Christ Before God: A Structural Autopsy of Methodological Collapse in Britt and Wingo's Christ Before Jesus: Evidence for the Second-Century Origins of Jesus (2024) — A Comprehensive Review and Critique

A systematic 23-page peer-level critique of Matthew Britt and Jaaron Wingo's Christ Before Jesus: Evidence for the Second-Century Origins of Jesus (Cooper and Samuels Publishing, 2024, ISBN 979-8990235809). This paper identifies over fifty discrete structural failures across four domains — statistical methodology, logical coherence, historical accuracy, and internal self-contradiction — in Britt and Wingo's stylometric analysis claiming Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul never existed. Key findings include: violation of Stylo creator Maciej Eder's minimum 1,000-1,500 word sample size requirements (New Testament chapters average 372 words), circular validation using English-language texts to justify ancient Greek analysis, the authors' admission that they cannot read Koine Greek or program, genre contamination demonstrated by the authors' own Exhibit 5 (Revelation clustering with Septuagint translations rather than by authorship), co-author confirmation that Proto-Mark — the foundational reconstructed document of their synoptic chronology — does not exist as a surviving text, and the foundational dependence on Marcion of Sinope, a docetist who believed Jesus existed, as the basis for a mythicist thesis. Six internal self-contradictions are documented requiring no external evidence. The authors' own stylometric data consistently confirms a unified Pauline authorial voice — the opposite of their stated conclusion. Responds to claims made by Britt and Wingo on TikTok, the earlywritings.com Biblical Criticism and History Forum, and in published interviews. Includes structural assessment using the P × I × Pr (Pattern, Intent, Presence) analytical framework. Essential reading for anyone evaluating the claims of Christ Before Jesus, Jesus mythicism, stylometric analysis of the New Testament, or the methodological requirements of computational authorship attribution.