Today's post:
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 1 of 2)
I've been following a time-saving policy for the last 5 or so months of not bothering to read or engage significantly with historicist posts, because with Carrier's book completed (and due for publication this month), it is unlikely that any recent argument from the historicist side actually adds anything useful to the debate. Any arguments that might be valid would be better addressed after the book is out.
