Ted Hoffman

Ken Humphreys has written an excellent article summing up the case argued by RJHoffman and his fellow apologists in Hoffman's site. It is very well-written and I love his entertaining and colourful Rhetoric.
Sample this: at one point he states:
In exchange, and in some sort of admiration, Hoffman started a new post at his site titled The Humphreys Intervention. At any rate, Humphrey exposes Hoffman's vacillation and confusion over the entire question of the historicity of Jesus and how bankrupt the recent internet criticism of mythicism has been.

stephan huller

why do we care about Hoffmann? why dont we just ignore him? he's old. old things typically go away quicker than new things. it works against you most of the time so why not take advantage of this principle once and a while?

Ted Hoffman

We care about him because he is trying to round up other historicists to publicly swat mythicism.

Dave31

Joseph Hoffmann deserves everything he gets as he's got it coming.

Ken Humphreys on the 'New Apologists' desperately seeking the Son of God

Response to Hoffmann/Casey Defense of Ehrman's book

stephan huller

who cares. why not spend your time worrying about ways to strengthen your thesis rather than an old dinosaur

ApostateAbe

Those two authors seem to have about the same writing style of colorful hyperbolic taunts. They should work on a book together.

Vorkosigan

Stephen, arguing with people who disagree with your thesis and think they can show you where you are wrong is a good way to strengthen your thesis.

maryhelena

I think both positions have merit - put ones ideas out there and benefit from feedback, either negative or positive. On the other hand, when a debate degenerates into personality type 'arguments' - as this present online 'debate' has done - then, methinks it is time to call it a day....Actually, as for myself, I would not attempt to have any discussion, or debate, with anyone who sought to mock or belittle the position I hold.

Minimalist

And neither side has "evidence." For the mythicists this is a decided plus and for the historicists a decided negative.

Besides, I'd love for Hoffman to explain how "historical" his vision of the "historical jesus" truly is. Does he buy miracles and coming back from the dead? If not, what is so special about his historical "jesus?"

aa5874

Please explain the evidence needed for a NEVER existed entity???

Things are considered Myth by ONLY one means when there is NO EVIDENCE for any real existence.

That is, an argument that Jesus was Myth can be MAINTAINED when there is NO evidence of real existence.

The NT Canon and Apologetic sources claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator, that Walked on water, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended to heaven.

There is evidence to support an argument for MYTH Jesus.