Status Updates From When the Son of Man Didn't ...

This appears to be poorly written by design to intimidate the reader. Even my spell checker does not know that one word.

"The arguments these scholars have proposed to defend their construal are compendious and formidable. Still, the length of their works reflects not any obscurity in their readings of the biblical evidence so much as the erudition of those whose perspectives they oppose."

Agreed Scholars do talk past each other in this field. We have different meanings for the same words. This is a very real problem.

I would agree with NT but he is not quite as consistent as I would expect. Adams critique seems heavy with shallow " English " understanding rather than going deeper, also using standard disp approaches narrowing meaning to the local context only. Preterists have already covered both 1 En 1.3-9 and T. Mos. 10.1 3-5 doing a better job of explaining the imaginary. See Don Preston on Jude1:14 and also Shaking

I agree with this section; the Jesus Seminar has many issues (mostly relating to Thomas and Q) and should not have rejected Schweitzer's work

Johannes Weiss (1863–1914) and Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) are both rather unorthodox thinkers to credit for the "beginning" of this journey. Many others should be credited.

"Today there are three basic positions on the issue." There are other positions and those are probably less problematic than the 3 popular ones presented. If the best matching solution is not popular should we leave it off the list?

I am reading this with a critical eye for assumptions and logical errors. So far we have a false choice set up. Either Jesus is wrong or the return was delayed. In reality there is an unmentioned 3rd choice, Jesus is correct and the return was not delayed. He admits like most historians that the plain reading of the text points to a message of a very soon 1st century return.