What do you think?
Rate this book
Quoting Barker: A Critique of the Jesus Mythicism of Dan Barker
Former music minister Dan Barker has paraded himself both as a prominent Christian pastor turned atheist and as an expert on why Christianity is wrong. Among other things, he has argued Jesus never existed. In Quoting Barker: A Critique of the Jesus Mythicism of Dan Barker, Albert McIlhenny shows that while Barker may be truthfully relating his ignorance when he was a Christian, his move to atheism has not done much to expand his horizons. The methodology is the same – he just plays for a different team. In examining his articles, books, and debates, Barker is proven to have done little but repeat the pseudoscholarship of others when discussing the historical Jesus. Whatever it is Barker may be selling, expertise is not part of the package.
77 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 17, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 13, 2020
I read Dan Barker's book decades ago, at the request of a friend, and while Barker's not stupid, I was astonished at the depth of his sheer ignorance, and at his confident presentation of theories that were disproved in the 1800s (information not hard to find even back in that pre-internet age). By the end of the book I'd gotten over my amazement enough to be amused by some of his personal crazed theories. Or at any rate I assume they're original to Barker, since I'd never heard them before, and every mention I've run across since either credits Barker, or postdates Barker's claim considerably.
One that I consider original to Barker is his goofy misreading of Micah 5:2, which he admits was considered a Messianic prophecy, but which he also carefully shortens so that the reader has no idea why people thought that. Barker also avoids quoting the whole thing because he claims that the passage refers to current events in the days of Micah. This is what Micah 5:2 says: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Even in isolation, it's clear that this passage is not talking about local events.
In context, Micah has told the reader that he is talking about the last days (Micah 4:1), while Micah 5:3, 4, and the first part of verse five make it clear that he is talking about one who "shall be great To the ends of the earth; And this One shall be peace." (Micah 5:4b-5a). Despite Barker's sly handling of it to disguise this fact, Micah 5:2 is clearly talking about the Messiah, and anyone of sense will see that as soon as they look it up.
Barker is trusting his reader not to check.
He also trusts his reader not to check his claim that there was a person named "Bethlehem, son of Ephratah," and that Matthew is changing Micah's comment about a person into a comment about a city. First off, Bethlehem Ephratah would be understood by Matthew's initial audience as "Bethlehem of Judea" (as opposed to Bethlehem of Zehulon), since "Ephratah" is another term used for members of the tribe of Judah. Second, the city's been referred to with that term as far back as Genesis; the person Barker's trying to substitute appears only in a couple of genealogies.
There's also the small problem that the Bethlehem Barker directs the reader to in 1 Chronicles 4:4 is not the son of Ephratah. A careful reading of the whole passage shows that he is the grandson, and, more importantly, Ephratah is his grandmother, not his grandfather. The ancient Jews were fine with identifying people by male ancestors going way back ("Jesus the son of David"), but even Jael, who was a heroine and was married to a man who appears only in the genealogies, is regularly identified as "Heber's wife." Heber was a do-nothing nobody, Biblically speaking -- but the Jews still identified his much more famous wife through him, and ignored Jael in the genealogies. Barker's claim that Micah would identify an obscure Biblical character through his grandmother is ludicrous.
While it would take a book -- maybe many books -- to point out all the craziness in Dan Barker's books, in this one McIlhenny initially limits himself to Barker's Jesus Mythicism claims. But, since Barker at one point rejected his own writings (while at the same time refusing to reject them!), McIlhenny does veer from that topic just a touch. Barker's inconsistency on the issue is pertinent to McIlhenny's over-arching topic, seems to me.
I would say McIlhenny provides ample evidence in support of the claim he makes in the Introduction:
"[Barker] once, according to his own testimony, accepted any pro-Christian argument at face value. Now, judging by his own published material, he will accept any anti-Christian argument at face value. The sport is the same -- he just plays for a different team."
One that I consider original to Barker is his goofy misreading of Micah 5:2, which he admits was considered a Messianic prophecy, but which he also carefully shortens so that the reader has no idea why people thought that. Barker also avoids quoting the whole thing because he claims that the passage refers to current events in the days of Micah. This is what Micah 5:2 says: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Even in isolation, it's clear that this passage is not talking about local events.
In context, Micah has told the reader that he is talking about the last days (Micah 4:1), while Micah 5:3, 4, and the first part of verse five make it clear that he is talking about one who "shall be great To the ends of the earth; And this One shall be peace." (Micah 5:4b-5a). Despite Barker's sly handling of it to disguise this fact, Micah 5:2 is clearly talking about the Messiah, and anyone of sense will see that as soon as they look it up.
Barker is trusting his reader not to check.
He also trusts his reader not to check his claim that there was a person named "Bethlehem, son of Ephratah," and that Matthew is changing Micah's comment about a person into a comment about a city. First off, Bethlehem Ephratah would be understood by Matthew's initial audience as "Bethlehem of Judea" (as opposed to Bethlehem of Zehulon), since "Ephratah" is another term used for members of the tribe of Judah. Second, the city's been referred to with that term as far back as Genesis; the person Barker's trying to substitute appears only in a couple of genealogies.
There's also the small problem that the Bethlehem Barker directs the reader to in 1 Chronicles 4:4 is not the son of Ephratah. A careful reading of the whole passage shows that he is the grandson, and, more importantly, Ephratah is his grandmother, not his grandfather. The ancient Jews were fine with identifying people by male ancestors going way back ("Jesus the son of David"), but even Jael, who was a heroine and was married to a man who appears only in the genealogies, is regularly identified as "Heber's wife." Heber was a do-nothing nobody, Biblically speaking -- but the Jews still identified his much more famous wife through him, and ignored Jael in the genealogies. Barker's claim that Micah would identify an obscure Biblical character through his grandmother is ludicrous.
While it would take a book -- maybe many books -- to point out all the craziness in Dan Barker's books, in this one McIlhenny initially limits himself to Barker's Jesus Mythicism claims. But, since Barker at one point rejected his own writings (while at the same time refusing to reject them!), McIlhenny does veer from that topic just a touch. Barker's inconsistency on the issue is pertinent to McIlhenny's over-arching topic, seems to me.
I would say McIlhenny provides ample evidence in support of the claim he makes in the Introduction:
"[Barker] once, according to his own testimony, accepted any pro-Christian argument at face value. Now, judging by his own published material, he will accept any anti-Christian argument at face value. The sport is the same -- he just plays for a different team."
Displaying 1 of 1 review