At this point, it’s been demonstrated thoroughly that the stylometric analysis within “Christ Before Jesus” is rather worthless. Not only is it based on flawed methodology, and virtually impossible to replicate (in fact, even running Stylo with their settings, and with the texts they suggest, their results could not be replicated), the readings and interpretations done by Britt and Wingo don’t even follow what their results show.
Because of that, it serves little purpose to pay too much attention to what they claim their results show, as we can rule the results in general as being invalid. There is also little reason to repeat many of the arguments I’ve already made, meaning I will be spending less time on a lot of the following.
So let’s look at First and Second Thessalonians. Do they date to around the 130s based on them supposedly referencing the Bar Kokhba Revolt or the actions of the Roman Emperor Hadrian? No.
First, Britt and Wingo make the assumption that 2 Thessalonians 2 isn’t a real prophecy. They assume it must be detailing current events. They don’t give a solid reason, besides assuming that such happens elsewhere in other Christian writings. But we also see failed prophecies throughout the Bible that are later reinterpreted. Daniel 11 is a great example of this.
James Tabor, in a post on his website titled “Daniel Chapter 11 and ‘Failed’ Predictions: Some Hanukkah Thoughts,” details how if Daniel 11 stopped at verse 39, all would be well. But it continues in verses 40-45, which contain prophecies that never occurred. Tabor also points out that in chapter 12, we have another whole mess with another failed prophecy.
We know that early Christian writers, such as Paul, had Daniel 11 in mind at times. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2, whether it be by Paul or someone else, quotes directly the language of Daniel 11:36-37.
Now, I’m not arguing that the author of 2 Thessalonians had in mind that he was quoting a failed prophecy, or that his own prophecy would be incorrect. But it shows us clearly how Biblical writers got it wrong at times.
We have an additional problem here though, and that has to do with the temple. Assuming that the author of 2 Thessalonians literally meant the Jewish Temple, then to make any argument after 70 A.D. makes no sense. After the first Jewish War, the Temple was gone. To claim that anyone would take a seat in the temple, after the temple is gone, makes no historical sense.
That is, unless they meant a new third temple. A temple we still don’t have today. And obviously that would mean 2 Thessalonians isn’t talking about the present time, but something far off.
However, we don’t know if 2 Thessalonians is talking about a physical temple, a literal temple, or a metaphorical temple. For instance, 1 Corinthians 3:16 states that we are the temple of God. 2 Corinthians 6:16 confirms the same thing.
If it is metaphorical, Britt’s and Wingo’s interpretation becomes irrelevant as the temple then doesn’t stand as a marker in time. Either way we look at it, neither interpretation actually supports the argument they are trying to make.
They then move to 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, claiming that the phrase, “wrath of God,” is only reasonable after the destruction of the Temple. There are a couple of issues though. First, according to the notes in the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, this is the only verse in 1 Thessalonians which may be an interpolation. It’s a point that scholars are divided on, and thus hinging a theory on it may not be the best idea.
Assuming it is authentic though, there is no reason to demand that it refers to the temple destruction. Going back to the Oxford Annotated, it states that what could be being referenced here is just the general anti-Jewish sentiments that were in the culture.
More so, we see the term, wrath of God, being used throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testament, to refer to a whole host of things. Why then must this one instance refer to the temple? Britt and Wingo don’t explain why at all, but simply assume it based on their prior unfounded conclusions.
2 Corinthians
For the most part, we can completely disregard Britt’s and Wingo’s discussion on 2 Corinthians. As their dating of the Thessalonian letters is highly flawed, and their stylometric analysis is invalid, as we’ve discussed thoroughly, this leaves them with virtually nothing, as many of their points for 2 Corinthians rest on their dating of the Thessalonian letters.
The one point that is worth discussing is the issue of composite letters. It is true that 2 Corinthians is often seen as a composite letter. The view is that it’s a compilation of smaller letters written by Paul, that were collected together.
Britt and Wingo want to date 2 Corinthians to around the 130s or 140s, because 2 Corinthians supposedly contains work from the Thessalonian author. However, they don’t explain why it couldn’t be the other way around, nor do they tell us what material is the same. Is it exactly the same, as in word for word, which suggests copying? Or is it the same in theme, which would make sense even if we ignore that they are probably written by the same author. After all, much of Christian literature contains similar themes.
There are a few things to consider about composite letters though. First, as Brent Nongbri explains in “2 Corinthians and possible material evidence for composite letters in antiquity,” “any compilation of letters to assemble 2 Corinthians must have taken place before the archetype(s) of our surviving manuscripts came into being.”
Building off of this, what it all means is that prior to any assembling of 2 Corinthians, the shorter letters that were used to create it, had to have been composed. And all of this had to be done before any of the surviving manuscripts of 2 Corinthians came to be.
According to Nongbri, “In the case of the Corinthian correspondence, any compilations would have taken place most likely within only a few decades after the letters were composed and sent.”
Now, if we take the view of Britt and Wingo, that in 144 A.D., we have a list of Paul’s texts, which included 2 Corinthians, we have to keep in mind that we are most likely looking at a few decades having passed since the original shorter letters were composed and sent out.
Where would this collection have come from though? As Nongbri mentions, we have good reason to believe that senders often kept a copy of their own letters. It’s a practice we know of through Cicero, in his work, “Against Verres.” This is also supported by material evidence, such as with P.Sarap 87-89.
Another option, which we also see attested to by Cicero, and also supported by material evidence, is “the archiving of received letters in a roll format.” In this process, it was common to remove both the opening and closings, or at other times, altering them in order to fit together as a singular letter.
Neither view fits well within the framework of Britt’s and Wingo’s ideology. This is a great example of how basic research wasn’t done in order to inform their work.
Core Letters: 1 Corinthians
Britt and Wingo begin their discussion on 1 Corinthians with a big claim, with no support. They state that all Pauline letters have words and lines inserted into them. Yet they show no evidence for this.
Following this line of thought, they then claim that 1 Corinthians takes this to a new level because the author or authors can’t agree on a number of things. How true is this though? It will probably surprise no one when I say there is no truth in the statement.
The authors present a few examples in 1 Corinthians that supposedly show these differing views, yet all it shows is that they haven’t read those passages.
The first issue they highlight is with the idea of eating food sacrificed to idols. They have 1 Corinthians 8:4-8 and 10:27 on one side, and 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 and 10:28 on the other side. But let’s actually look at these passages.
1 Corinthians 8: 4-8: “4 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 “Food will not bring us close to God.”[a] We are no worse off if we do not eat and no better off if we do.”
1 Corinthians 10:27: “27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.”
1 Corinthians 10:20-21: “20 No, I imply that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?’
1 Corinthians 10:28: “28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you and for the sake of conscience—”
Even a cursory glance should tell you that there is something off with Britt’s and Wingo’s interpretation. First, they have 1 Corinthians 10:27 and 10:28, yet say they are opposed to each other. But, which is also how verse 28 starts off, is making a clarification, as such a conjunction generally does. It’s saying that eating food sacrificed to idols is okay, but if it bothers someone else, don’t do it out of consideration for that person. The rest of the chapter clarifies this further. To come to the conclusion that verses 27 and 28 are contradictory only says that one doesn’t understand what the conjunction but does. It says they didn’t really read or understand the passages.
What about 1 Corinthians 10:20-21? First, it’s generally a good clue that if one has to cherry-pick a verse or verses, and then ignore the context, they have no real argument. Second, what Paul is describing here are two different things. One is dining and drinking with those who have offered a sacrifice to what Paul calls a demon. Those who are partaking of the table of demons.
The other are those who are buying meat in the market. Much of the meat in these markets, which were often located close to temples, had been involved in the sacrifice to some idol or god. This meat, then, in what Paul is talking about, would be eaten in private, outside of the actual sacrificial act.
Third, and most important here, verses 23 on are anticipating arguments to what Paul had said in those prior verses. As in, Paul makes the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, and anticipating that people may have some questions, goes on to pre-emptively give answers and clarify what he’s talking about.
There is no contradiction here. Instead, what we see is Britt and Wingo cherry-picking verses, ignoring the context, and assuming that there are possibly multiple authors and definitely additions to the text. That’s flawed reasoning all around.
The second example they give is in regard to speaking in tongues, where they say Paul both claims that it’s good, as well as pointless. Again, let’s look at the verses.
1 Corinthians 14:2-5: “ 2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God, for no one understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. 3 But those who prophesy speak to other people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. 5 Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.”
1 Corinthians 14:39: “ 39 So, my brothers and sisters, strive to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues”
1 Corinthaisn 14:18: “18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you;
1 Corinthians 14:8-9: “8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves: If in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.”
Again, we see the same problem with the first selection of verses. They are cherry-picked and ignore the entire context. More so, for their argument to make sense, one has to assume that the editor of this chapter was completely unaware of what was going on. That they were idiots, because after all, supposedly these editors threw in a few verses in support of tongues, then threw in a couple against it, but then circled back to it being okay. That makes no sense.
As with the previous selection though, what we actually see is that Paul is addressing questions, and then answering them. It’s really rather basic rhetoric. Paul is saying, speaking in tongues is good. But there are some circumstances where it is of no benefit. He addresses those circumstances and then goes on to explain how you can avoid that.
It’s as if Britt and Wingo never read the chapter in question. Because if one does, the supposed contradictions completely vanish. They only exist if you ignore the context, and cherry-pick specific verses.
This sort of poor research is continued into their next point, where they claim that “there seems to be rather extensive evidence of some form of Gnosticism both directly in the writings of Paul but also being combated or argued against in the letters.”
They make this claim elsewhere in their book, yet they never provide any evidence for this. They simply claim that it is so while showing no familiarity with what Gnosticism is. In order to even make this argument, they have to compound Gnosticism with a host of other ideas, such as factionalism.
Looking at factionalism, they look at 1 Corinthians 1:11-12. As with the verses above, Britt and Wingo once again miss what the verse is about. So let’s look at it:
1 Corinthians 1:11-13: “11 For it has been made clear to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
I added verse 13 as well, and really, we should probably have included everything from verses 10 through 17. But even just adding one extra verse demonstrates how Britt and Wingo cherry-picked the passage.
They make the claim that Paul himself is a faction leader. Yet, Paul is clearly stating that no, he has no claim to being a “faction leader.” Instead, Paul tells us that he’s heard from Chloe’s people that people within the church were fighting. That they were attempting to divide each other. But Paul squashes that.
In verse 10, Paul begins all of this by saying, there should be no divisions among you, we are all here together for the same purpose. He’s declaring that it doesn’t matter who brought you in, as we are all one under Christ.
Britt and Wingo claim that these verses show hypocrisy, but I think it’s clear that they simply didn’t read the verses in context. That they read the verses with a conclusion in mind.
This flawed reading goes into their next verse, 1 Corinthians 7:1. They claim this is where Paul brings up couples abstaining from sex for religious reasons. He’s not bringing it up though. The church in Corinth brought up the matter.
1 Corinthians 7:1 reads, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’” Paul clearly tells us that this is something that was an issue that the church in Corinth brought up with him, and he even quotes what they wrote.
For some reason, members of the church in Corinth believed that the married couples among them should abstain from sexual relations. Paul says no, you don’t have to do that. Instead, “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.”
In verse 6, Paul goes further by saying that this is not a command that I give you, but I say this by way of concession. The fact that people would debate this matter later on in no way suggests that Paul didn’t actually write this. Paul leaves the matter open.
No argument is given by Britt and Wingo as to why it’s a problem that people continue to discuss the matter after Paul. Did some Christians ignore Paul? Of course. Some still do. We can also be certain that many either didn’t know Paul, or if they did, they didn’t have access to all of his letters. Others actively engaged in what he said, and even disagreed with his views. None of that suggests that the Pauline letters were written late. Because again, we see that all happening even today.
Moving on, they jump to 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, where Paul says that, “To the Jews, I became a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law, I became as one under the law… so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law, I became one outside the law.”
Much has been written about this passage, but what it largely boils down to is that Paul met people where they were. This is a common rhetorical practice. This becomes even more clear when you read verse 22, which says, “to the weak, I became weak, so that I might win the weak.”
Paul then finishes it off by saying, “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessing.” He’s telling us that in order to share the Gospel, he’s meeting people where they are at.
Britt and Wingo seem to see this differently. They instead reference how the Ebionites said that Paul was a pagan, who wanted to marry a priest’s daughter. So he converted to Judaism, but when he didn’t win her hand, he became angry and turned on Judaism.
Are we to take the Ebionites’ polemic seriously here though? There is no reason to. Paul never turns on Judaism. He remains Jewish throughout his life. He simply takes the Jesus movement to non-Jews, who didn’t need to follow Jewish law.
To round things off, the authors finish their discussion on 1 Corinthians by looking at chapter 15. Specifically, they focus on verses 3-9, which Paul tells us is a tradition that has been handed down to him. This is where Paul recounts the death and resurrection of Jesus, including the resurrection appearances.
What Britt and Wingo take issue with is the manner in which people are related, and they claim it shows “competing traditions” which are trying to cram their group or beliefs into this letter. What their breakdown really shows is a lack of basic background information.
The first piece they point out that it’s supposedly weird is that we would be told that first Jesus appeared to Cephas (or Peter), and then to the Twelve. The reason they think this is weird is because Peter was part of the Twelve. But it’s not weird wording if one considers that we are looking at two appearances here. The first to Peter alone, and then the second to the Twelve as a whole.
It would be similar to me saying that I met my wife, then I met my wife’s family. It would be safe to assume that my wife is part of that second meeting, that she’s included in her family. Neither one necessarily negates the other, or makes one weird.
We then get the appearance to the 500, but Britt and Wingo want to connect this to the 500 guards that were assigned to the tomb of Jesus by Pilate. Where do they get this story from? The late apocryphal text, the Acts of Pilate. Why they connect these two texts is beyond me. There is no reason to assume this is what Paul had in mind.
Moving on, we get the appearance to James, and then to all of the apostles. They have the same issue here as they did with Peter, and there is no issue, as we saw in the case of Peter. But we do see a fundamental mistake on the part of Britt and Wingo, as they seem to assume that the apostles and the Twelve are the same. They aren’t.
The fact that the Twelve are different from the apostles should be clear, as Paul labels himself as an apostle. Clearly he’s not part of the Twelve Disciples, as Paul makes it clear he wasn’t a follower of Jesus until after his death. The Twelve, on the other hand, were the central core of the followers of Jesus. This is how they were seen as distinct.
James is also never said to be one of the Twelve. As far as we know, James never really joined his brother’s movement (as James here is said to be the brother of Jesus), until after Jesus died.
This conflation of ideas, which is rather a common tactic for Britt and Wingo, either on purpose or through ignorance, only weakens their argument as they are making basic mistakes.
Finally, they mention how Paul seems to be mentioned just as an after thought in all of this. And that’s somewhat true. Paul truly downplays his role here. He states that “last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” He calls himself the last of the apostles, even unfit to be called an apostle.
At the same time though, Paul spends a good amount of time making sure that he’s included in the list, and he plays up the work he has done, saying that he’s worked harder than any of them. But he’s careful here, as it’s not really him, but the grace of God that is with him. To say that all of this seems like an afterthought doesn’t really fit.
What we’ve seen rather consistently here then is a misrepresentation of what 1 Corinthians says, as well as a clear case of reading a conclusion into the data. Sadly, this trend continues throughout the next discussions of the core Pauline texts.
Romans
There is little reason to really delve into their discussion on Romans. It’s largely based on their stylometric analysis, and as already discussed, there is no reason to take their results seriously because of the flawed nature of their methodology.
To further complicate this, they don’t tell us exactly what they ran. They cite Robert M. Price’s work, “The Amazing Colossal Apostle,” and say they broke Romans down according to the divisions Price makes, yet they don’t tell us what those divisions are. Which just makes their results all that much more irrelevant here.
As there just isn’t a lot here, we will move on to Galatians.
Galatians
Right off the bat, we get another clear example of how Britt and Wingo interpret their data in whatever manner suits their needs. They start off by claiming that some (who are these individuals?) argue that Galatians is a composite letter, and that their analysis indicates that.
It is true that when we look at their results, Galatians 1-2 is on a different branch than Galatians 3-6. But the branches aren’t too far apart. They are less divided though than in other cases where they claim a single author. For instance, if we go back to the prior chapter, where they ran their own book through Stylo, and claim that there was an exact split between the chapters both authors were in charge of, we actually see a division between Chapter 7, and Chapters 4, 5, and 8. The division there isn’t much different from what we see with Galatians.
This isn’t the first time either that I’ve pointed out how they read into their results what they want. In this case, it gets worse. As with many of their claims, Britt and Wingo don’t provide any actual evidence. Here it’s no different when they state that Galatians is heavily interpolated. They make a number of vague claims, but they provide no evidence for those claims, or even examples that support those claims.
They then repeat a claim they made earlier in the book, which we will return to later, that Tertullian says Marcion discovered this letter. Tertullian made no such claim though, and it’s just one more thing that Britt and Wingo misread.
Now, one may counter and say that I’m doing the same thing here. I’ve basically just waved away a number of claims that Britt and Wingo made. Which is true. I’d love to dive more into this, but there just isn’t anything that is clear enough to even discuss.
For instance, they claim the first 2 chapters of Galatians are a mishmash of writers who are all attempting to explain Paul’s backstory, which they state bears striking parallels with Marcion’s own story. What are these striking parallels? Did Marcion go into Arabia? Did he go to Jerusalem to and meet with Peter and the brother of Jesus, James? No, Marcion didn’t.
And where is this mishmash? If one reads Galatians 1 and 2, it’s a rather straightforward story. He relates this journey in a chronological order. But as we saw with 1 Corinthians, there is a good chance that Britt and Wingo didn’t really read these chapters, or at least didn’t do so carefully. And since they don’t give us any points to work with, I have to simply dismiss their view.
Britt and Wingo finish off their discussion here with more unsubstantiated claims, no evidence, nothing but vague remarks that seem likely to them. But since no real argument is made, nothing concrete is mentioned, there’s nothing I can really dive into, which is frustrating.
1 Peter
The next letter Britt and Wingo discuss is 1 Peter, which they claim was written by the same people pretending to be Paul. They claim that numerous studies have shown that there is overlap between Paul’s writings and 1 Peter, but they are often perplexed as to why.
What are these other studies that seem so perplexed? Simply claiming that they are out there is nothing more than a logical fallacy, it’s an appeal to authority; an authority that is vague, but one we should still supposedly trust because after all, there are other studies done. It’s the whole, trust me bro concept again.
Now, there are some studies that mention the similarities between 1 Peter and the Pauline letters, such as “1 Peter as a Pseudonymous Letter,” by Manabu Tsuji. They aren’t perplexed as to why there are similarities though. Citing other studies, the point out that yes, it has been recognized that 1 Peter is close to Pauline Christianity, and the reason for that is because this letter was most likely written under the influence of Pauline tradition.
So why is 1 Peter similar to Paul’s letters? As Tsuji explains:
“Exegetes who affirm the close relation between 1 Peter and Paul used to assume a direct literary dependence, whereas in recent years one can see a strong tendency to explain the connection rather in terms of the indirect, traditional influence of the Pauline language. This latter view is based upon the observation that the differences in language and theology between the two are too large to signify a direct dependence.”
There’s no perplexity here. The reason why 1 Peter has some similarities to Paul’s letters is because it was influenced by such. Yes, there is a debate as to whether this was an direct or indirect influence, but that there was an influence is rather clear.
But the whole reason that the latter view came into being was because, as opposed to what Britt and Wingo state, the difference in language is too large.
What does this all mean then? It only means that 1 Peter was written after the letters of Paul. Not necessarily all of the letters of Paul, but enough to provide a good amount of influence. And this is basically what scholars say. Jumping back into the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, the introduction to 1 Peter states that most scholars place the letter in the last decade of the first century.
The introduction goes on to state that “the structure of First Peter is an adaptation of the Pauline letter form.” Again, showing that there is no perplexity here.
The authors continue by arguing that “it reflects the more orthodox content in Paul that goes against Marcion as well as a number of references to Ephesians. This means the author was writing after the publication of Marcion’s canon.”
How one leads to the other isn’t explained. I suspect though that the argument is once again circular. They have already concluded that Marcion’s canon must be the origin, and thus anything that may mention something in Marcion’s canon must be after the canon. Yet, they haven’t demonstrated any of this.
They also don’t demonstrate how anything in 1 Peter supposedly addresses or goes against Marcion. This is more circular logic. Britt and Wingo see something that appears to disagree with some idea of Marcion, and because they conclude that Marcion was first, that disagreement had to have been written in opposition to Marcion.
It’s just one more example of the authors forcing their views into the data, and ignoring every other potential explanation. This is not how proper research is done. And the fact that they don’t support their claims with any evidence means that it holds no weight.
Eventually Britt and Wingo do get to some semblance of a real argument though in their position that Peter didn’t actually write the letter attributed to him.
The first point they mention is that Peter, in Acts, is said to be illiterate. 1 Peter appears to have been written by someone more well trained. They also point out that 1 Peter was written in Greek, and Peter would have been a native Aramaic speaker.
This is all technically true, and is part of the reason why many scholars reject Petrine authorship. However, there are some issues with this argument as well. First, we have scribes. Even Paul used scribes in order to compose his letters.
Looking at Timothy Mitchell’s work, “Myths about Autographs: What they were and how long they may have survived,” we see that many ancient writings were more of a community effort, where an author, at times with the service of a scribe or secretary, would rewrite and edit a work several times before releasing it.
In this regard, Peter being illiterate wouldn’t be a major concern. It alone doesn’t rule him out as the author. Britt and Wingo also mention that the author of 1 Peter seems to have a background in rhetoric. If Peter was preaching over the course of decades, it isn’t a stretch to believe that he would have developed better rhetorical practices.
Even the Peter being a native Aramaic speaker isn’t a deal breaker here, as we can’t rule out that he would have know some Greek. If we take Acts as accurate, which Britt and Wingo do here, it also states that Peter was at a time an apostle to the Gentiles. This would suggest that Peter than probably knew Greek.
Greek was also a common language that we know was spoken in Palestine. G. Scott Gleaves, in his book, “Did Jesus Speak Greek,” lays out an argument that Greek became the dominant language in Galilee in the first century.
Now, Gleaves may overstate his case a bit, but there is good reason to believe that Greek was becoming more important. After all, even within the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see Greek manuscripts. There is also the fact that the Hasmoneans, a Judean dynasty, issued not only coins and decrees in Greek, but also made some public inscriptions in Greek. The Books of the Maccabees were also written in Greek.
So it’s not out of the question that Peter knew Greek. I will return to this subject more later on, but there is a growing reason to suggest that many of the disciples and Jesus himself were bilingual.
There next argument isn’t much better. They start off by saying that Peter supposedly was there during Jesus’ Passion and death, yet the author shows no sign of firsthand knowledge.
The problem is that Peter is not said to have been present. What the Gospels tell us is that Jesus was arrested, and the disciples fled. For Peter specifically, we have the story of him denying Jesus three times. Not once during this time is he said to be witnessing the end of Jesus’ life. It’s not until after the resurrection that Peter shows up again.
That 1 Peter doesn’t show firsthand knowledge of the Passion or death of Jesus isn’t surprising then. Peter didn’t have firsthand knowledge of such.
At the same time though, 1 Peter is not detailing the death of Jesus in a historic manner. He’s presenting a theological argument, so yes he’s relying on scripture in order to justify his claims. Britt and Wingo claim that such a practice, of using the Hebrew scripture in this manner, doesn’t occur until the middle of the second century, but that’s bunk.
The only way the Britt and Wingo can make this claim is by redating every piece of Christian writing to the middle of the second century. Yet even the earliest Christian writings we have cite Hebrew scripture in this manner.
This shouldn’t be surprising as we see this within Jewish texts as well. When we look at the non-Biblical books within the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see reliance on Hebrew scripture. We should expect this to transfer over to Christianity, which began, after all, as a Jewish sect.
Britt and Wingo then make the claim that the social hierarchies that we see in 1 Peter, starting in chapter 2, were also considered important during this era. Part of this is based on their misinterpretation of Pauline texts that deal with these same hierarchies, which we discussed above. Part of this is just based on ignorance.
The social hierarchies discussed were simply part of that culture. We have these topics discussed in some of the earliest Christian writings. The way Britt and Wingo get around this is to simply move everything into the second century.
This pushing everything into the second century is also seen in their mention of 1 Clement, which is generally dated to the end of the first century.
What really makes this all laughable though is that Britt and Wingo conclude that if “1 Peter had been around earlier, and especially if it were truly from a direct disciple of Jesus, we would have heard about it from other authors.”
How could it possibly have been mentioned earlier when Britt and Wingo don’t allow for anything earlier? They, based on their conclusion that Marcion is the key to Christianity, have moved virtually every Christian writing to the middle of the second century. To suggest that 1 Peter should have been mentioned earlier, yet prevent that possibility, is just ludicrous.
Just to be clear though, I’m not arguing that 1 Peter is authentic. There are good reasons to believe it’s not, such as it’s dependence on Pauline language and tradition, as discussed above. What I’m arguing instead is that Britt and Wingo are providing arguments that don’t work and are ill-informed. I highlight this because this is a common occurrence in their work.
Summary of the Core Letters
The conclusion on this section that I come to is vastly different from the summary Britt and Wingo presents.
What I think has been shown clearly here is that the authors haven’t bothered to really read any of the letters of Paul, or 1 Peter, which is why the claims they make stand in such contrast to what any of these texts say. Beyond that, much of their other arguments are circular in reasoning, appeals to authority, or simply lacking in any and all actual evidence. They are simply stated as if they are true, while providing no real reason for us to accept such.
We can pick this same sort of trend out in their summary. They begin their summary by stating that significant portions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were shown to be by different people. They never showed that though. And when it comes to Galatians, they only showed 2 sections of the text. They definitely don’t significant portions were added by different authors.
And this all ignores the fact that their stylometric analysis isn’t valid as their methodology simply doesn’t work. Meaning that either they are just making up whatever conclusions they want, which seems to be the case at times, as has been pointed out, or they are taking invalid readings as if they showed something they simply can’t.
They then mention many scholars “who consider the possibility that Paul was a made-up character,” tend toward the idea that the Pauline epistles had some kind of core and were expanded on. Who are these scholars though? Who are these supposed authorities that can’t be named? And if there are only 2 or 3 scholars who accept this fringe idea, is it fair to say many of them tend to any option?
What Britt and Wingo are building up to, by further exaggerating their own claims, is that Marcion, working with other Christians, created a canon, which they imply also meant they wrote letters like Galatians, and even fabricated Paul.
To support this idea, they cite two scholars, Thomas L. Brodie, and Robin Faith Walsh. But what they are supporting is this idea that there were literary schools during the Roman era.
What’s so annoying here though is that Britt and Wingo, who almost never cite any source, would cite sources here. On a topic that virtually no one would have an issue with, that there were literary schools during this time. Why can’t they cite sources when it actually matters?
And why not actually offer a proper citation. In which works do these individuals make these claims?
Looking at their further reading list, it appears that the work they had in mind for Brodie was “Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery.” But the authors even realize that this is more of an autobiography rather than something that presents extensive arguments for anything.
On the other hand, Walsh does have one obvious work that seems to fit here, her 2021 book, “The Origins of Early Christian Literature,” but her conclusions hardly support Britt’s and Wingo’s case here.
Beyond this, their conclusion makes no logical sense. If Marcion is responsible for all of this, why are their supposedly anti-Marcionite sentiments in these works (as Britt and Wingo claim), and why would later anti-Marcionite Christians, like Tertullian, simply accept all of this Marcionite material? Why would he ever accept Galatians, if it was a Marcionite creation or “discovery?”
If Marcion basically creates Christianity, how can he be excommunicated? And why would his canon be so anti-Marcion? Wouldn’t he have written texts that were more favorable to his view? The fact that Britt and Wingo have to try so hard to remove everything from the first century in order to even defend their position should scream out to the reader that all of this is bunk.