Peter Kirby

I have stated that I should begin with Photius of Constantinople for my examination of Christian origins, after I have begun to comprehend Greek and Latin.

But should I not begin first with myself? Who am I, the one doing the research? Because the researcher is a proven element of the research process, I cannot hope to eliminate it, but rather only to understand it.

The subject is Christianity and historical origins. What are my biases with regards to Christianity? What are my biases with regards to historical origins generally?

With regards to Christianity, am I friend or foe? Do I have a demonstrated agenda concerning Christianity that will become a factor when looking at it?

With regards to historical origins, what are my biases in history? What are my attitudes to historical method? What are my prejudices in adjudicating matters of fact?

Since I have both the greatest amount of information on me, as well as the least amount of objectivity, I thought I would leave my own comments on these questions for last. Instead, I open up the floor for you to say something about me and my biases.

Be honest. Be brutal. But do not 'do your worst', but your best, to capture the nuances of the subject. A very simple two dimensional characterization, labels such as "atheist" and "conservative," might be ruled out as inadequate a priori to capture the issues.

But above all, do not be silent. I want to hear it.

--
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - you impress me as someone who has no particular biases for or against Christianity. You came by your atheism as an intellectual matter, not because you had some bad experiences with evil in the church.

But in regard to historical origins, I think that you look for too much logic and certainty. You want clarity where there can only be ambiguity.

Thomas II

I always saw you as an atheist with a bias for the truth, regardless of where the truth was.
What you've found in your research placed you on the atheistic side simply because you found no truth to the theistic side.

jgibson000

The question of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth has nothing to do with -- and certainly is not dependent upon -- whether one does or does not believe in God, let alone whether there is a god and/or whether theism is a rational belief/stance. Or to put it another way, there is no contradiction in being an atheist and accepting the existence of Jesus as a fact. The issue after all is the existence of a person, not the existence of god.

JG

Peter Kirby

Just trawling the web for descriptions...(searched for "biased" & "peter kirby")

"Peter Kirby, whose encyclopedic knowledge, open-mindedness and amazingly exhaustive site on Early Christian Writings is an inspiration to all." - Allen Glenn

"Peter's scholarly stance is definitely quite liberal and it is not always necessary or even a good idea to treat him as an authority, but he is extremely knowledgeable. He is also one of the few atheist amateurs in the field who is not obsessed by the idea Jesus never existed." - Bede

"Accordingly, The Empty Tomb is not the result of impartial or objective scholarship, but is the product of writers who appear to have every bit as much bias and partiality as the apologists to whom they are responding." - Chris Price

"It is not unusual for website sources that are unsympathetic to Christianity if not staunchly opposed to argue against it. So the amount of these sources (quantitative) does not prove anything, rather we should judge them qualitatively. Peter Kirby has demonstarted his anti-Christian bias, so I read him with extreme caution. Not becuase he is not a Christian, but because of his agenda and its obvious bias." - Anonymous, July 6 2006

"Also, (RA) regarding the wikipedia “historical method” MF brought up, that was written by a Christian (Peter Kirby from christianorigins.com) Introduction to the historical method He also writes about the “historical intent” of the Gospels (if your interested): Historical Intent of the Gospels" - Anonymous, July 16 2006

"And your REAL textual scholar, Peter Kirby who put that site together and who the hell is he anyway (oh, but I'm sure he's right up there with Aquinas) - well, here's a quote from your "real" and UNBIASED textual scholar from a review that he wrote. 'It is clear that Habermas is not content in arguing merely that there was some historical Jesus, although Habermas does mount such an argument in some portions of the book. The mere acceptence of the historicity of Jesus is not sufficient, as Habermas seeks to convince the reader of the resurrection of Jesus and, ultimately, of the truth of Christian faith. It is the intent of this review to show that Habermas fails to meet this objective.' So yeah. The man has a clear agenda and it has NOTHING to do with being a "real textual scholar". Anything else? (Apparently, I am in the mood to argue now.)" - Anonymous, Oct 16 2005

"Peter Kirby has added to the discussion on Historical Method to which I have contributed in the past. Peter did me one better, though, and turned his wonderful post into a Wikipedia article! Additionally, he was kind enough to reference an earlier version of my Historical Method series that I had put up (and still remains) at my old Historical Sources On Line web site. Thanks to him for continuing to focus on this "forgotten" aspect of history." - Spinning Clio, 9/19/05

"Actually, a couple of those are from people who are very religious, and
take their bible very seriously. I don't know about the other ones. On the other hand, at least the Peter Kirby , although he takes a more middle of the road opinion, will give sources both to the right and to the left of his position, and does not show a bias in his presentation." - Anonymous, 3/23/05

"At the moment, the consensus (according to Kirby) falls on the side of it being an actual quote. And, as Kirby says: 'Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact.' Kirby is a Christian and it has obviously biased his portrail of the 'standard practice of conducting history'. The 'standard practice' of history is to be skeptical, and not read more into what someone says." - www.caseagainstfaith.com 4/23/06

It is a little amusing that the commentators can't decide whether I am Christian or atheist. :devil1: :angel:

--
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Just to be clear, I have biases. So please, just help me find out where they lie.

--
Peter Kirby

couch_sloth

If you follow the skeptic's maxim: "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"; then I don't see how you can help but be biased against something which so strongly involves the supernatural.
e.g. casting-out of demons, bringing someone back to life who was dead for days.

I don't believe we will ever be able to determine what is the historical origin (or origins) of Christianity, not at least with anything approaching certainty.
There just doesn't appear to be enough evidence to conclusively support any theory as to Christianity's origin(s)

Chris Weimer

It's sad, Peter, that some will sling the "apologist" ad hominem against anyone, regardless if they're Christian or fellow atheist. Sickening.

Peter Kirby

Chris! Good to see you here. Maybe, though, there is a bias of mine behind the accusations of apologism? I would not preclude it, atheist though I may be.

Okay, so, if you've been following my posts to IIDB and other places over the years, I'm calling you out. What are my faults? Where do I err? And why do I tend to err when I do?

No more flattery! I demand criticism! I can take it.

--
Peter Kirby

The Evil One

You currently have a bias towards starting threads that pose questions whose relevence towards the points you may (or may not) be ultimately trying to establish is not wholly obvious.

For example, first Photius, then Latin and Greek, now yourself. You are clearly stripping everything back to first principles in a designedly incremental way. But the point of why you're doing it has not yet been specified, and is not self-evident.

That is, what was it about your approach to the matter before that has convinced you you ought to strip it back to first principles? Is there some point you are trying to make to the audience by the precise way in which you are stripping back to first principles? Is this a very subtle and highly-accomplished manoeuvre to get others to lay bare their biases and preconceptions? Or what?