The reviewer is more than competent, but this is not her field. Her statement that I view Romans 16 as a later addition is erroneous. the claim that James knows Romans is based on common variant from the LXX, et al. The implication that the work is out of date ("memory lane") is erroneous, as the bibliography will reveal.
The reviewer is more than competent, but this is not her field. Her statement that I view Romans 16 as a later addition is erroneous. the claim that James knows Romans is based on common variant from the LXX, et al. The implication that the work is out of date ("memory lane") is erroneous, as the bibliography will reveal.
ReplyDelete