not always what we would exactly say in more considered writing so I welcome … Continue reading “Highlights of the David Fitzgerald-Daniel Gullotta Discussion on Miami Valley Skeptics”


Jesus Mythicist/Historicist discussion of Daniel Gullotta and David Fitzgerald

A few days ago I posted If you’re as sick of the Jesus Mythicist/Historicist debate as I am . . . That discussion has come and gone and is now found on the Miami Valley Skeptics podcast. H/t the Otagosh blog — Fitzgerald vs Gullotta – Discussing Jesus I haven’t heard more than a few snippets of it … Continue reading “Jesus Mythicist/Historicist discussion of Daniel Gullotta and David Fitzgerald”


Review part 10: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Conclusion)

As I read each chapter or section of Raphael Lataster’s book, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, I wrote about it here, but now that I have read the concluding pages I discover that Lataster anticipated some of the points I made along the way. Especially this one, the final footnote on the final page: The … Continue reading “Review part 10: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Conclusion)”


Review part 8: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Case for Mythicism)

Until now I have been working from a digital version of Raphael Lataster’s Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse, that was supplied to me by Brill for these review posts.  I have since been forwarded by Brill a physical copy of the book after I informed them that … Continue reading “Review part 8: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Case for Mythicism)”


Understanding the Hostility to the Christ Myth Theory

Questioning the historical existence of Jesus attracts something other than mere curiosity or intellectual debate among many biblical scholars and some of the public who don’t even have any personal interest in religion. I can understand people with a personal faith in Jesus either simply ignoring the question with disdain or amusement or responding with … Continue reading “Understanding the Hostility to the Christ Myth Theory”


Gathercole Dabbles with Counterfactual History

Let me state at the outset here that I fully understand the actual merits of Simon Gathercole’s recent article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus do not matter. Its mere existence suffices for the task at hand. In other words, it is not necessary for mainstream scholarship to demonstrate that Paul’s … Continue reading “Gathercole Dabbles with Counterfactual History”


Scholarship and “Mythicism”: When the Guilty Verdict is more important than the Evidence or Argument

I recently wrote in a blog post: Roger Pearse, for instance, goes even further and without any suggestion that he is aware of Doherty’s arguments says they are “all nonsense, of course.” A theme I come back to from time to time is the gulf between many biblical scholars and scholars of early Christianity. We … Continue reading “Scholarship and “Mythicism”: When the Guilty Verdict is more important than the Evidence or Argument”


The Poverty of Jesus Historicism (sorry, Popper)

A spirit of obsession these past few days has possessed me with an intent to find something good and positive among mainstream biblical scholars of the historical Jesus and Christian origins. I fear I have proven to be a leaky and soon sunk vessel. All I discovered this past week was a post titled Revision … Continue reading “The Poverty of Jesus Historicism (sorry, Popper)”