A Man Attested By God (A Book Attested By Me)

A Man Attested By God (A Book Attested By Me) August 10, 2016

I blogged previously about Daniel Kirk’s new book, A Man Attested By God. It is still listed on Amazon as available for pre-order. But Daniel received his copies and tweeted about it today, and so here is the photographic evidence that the book exists and that if you order it, you will get your copy soon:

A Man Attested By God

Click through to see my earlier post which featured my blurb as well as excerpts from the book.

I have to add something more. When I pursued an academic career, I don’t think I ever imagined that my name would get top billing on a book’s dust jacket, much less alongside Morna Hooker’s. And so I’m honored and flattered to have endorsed this book.

""Everything is proceeding as I have forseen."- Palpatine"

How Star Wars Ends
""There’ll be no one to stop us this time.""

How Star Wars Ends
"Holy Cr*p !!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My Lord Sidious is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My blog willed him back ..."

How Star Wars Ends
"No, I don’t have a persecution complex. I am most likely an HSP (highly sensitive ..."

153 Fish – The Definitive Explanation

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I suppose this book is hampered by not being able to interact with Henrichs-Tarasenkova and Collin Blake Bullard’s just published (and well-received) works on high Christology/divine identity in Luke’s gospel?

    I haven’t read Bullard’s thesis, but I was lucky enough to get a plotted summary of it from him, and it sounded like quite a strong argument. He was a PhD student under Gathercole.

    • I presume you meant that Henrichs-Tarasenkova and Bullard were hampered by not having been able to interact with Kirk?

      Obviously all publications are part of an ongoing conversation. But your one-sided slant on the process, assuming it hampers those you disagree with but not those you agree with, is telling.

      • Take a breath Professor McGrath. It was a genuine question and you are reading FAR too much into how a simple question was framed.

        Obviously given that Kirk’s work is coming out a year after Bullard and Henrichs-Tarasenkova’s have published their studies, it is not a question whether they have read his work. They did not, and they will have been hampered by that yes. It IS a genuine, and realistic, question whether his work has engaged with the most recent scholarship, and I just wondered if he had the opportunity. I was trying to decide whether I should buy his book. I have just pre-ordered it as it happens. I quite like Kirk’s argument,one that makes the human incarnation not just about facilitating atonement, but about us as human beings. I am actually primed, theologically speaking, to like it.

        • I was responding to what it sounded like you were saying. You suggested that his book was invalidated by publications that were not available to him when he wrote it. I pointed out that that does not automatically invalidate a book’s arguments, since the inability to interact with what was not yet published works both ways. If what you came across as saying was not what you intended, then I do apologize. But I think that if you reread what you wrote, you’ll understand why it gave the impression that it did.

  • As a non-scholar I’d be happy to purchase this book if it wasn’t so pricey. If the author could drop the Amazon pre-order price down to $24.95 I’d take one. A blogger’s special rate perhaps?

  • John MacDonald

    So, Dr. Kirk will lead the rebellion against the high-Christology empire of those like Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and Simon Gathercole. I predict there will be Chaos! (fortunately, I’m a fan of Chaos): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

    I’ve enjoyed my time blogging here, especially discussing ideas like the humanity of Jesus, and the role of lying and deception in the ancient world. I’ve learned a lot from Dr. McGrath and my fellow bloggers here. Times have changed for me, and I won’t be blogging here any more. I wish you all the best! Here I’ll leave you with some food for thought in the form of an aphorism from Nietzsche (a man who must have suffered his genius to think such things):

    “Being Satisfied: That maturity of understanding has be reached is manifested in the fact that one no longer repairs to where the rarest roses grown amongst the thorniest hedgerows, but is satisfied with the field and meadow, in the understanding that life is too short for the rare and extraordinary.”

  • John MacDonald

    We should be cautious about attributing a high Christology to the risen Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.

    BY ANALOGY, we wouldn’t want to argue that Jesus was the “Son of God” in Mark in the sense he is in the Gospel of Matthew or Luke just because Mark has God call Jesus his Son. It is just as likely, if we don’t read Matthew and Luke back into Mark, that Mark meant Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that Jesus was kingly in nature or fit to be King of the Jews. With no further explanation in Mark, this latter sense is what Mark’s Hebrew listeners would have understood Mark to mean. This follows the notion of “Son of God” in the Hebrew scriptures. For example:

    (i) “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me (2 Sam. 7:12-14).”

    (ii) In Psalm 89, in which the psalmist indicates that David was anointed by God (that is, literally anointed with oil as a sign of God’s special favor; v. 20), he is said to be God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of earth (v.27).”

    (iii)God says to the king: “You are my son; today I have begotten you (Psalm 2, v. 7)

    From the point of view of source criticism, Jesus as the offspring of God and the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke probably came in germ form from the Q source, or Luke copied and edited the story from Matthew if there was no Q (It is almost unthinkable that both Matthew and Luke would share a virgin birth story if they didn’t get it from a common source, just like the two genealogies that just magically seem to appear for the first time in Matthew and Luke)

    It seems absurd to think Mark knew of the virgin birth, because he certainly would have included it in his gospel had he known about it.

    This line of reason, by analogy, also applies to attributing a high Christology to Jesus after he died in the Gospel of Mark. Mark would certainly have portrayed his Jesus in a high Christological light after his death because that would make his gospel a more effective evangelizing tool. Common sense says Mark doesn’t include any of this because he was either unaware of it, or thought that though some attributed high Christology to the risen Christ, that Mark thought these people were wrong and that high Christology was foreign to the historical Jesus.