One of the arguments that Britt and Wingo frequently come back to is the argument from silence. We’ve already discussed this previously, but another point we have to take into consideration is that we have few early Christian writers in general. Dealing with Acts specifically, Britt and Wingo attempt toRead More →
I don’t want to suggest that Britt and Wingo are being dishonest in their research, or at least I didn’t when I started this critique. Just like I wouldn’t say most modern apologists are doing such. But regardless of their intention here, the outcome is the same. On page 232,Read More →
Chapter 8 is where we finally get into the data, and the supposed evidence for many of the claims that are made throughout Christ Before Jesus. Since many of the claims made through the book rely on these results, it becomes important to see if they check out. And asRead More →
When I decide to study a subject, I get a bit obsessive. Part of the reason for that is because I once was a Jesus myth theorist, and I fell for many of the conspiracies that surrounded that. I was burned before by subscribing to an idea that I wasRead More →
If you’re making things up in your study, it’s probably not wise to bring that to attention. Yet, that’s exactly what Matthew Britt and Jaaron Wingo do in their book, “Christ Before Jesus.” This is the third part of my critique of their book, and in this article, we examineRead More →
What makes a good methodology? Well, the first step is to have a clear methodology. And it probably pays to understand the topic. For Matthew Britt and Jaaron Wingo, authors’ of “Christ Before Jesus,” they lack in both departments. This is part two of my critique their work. One ofRead More →
Can stylometry prove Jesus, or even Paul, didn’t exist? Short answer, no. Yet, that is a main focus in the book, Christ Before Jesus, a work that tries to further the Jesus Myth case. As a former mythicist, someone who accepted the conclusion that Jesus was a mythical figure, theRead More →
Steven is a great scientist. But as with many scientists, they are out of their depth when speaking of history. Largely because the manner in which both are studied is rather different. So let’s break this article down. The first point that needs to be addressed is this idea thatRead More →
I first just want to start off saying that I really enjoy most things Steven puts out. But I think he should stay in fields he actually knows, and I don’t think this is one. While he calls the piece he’s responding to as poorly informed, his response really isn’tRead More →
Ever sense Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code, there has been a mass of misinformation about Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea. This information was already circulating before Brown’s book, but he helped take this conspiracy theory and propel it into the mainstream. Brown isn’t a historian, but theRead More →