What R. Joseph Hoffmann Does Not Want (Anyone) To Believe About Me

R. Joseph Hoffmann on his blog The New Oxonian has been complaining about “the language and style” of “mythticists” — those he, Hoffmann, calls “disease carrying mosquitoes” and “buggers” — saying that they, the “mythticists”, lower the tone of the debate. In support of this assertion he has Tim O’Neill along calling mythicists’ arguments “conspiracist … Continue reading “What R. Joseph Hoffmann Does Not Want (Anyone) To Believe About Me”


Dear Joseph Hoffmann, . . . . P.S. . . .

I love this remark by classicist Michael Grant: [A]s J. B. Bury remarked, it is essentially absurd for a historian to wish that any alleged fact should turn out to be true or false. Careful scrutiny does not presuppose either credulity or hostility. (Jesus, p. 200, my emphasis) This sounds to me like a simple … Continue reading “Dear Joseph Hoffmann, . . . . P.S. . . .”


Dear Joseph Hoffmann, I am writing in response to your recent . . . .

Joseph Hoffmann has introduced his latest post with a misguided reference to me and this blog. The recent uptick of interest in the historical Jesus is fueled partly by a new interest in a movement that was laid to rest about seventy years ago, but has received a new lease of life from a clutch … Continue reading “Dear Joseph Hoffmann, I am writing in response to your recent . . . .”


Initial response to Hoffmann’s latest

Hoffmann is continuing his “engagement” with mythicism. My initial thoughts on his latest post follow. Whatever else Paul was, he was the greatest revolutionary in history when it comes to the God-concept. His ideas were completely unhistorical and at odds with Jewish teaching: he finessed his disagreements into a cult that turned the vindictive God … Continue reading “Initial response to Hoffmann’s latest”


Hoffmann’s historical Jesus argument for dummies — with a graphic to clarify it all

Let’s try to make it clearer with a picture. Mark Erickson has attempted to have Joseph Hoffmann and Stephanie Fisher clarify their central argument for the historical Jesus: “The political and religious conditions of the time of Jesus plausibly give us characters like Jesus. This is a tautology that must be confronted.” Hoffmann attempts to … Continue reading “Hoffmann’s historical Jesus argument for dummies — with a graphic to clarify it all”


Hoffmann’s arguments for an historical Jesus: exercises in circularity and other fallacies

One never thinks to engage seriously with ticks so when Hoffmann calls his mythicist opponents “mythtics” it is clear he has no interest in taking them seriously. When he does speak of the arguments of those he has described as “ghetto-dwelling disease carrying mosquitoes/buggers” he necessarily keeps them anonymous and never cites or quotes them, … Continue reading “Hoffmann’s arguments for an historical Jesus: exercises in circularity and other fallacies”


The Gospels Assure Us (Relatively) That the Hoffmann Jesus Is True

R. (Rabbi?) Joseph Hoffmann’s “semi-sincere New Year’s resolution for 2013 is to be nicer to the mythicists”. I’m touched. He explains the reason for his semi-sincere change of heart. It is not the ghetto-dwelling buggers‘ fault for carrying diseased ideas. The fault lies with his fellow scholars who have fed them “stammering indecision, deconstruction, conspiracy-theories, … Continue reading “The Gospels Assure Us (Relatively) That the Hoffmann Jesus Is True”


Hoffmann: James was NOT the biological brother of Jesus

Steven Carr has drawn our attention to Dr R. Joseph Hoffmann’s argument that Paul’s reference in Galatians 1:19 to “James, the brother of the Lord”, was clearly not meant to be understood by Paul as an indicator that James was the biological brother of Jesus. He wrote in The Jesus Tomb Debacle: RIP: The James … Continue reading “Hoffmann: James was NOT the biological brother of Jesus”


Reply to Hoffmann’s “On Not Explaining ‘Born of a Woman'”

What a response R. Joseph Hoffmann writes to my critique of his thesis (Hoffmann’s Mamzer-Jesus solution) about Paul’s “born of a woman” phrase in Galatians 4:4! He makes the most fundamental errors over the meaning of the Greek word involved — errors that anyone can correct by consulting any Greek concordance or dictionary — and … Continue reading “Reply to Hoffmann’s “On Not Explaining ‘Born of a Woman’””


Hoffmann’s Mamzer-Jesus Solution to Paul’s “Born of a Woman”

In a recent blogpost, “Born of a Woman”: Paul’s Perfect Victim and the Historical Jesus, Joseph Hoffmann argued that as early as the 50s C.E. the apostle Paul was so disturbed by gossip about Jesus being born of an adulterous relationship that he had a “need to deal with it” in his letter to the … Continue reading “Hoffmann’s Mamzer-Jesus Solution to Paul’s “Born of a Woman””


The New Apologists: R. Joseph Hoffmann and friends on a rescue mission for the “Jesus of history”

Ken Humphreys has posted his response to The Jesus Process (C) trio: The New Apologists: R. Joseph Hoffmann and friends on a rescue mission for the “Jesus of History”. . . . A trio of Jesus myth denouncers from the world of academe have rushed into the breach opened up by the failure of Bart … Continue reading “The New Apologists: R. Joseph Hoffmann and friends on a rescue mission for the “Jesus of history””


Hoffmann’s Ersatz Response to Mythicism

The opening publication of R. Joseph Hoffmann, the leader of “The Jesus Process: A Consultation on the Historical Jesus”, is a curious puzzle of blended words and concepts that have the power to overwhelm his choir with the sense that they are listening to a view so original, unique and erudite that they are bound … Continue reading “Hoffmann’s Ersatz Response to Mythicism”


Hoffmann Serf-Reviews My Bayes’ Theorem Post, “Proving This!”

Gentleman Joe Over on The New Oxonian, R. Joseph Hoffmann, leader of the Jesus Process©™® Triumvirate has deigned to comment on my post, “Proving This! — Hoffmann on Bayes’ Theorem.” As expected, his response is both cordial and understated. Ever the gentleman, he remains humble, even though Hoffmann’s massive and mighty brain threatens to burst through … Continue reading “Hoffmann Serf-Reviews My Bayes’ Theorem Post, “Proving This!””


Proving This! — Hoffmann on Bayes’ Theorem

Misunderstanding a theorem Over on New Oxonian, Hoffmann is at it again. In “Proving What?” Joe is amused by the recent Bayes’ Theorem (BT) “fad,” championed by Richard Carrier. I’ll leave it to Richard to answer Joe more fully (and I have no doubt he will), but until he does we should address the most … Continue reading “Proving This! — Hoffmann on Bayes’ Theorem”