Daniel Kirk is one of my favorite bloggers. He wrote a very critical review of Michael Bird’s chapter in How God Became Jesus, a book written in response to How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman. Kirk takes issue with Bird’s sense of humor, but mostly Kirk takes apart Bird’s argument. Kirk’s critical analysis was that Bird makes assertions but not a coherent argument. Kirk’s main argument is that Bird doesn’t understand what Ehrman is doing, and therefore Bird’s attempt at refutation misses the mark–much begging the question and other problems. “In short, my assessment is that an evangelicalism that has Ehrman as its chief foe is in better shape than an evangelicalism that has Bird as its great champion,” Kirk says.
I don’t want to be the guy on the outside yelling, “Nerd Fight! Nerd Fight!” So, I’ll just leave it to your investigation.