Peter Kirby

I think that I may have hurt Bernard Muller for not reading his complete web site, though what I did read was stimulating and often convincing. But I don't like to hurt people. So I would like to make it up to Bernard--though making some advantage to myself--with this offer.

Earl Doherty and Bernard Muller are parallel in many ways. They are both fiercely logical, impassioned debaters, and have written extensively on their interpretations of the New Testament. They are both famous from their web sites. They have both been shunned by some internet discussion groups. They always go back to the sources instead of relying overmuch on scholarly conjecture or consensus. I deeply respect both of them, even as I don't fully agree.

My offer is this:

1. I will read every single last word of your web site, and some of it multiple times for comprehension, study it with full attention, and publish a set of notes of at least 1000 words on Did Jesus Exist, reporting my thoughts and opinions, whatever they may be.

2. You will read the entirety of the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, referring to the web site only as supplementary material, and produce a set of notes (or an essay) of at least 1000 words on the book for publication on Did Jesus Exist, reporting your thoughts and conclusions, whatever they may be.

It gets even better. I know that it costs me nothing to read your web site. Recently, I offerred to three people to read Doherty's book and make reviews. More recently, one of them has dropped out of the game, after reading the book, feeling not quite up to the task of a refutation. Quite honorably, he has chosen to reimburse me with a single request: that I give the book to somebody else to review. That person, I hope very much, will be you, Bernard. So I will buy a copy from Doherty and mail it to you, if you would provide your snail mail address after entering into this venture.

The deadline for both of us is six months after you receive Doherty's book. Mine may be much sooner than that.

Note that I think that Doherty will be pleased with this too, though he is not informed of it by me. Doherty has given a free copy of his book to the Society of Biblical Literature, and nobody there has read it to review it. You know how it feels like to be snubbed. We can right two wrongs, and give two researchers the review they deserve. (He once gave me a free copy too, back when I was in high school. My review was written in December of 2000 and is published here. You may wish also to review to Carrier's review here.

I believe this is the beginning of something that will enrich both of us and those who participate in these discussions. Thank you.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

It's my understanding that you've changed your mind since writing that review. When should we expect to see Peter Kirby's revised look at The Jesus Puzzle?

Regards,
Rick

Peter Kirby

Judging at my pace of piecing together the entire smorgasbord of Christian origins, witnessed in my Markan Origins Project, I would say when I have received honorary title as President of the Society of Biblical Literature. Or when I lessen my idea of the importance of the task. Until then, I have plans for many specific articles, one tentatively titled "In the Name of the Incarnation and the Adoption and the Heavenly Spirit: Trinitarian Christology in Paul." Intriguing, no? I like there to be a little mystery about what I'm going to do next, like when I will reveal the websites I am making.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I thought I was writing a review, not a refutation? Of course my review will be very critical and will point out flaws with Doherty's work along with providing positives and negatives and general constructive criticism on his overall thesis. It was never my intention to simply write a thorough refutation of Doherty's book though. An evaluation of his arguments is my intention.

Since my new new website just opened up and I am busy busy uploading stuff//moving stuff and creating (biblicalerrancy flash almost complete! woot!) I put this task off until December//January (still well within the deadline ). I have too much going on in November as well so it has to wait another month for me.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

How's the Markan Origins Project coming, anyway? Are you still planning on presenting the pericopes here as well? When are we due for the next one?

Regards,
Rick

Peter Kirby

Since there has been no activity lately, even though I was not satisfied that we all understood what I want to do and wanted more discussion, I will post both to IIDB & JM within the week as time permits with round three.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter,
Well, you are going to read my website, finally. Thank you, even if I know you'll come with criticism. But from you, I think that will be positive & beneficial.

"fiercely logical, impassioned debaters, ... They are both famous from their web sites." Thank you for the compliments but I hate to be put in the same bag with Doherty.

"That person, I hope very much, will be you, Bernard. So I will buy a copy from Doherty and mail it to you, if you would provide your snail mail address after entering into this venture."
Well, I am considering.
It looks to me Doherty's book is not the first edition. Because I remembered debating with him on JM, and what I learned on this board about his book is different about some of his views then (I think a sure signal of somebody on the wrong tracks is shift of views; I noticed that on Crossan too; and about you, I wonder).
So, that won't be so easy now, as for my first debate with him (when he run away). At the time, he could not care if the crucifixion was on the highest heaven, or third heaven (his preferred choice) or the firmanent. And for the tidbits about a human Jesus in Paul's epistles, he was concerned about only two (the ones with something historic, like "David") and ignored the others.
I am interested, if I stay retired, which is not so certain. But nothing is sure in life.
One big question: is there any way that book can be put on diskettes or CD?
So I could quote him (without typing) and answer mostly by quoted evidence, which is my preferred way to address his points (no blablablah from me!).

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner

Havnig only recently done some reading on Plato and Aristotle, I'm increasingly puzzled by the heavenly spheres and Paul:

Paul was very much a Plato kinda guy--Flesh/Spirit dichotomy. Not so much Aristotle with the heavenly planes. In fact, there's no strong indication that Paul thought anything of the sort unless one begins with that supposition.

Regards,
Rick

Peter Kirby

I am glad that you are happy about my reading your web site. It was the impetus behind the offer. I am very curious; that's why my mother complains about the books strewn about my room.

I am sure that Doherty would call it modifying his evidenced theory based on newly received information, just as you would. See also the name of "Theophilus" as a common Greek name. You incorporated that, even if you didn't switch over to my view entirely. To think that any one individual has absorbed and synthesized all the information on Christian origins is, well, purely mythological. We all learn from each other, all the time.

Also, Doherty thinks he has gotten some basic hypotheses confirmed by a wide range of data, but he does not suppose that he can peer directly into the mind of Paul and know for certain whether he means "fourteen years" or "seventeen years" for example--I believe Doherty appreciates reticence. He defintely agrees with the principle "Evidence rules!" Which is why it is possible to argue with him rationally, and why it is worthwhile, in my view.

I will tell you a dirty little secret: except for a few apocryphal documents and generalities of Hellenistic background and the development of Q (this last I can only attribute to the influence of Robert Price who gave a blurb on the back and attacks Q in his own book), everything in the book is paralleled on the web site, often close enough to posit a genetic relationship. I tell you what: you don't have to quote from the book, unless you think you have to. Quote from the web site, which often gives a fuller argument (definitely a fuller exegesis of the epistolary literature in the silences series, an invaluable resource on understanding mythicism in the particular). You may also wish to quote from Carrier's influential review, also online.

Of course I don't think of the task as deconstructing Doherty and the way he came to his opinions. I think of it as deconstructing Doherty's picture of early Christian writings and the history behind them, or lack thereof.

I know that you wouldn't like to be classed with Doherty: that's the reason I picked you, and the statements were made because they were (a) true, (b) explained the offer, and (c) maybe shook you up a bit concerning existing ideas of the work Doherty has done, as your apparent reality is inconsistent with my view of the matter. I am certain that your notes will prove positive and beneficial.

My problem is not that I change horses but that so often I do not know. My apparent "change of horses" almost always gets me closer to the truth. As in the "title of Luke" instance. My psychology is intelligently stubborn, such that I will argue a view that sounds good until it is fully exposed as nonsense in my mind and I must abandon it in a Copernican revolution. The question is whether the person on the wrong track got closer to the right track when shifting views, or simply headed down a different direction to Albequerque. (Also, I am most comfortable when criticizing than when proposing. Another bit of my psychology of which I learned.)

Thank you for your consideration. Remember that your notes on Doherty's theory as revealed in the book and supplemented by the web site are entirely up to your discretion. I am obligated to publish even if Doherty is proven a crackpot.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Your job is to write a book review of any length and not a "refutation," as I said. (The length part is with Bernard and me, and probably not necessary at all!) He conceived his job as writing some kind of refutation, as he told me that he could not find any significant criticism of the book that he did not hear from somebody else. That is why he declined to continue; he did not think he could write something scholarly enough, with his background, to be published. (He did promise to write something and present it to me anyway.)

best,
Peter Kirby