Citing sources is important. It helps a reader verify some information. For instance, when Britt and Wingo claim that “one of the ideas put forth by historicists is the idea that Jesus could have been multiple first-century teachers rolled into one,” by providing a citation, or even naming one of these individuals, would go a long way.
The problem is that this idea is not common at all. It may have been held in the 18th or 19th century, but it’s not really something modern scholars hold. I can’t think of a single scholar who holds such a view, nor can I find any. Now I’ve read a lot of the literature on the historical Jesus. In college, I had the chance to take independent study courses on the subject, and my professor had me start at the beginning of modern scholarship on the topic. I vaguely seem to recall this view being held, or discussed by some scholar early on, but that’s about it.
That’s not to say that such an idea isn’t held, because it is. It’s just not held by historicists. Instead, it’s held by people who aren’t quite mythicists, but are nearing such. Generally you find such an idea in online forums, or possibly the stray blog post here or there. Basically, you could label them mythicist-lite, as they often incorporate mythicist ideas into their arguments.
One such individual is the atheist activist, Aron Ra. Tim O’Neill really tackles Ra’s position in his article, “Jesus Mythicism 4: Jesus as an amalgam of many figures,” on his website, “Historyforatheists.com.” One big thing we can get from this treatment though is that Ra is largely a mythicist who adds the caveat that maybe there’s a kernel of truth and he’s an amalgam of several figures.
According to Britt and Wingo though, this view “claims the life in Nazareth may have belonged to one teacher, while the Sermon on the Mount could have been preached by another.” This is just complete and utter bunk. I don’t know if they are just making this up, or if they are taking some random view off of who knows where. It’s definitely not a mainstream view. It’s not what any historicist claims, as far as I can tell.
So that would be one more giant red flag. At this point I think it’s quite safe to say that Britt and Wingo have no clue about what the mainstream view is, nor do they probably care. Honestly, they could have just skipped this chapter altogether and they would have been much better off.
As we wind out this chapter, we get yet another major hint that the authors aren’t aware of how to actually research history, or what the research says. In an aside from Britt, he makes the statement:
“There are two possibilities: Jesus Christ was a historical person who was deified, or he was a deity who was historicized. If we were to ask this about another deity or figure found in another culture’s mythology, such as the Greek god Zeus, the Egyptian god Osiris, or another god that is claimed to have been on or visited Earth, this would not be treated with the same disdain.
“It’s only the entrenchment of Christian tradition in our understanding of history that makes asking this same question about Jesus so controversial.”
In just a few sentences, Britt is able to get so much wrong and show definitively that they haven’t really checked out the mainstream position. And I think I know why the authors assumed they simply knew what the mainstream view was. As they say at the beginning of this chapter, they were once fully entrenched in it. Which seems to mean, they grew up in church, and thus they know Christianity.
This is an argument that I see all of the time. People believe, that just because they grew up in the church, they grew up going to Sunday school, that they know about Christianity in general. This sort of argument seems especially prevalent amongst ex-evangelicals. It’s a view I even once held.
The problem is that being raised in church, going to Sunday school, going on missions, or anything like that means very little to one’s understanding of Christianity as a whole. At best, it generally means that that person has some understanding of a portion of one denomination, or one perspective. It certainly doesn’t mean you know what the mainstream view is, because that isn’t taught in most churches.
There’s a joke that the best tool of an atheist, or sometimes it’s said of Satan, is seminary. When you go to seminary, or a mainstream college, you often quickly find out that what you thought defined Christianity isn’t really it. That there is so much more behind the curtain. It’s why many who go through such programs have a struggle with their faith.
Much of what is taught in these programs only barely trickles down into church sermons and teachings. There are a number of reasons for this, but a big one is that change takes time. If a new minister would simply drop everything they learned on their congregation, a good portion would simply leave and find a new church; one that continued teaching the traditional message.
And then there’s the purpose of church. Most aren’t offering academic courses that dive into the scholarship. Instead, they focus more on theology and spiritual growth. So to suggest that you’re aware of what the mainstream view is because you went to church and were immersed in it simply only shows an ignorance here. It shows a lack of actual research.
Jumping back to Britt’s statement, we can see how this all comes together. The big issue is the analogy with various gods from other cultures. If one wanted a real analogy, the clear one is to compare Jesus with someone like Augustus. Both lived around the same time. Both are figures that the consensus agrees are historical. Both have supernatural birth stories, they are both seen as gods, and sons of a god. With both, their primary biographies are wrapped in the mythical.
This analogy makes sense, as it’s a direct analogy. The analogy Britt makes is steeped in his own biases. It’s why he instead refers to a culture’s mythology. The Gospels aren’t mythology. The story of Jesus isn’t equivalent to the mythology of, say Zeus. The Gospels are ancient biographies.
Yes, they contain mythical ideas, but that’s true for most ancient biographies. Because often, this sort of work contains not just history, but also theology. To label this mythology, and then to do such a comparison, you’re really comparing apples to oranges.
If someone would treat a figure like Zeus as a historical figure like Jesus or Augustus, they would be treated with a good deal of disdain, that’s if they weren’t just completely ignored. Because doing such means you’re using the wrong tools. So when people do the opposite, and treat Jesus, or Augustus, to keep this analogy going, as if they were a figure like Zeus, yeah, there is some disdain there because the foundation is nonsense.
If you are going to research the historical Jesus, you need to do it as you would someone like Augustus, not someone like Zeus. You need to do proper historical research, and rely on the historical method. You don’t approach it as if it’s mythology. And if you happen to come to the conclusion that Jesus didn’t exist, you can’t simply label it as mythology. It’s not an either or here.
Britt seems to appreciate the either or fallacy though. After all, he did state that either Jesus was a historical person deified, or a deity historicized. Now, we can confirm that yes, like Augustus, he was a historical person deified. But if we assume that Jesus didn’t exist, that doesn’t mean that he was a deity who was historicized.
The idea that Jesus was even seen as God, or as a deity, didn’t necessarily happen immediately. In Ehrman’s book, “How Jesus Became God,” he argues that it wasn’t really until after his death that he was seen as such. And then what was meant by the phrase, Jesus is God, meant different things to different people. This isn’t unexpected as the idea of the divine human was already present in both the Roman-Greco world as well as in Judaism.
Quite possibly the biggest sign that Britt and Wingo haven’t actually researched what mainstream scholarship says is when Britt claims that our understanding of history is entrenched in Christian tradition. Any mainstream treatment of the historical Jesus largely abandons Christian tradition. This is probably most clearly seen by the rejection of the traditional dating and authorship of the Gospels. That the Gospels were circulated anonymously is the consensus, and virtually any discussion about the historical Jesus takes that into consideration.
Finishing off the chapter, Britt and Wingo attempt to lay out what we can know about Jesus from a historical standpoint. They state, “we opened our Bible, and what appears after you remove the supernatural is as follows, 1. Born in Bethlehem. 2. Raised in Nazareth. 3. Started his ministry in Galilee. 4. Put to death in Jerusalem.”
Britt and Wingo really should have instead opened up a book on the historical Jesus by a mainstream scholar. If they had, they would see that not only is their list of four points is incorrect, but that there are quite a few other points that scholars agree on, and this is also after the “supernatural” is removed.
To begin, let’s look at the one point they got wrong, which just so happens to be their first point. Mainstream scholars largely reject the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The story of his birth is supernatural. If we are removing supernatural ideas, the entire birth story has got to go.
Scholars generally remove it for other reasons though. The primary one is that birth stories were often meant to be more mythical. They weren’t meant to be taken literally, but instead were meant to portray a truth. The view was that if someone was important, their birth would signify that. We see this probably most clearly with the birth story in Matthew, which portrays Jesus as a new Moses figure.
Either way though, to keep the birth in Bethlehem, even by their standards, doesn’t really make sense. So while we need to remove their first point, we can also add quite a few points that not only fit their standard of not being supernatural, but that most scholars agree on.
Now, beyond being from Nazareth in Galilee, it’s also generally agreed that he had siblings, that he was baptized by John the Baptist (some go as far as stating that he may have been a disciple of John), that he had a group of his own disciples as well as a wider group of followers.
It’s also argued that his ministry was about the coming Kingdom of God, and that he was known as not only a preacher, but a healer (not saying he actually healed people, but that people believed that he did). This teaching produced some trouble with other religious leaders. But the real trouble came with the Roman authorities, who crucified him.
There are a few other facts we can tentatively add here. Most agree that Jesus probably made a scene at the Temple. He most likely did have a Last Supper. Scholars even have some broad agreements as to what Jesus most likely preached.
None of these are supernatural claims, and in fact, if the Gospels are really examined, the supernatural claims aren’t the main part. The main focus is the teachings of Jesus. Jesus teaching and preaching is not supernatural.
Simply, as with the stylometry section, it’s clear that Britt and Wingo did not do any proper research. They seemed to have largely relied on the idea that since they grew up in Christianity, that they know about Christianity in general. That they know what the mainstream view is. I think we can reasonably conclude that that is not the case.
Looking forward to chapter 2, which discusses the Gospels, Britt and Wingo don’t fare much better. But at least the topic is much more interesting. So let’s jump in.