Martin's later paper shifts: claims he can establish testicle meaning from 1 Corinthians alone

Martin's response paper shifts significantly: he no longer relies on ancient examples and claims he can establish the meaning from 1 Corinthians 11 evidence alone -- even if nobody before Paul ever used peribolaion to mean testicle. Martin also seems to misunderstand Goodacre's argument (treating it as if Goodacre must prove peribolaion can never mean testicle, rather than that Martin's case is insufficient). Mike says Michael Heiser's claim that 'Martin ate Goodacre's lunch' was based on Martin successfully attacking a straw man.