I just wrote this comment to Richard on his blog:
It’s really inappropriate for anyone to call you a historian. A historian seeks to tell us what happened. You seek to tell us what probably didn’t happen, what couldn’t have happened, and all the other possible things that might have happened instead of a broad consensus of professional historians and scholars have written happened. Therefore, you are an anti-historian.
Richard is a very smart guy. And he’s a very educated guy. But he’s on a mission, and that mission is not to establish history. Rather, he’s intent on erasing it.
Jesus of Nazareth lived perhaps the most historically-attested life of all time…in spite of the fact that He died penniless, without a visible supporter, and certainly without the acclaim that historians normally seek to document. In fact, if He hadn’t been raised from the dead, none of us would have any idea who He was.
None of this, however, dissuades Richard from his mission to erase Jesus from the annals of antiquity. In fact, Richard is perhaps the most voluble person I have ever known. He’s indefatigable is producing clouds of words, which is why J. P. Holding described Richard’s antagonists as simply worn out (though, thankfully, J.P. keeps rising to the task, and even Bart Erhman weighed in to try to stop the madness).
Richard uses the language of historians to overturn what historians do. More than an anti-historian, though, he’s an anti-Christ. That is, Richard is against Christ. The good news for Richard is that, in spite of this, Christ is for Richard. (See Everyone Is Going to Heaven.)