I read this post from Justin Bass, PhD about his recent debate with Dan Barker on the historical Jesus. Bass takes a look at Barker’s arguments in his written work, as well as his performance in the debates.

First, Barker does not quote any mainstream historians, he only cites people like G.A. Wells (a professor of German language), Barbara G. Walker (an expert in knitting), and other people on the radical fringe:

In writing on Jesus and Christianity, Dan cites only these other sources: John Remsburg, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith, Barbara Walker, G. A. Wells, Randall Helms, John Allegro, Hugh Schonfield, Earl Doherty, Robert Price and Richard Carrier. A review of their credentials quickly reveal that the majority of them are inadequate sources for Jesus and early Christianity.

[…]That was very honest of Dan to admit that he erred in using Walker as a source, but why did Dan not cite anywhere in his books James Dunn, E. P. Sanders, John P. Meier, N. T. Wright, Paula Fredricksen, Dale Allison, Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, or really any of the other 6000+ scholars professionally teaching in relevant subjects of early Christianity?

One thing is for sure – with a list of clowns like that, Barker is not interested in truth, but just interested in believing whatever suits his emotional needs.

The rest of the Bass essay covers these topics:

1. Did Nazareth Exist during the Lifetime of Jesus?
2. Josephus and Tacitus on Jesus
3. Did Paul Believe Jesus’ Resurrection was Physical or Spiritual?
4. The 500 Eyewitnesses
5. “Contradictions” in the Resurrection Accounts
6. Dan’s One Alternative Explanation (for the minimal facts)
7. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, Dan would still not accept Him as his Lord

You might remember that I already blogged about Dan Barker’s crazy view that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, and the archaeological discoveries that falsify his view.

Let’s just look at one of other ones in the list. I think this is the craziest one of all – Dan Barker’s explanation for the minimal facts:

Bass writes:

I presented 7 facts concerning the historical Jesus and the rise of the Christian movement in the first century in my opening statement that are agreed upon by all full-time teaching scholars in the Western world (6000+) whether in Classics, History, or in Early Christianity. And I argued that the best explanation of these 7 facts is that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead and therefore is Lord of all.

Throughout the night, Dan only gave one possible alternative explanation that would, even if true, explain only one of my 7 facts. He admitted before he shared this explanation that the hallucination hypothesis (which is the leading alternative explanation among NT scholars today) is “weak.” Instead, Dan proposed a theory found first in the writings of Robert Price. You can watch the clip above, but Dan essentially argues that because Peter felt so bad about his denial of Jesus after his death, he had an experience that convinced him Jesus was still alive. But as I said in the debate this in no way answers why someone like Paul would become a follower of Jesus and I pressed Dan for evidence for this theory and he gave none.

Ultimately, this was just something Robert Price just made up out of thin air and Dan is carrying on Price’s imagination.

How the heck are you supposed to get Paul to exchange his comfortable life as a zealous, respected Pharisee for his life as a Christian missionary based on Peter feeling guilty? Paul was trying to kill Peter – he isn’t interested in Peter’s supposed feelings of guilt. No one – and I mean no one – doubts that Paul was a zealous Pharisee who thought that he saw a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. That is the only way to explain his complete change of mind. In fact, the Peter-grief theory does not explain the empty tomb. It does not explain the post-mortem appearances to Paul, James and others, and it does not explain the early belief in the resurrection that emerged in Jerusalem. It’s a ridiculous theory, and the only way to believe it is by insulating yourself from the evidence.