Here is my book review of Don Cupitt's (2009) Jesus and Philosophy, London: SCM Press, which I hope to pass to a paper publication (oh so slow these days!) for publication that way. It is a book I read with increasing frustration and annoyance, because he attaches Enlightenment to present day philosophical categories to a Jesus who could not have known them, or conceived them, and so these cannot represent Jesus's motivation, and only near the end does Don Cupitt attempt to disarm his critics.
But, as since 2006, this is a different Don Cupitt, no longer quite the non-realist that he was, though he may retain some of this insight, as he becomes more historical and pragmatic. That puts him and me into close agreement again - but not really about Jesus. I'm still more with Schweitzer and what followed from him. He even has a good word for nineteenth century historians - but they realised they were very limited about what they could say about Jesus. The Quaker leaning Cupitt can hardly ignore the witness of their liberal cousins, the Unitarians, or whom they influenced! I wish he'd tackle James Martineau, because I maintain Martineau is a postmodern tipping point. Perhaps I should do a fresh, new, fully theological piece on James Martineau. I take a service in January. It could be a setting for a sermon of substance, more a lecture-service.