WHY AM I DOING THIS RESEARCH?

WHY?

​

​

​

​

* [ ] numbers inside squared brackets indicate an endnote, which can be read at the bottom of this page.

​

I investigate and write what I do because like many historians I am genuinely fascinated by and have a passion for ancient history and understanding, as accurately as is possible, what happened. Historical investigation is the rigorous and independent minded investigation of our past that is not glued to traditions, beliefs, and faith claims. The ability to be open-minded, alert to all the evidence, ask questions, investigate claims that the evidence does not support, weigh it up, change your mind about narratives if there is reason to do so, and let the evidence - even the smallest of details -  reveal what it will is of paramount importance, no matter how uncomfortable the results may be. There is also the understanding that it needs to be explained that history is not set in stone and a static body of facts about 'what happened'. I recognise that my interpretations of the evidence may appear unconventional or controversial to some readers. Therefore, all I can do is present the results of my investigations as best I can.

 

To my knowledge, Classical Studies has not yet engaged in detailed analysis of this evidence, despite its monumental importance concerning the history of Rome. I want to clarify that this is not my criticism of the field of Classical Studies, I am simply stating my view of the situation the way I see it.

 

Fairly recently, as of the time of writing this, American historian Barry Strauss gave an interview for Antigone Journal where he talked about one of his books. In that interview Strauss stated that historians succeed when they are open minded about the evidence they are approaching. He further stated that historians should hope to be surprised by the evidence and that the historian's job is only done properly when opinions are changed during the process of researching the evidence ('The War That Made The Roman Empire: An Interview With Barry Strauss'). I agree with this view.

The great English classicist Dame Mary Beard said in her book SPQR, "Roman history is always being rewritten, and always has been; in some ways we know more about ancient Rome than the Romans themselves did. Roman history, in other words, is a work in progress" (p. 16), and "If the job of the historian of early Rome is to squeeze every single piece of surviving evidence for all it can tell us, by the first century CE the question is how to select the pieces of evidence that tell us the most" (p. 335). I also feel the words of Professor of Classics Brent D. Shaw are worth mentioning, "Often the purpose of historical research is to create by explanation and description; occasionally, however, it is destruction that is required" ('Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths', Mnemosyne, Series IV, Vol. LIV Fasc. I February 2001). Commenting in his 2015 article 'The Myth of the Neronian Persecution', he noted his above comments when discussing the thinness of evidence concerning the historicity of Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians  "In reference to a rather different problem, I once wrote that the purpose of historical research is to create by description and explanation but that sometimes it is destruction that is required. So it is in this case" (also see Shaw's response to his critics: 'Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution').  

 

I absolutely agree with the above understandings and approaches. In my opinion they should be employed even when unavoidably highly controversial and uncomfortable evidence is discovered about certain subjects, such as the ruling Roman elite origins of Christianity. One field that is mostly aware, as far as I know, of some of the evidence presented here, but has dismissed it, is the Biblical/New Testament studies field. It is an academic discipline that presents itself as being, to a certain extent, dedicated to understanding how Christianity began and how and why the New Testament was written and by whom. I can only conclude that the reason for that fields’ dismissal of the evidence is because of the highly controversial nature of it that goes against the current Christian origins narrative. But in terms of evidence, the dismissal is methodological, not evidential.

 

Some New Testament scholars, for example, Associate Professor Robyn Faith Walsh and Professor Candida Moss, have published valuable information arguing that elite Roman writers were responsible for the writing the Synoptic gospels. However, their argument is more broad and for them 'Roman literary elites' means educated writers who were "slaves, freedmen or born into humble circumstances" (Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, pages 15-16). Walsh, then, sees the authors as members of the wider Greco-Roman educated elite who were elite by education, not necessarily through wealth or social power. Moss sees the authors as enslaved intellectual labourers, and her concern is with the ethical and inequality side of things, recognising those whose work had been marginalised (Moss, God's Ghostwriters: Enslaved Christians and the Making of the Bible). Although the above works are valuable for advancing our understanding that the New Testament texts are not records of oral memories, they cannot provide an answer to a crucial question, motive.

 

Why would educated elites, who were elites through education and not necessarily through wealth or patronage, invest in the costly process of producing and preserving this literature with no clear benefit? Who first read these texts, considered them authoritative and then spread them? Reviewers of Walsh's book have cautioned the focus of Walsh and worry that her argument may underplay the role of belief communities or oral tradition in spreading the gospel’s message. These responses, however, are again attempting to fill the motive gap by appealing to the traditional assumption of ‘communities’, oral tradition, and early Christian institutions. But their existence and strength at the very point the texts were created is precisely what is under debate. It is circular reasoning: texts survived because communities existed, and we know communities existed because the texts survived. Yet there is currently no independent evidence for strong ‘Christian communities’ in the mid-first century outside the texts themselves.

​

The evidence I am investigating finds the solution to the motive gap without needing to use hypothetical communities or risking circular reasoning. The Roman ruling elite families in control of the Mediterranean after 70 CE had the resources and political incentive to create and preserve literature that reframed the Jewish War and promoted submission to Roman authority. Christianity in this context is not a literary accident continued by hypothetical communities, but a deliberate project backed by Rome’s oligarchic power.

 

Therefore, at the present time I am interested in investigating the aristocracy of ancient Rome, the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70/73 CE, and the origins of Christianity. Because of these interests, I find myself being immersed in the areas of the curiously divided fields of Classical and Biblical studies.

 

The stories in the gospels, for the most part, are not unique, but very typical for the time period. Putting aside the clearly fictitious supernatural parts - for example, sky darkening for three hours; the dead rising to walk the earth - every major gospel element is reframed and has a previous example it borrows from. The ‘virgin birth’ or ‘divine impregnation’ can be seen as taken from the Jewish scripture of Isaiah 7:14 and Greco-Roman mythical hero stories such as Perseus, Hercules, and Alexander; 'virgin birth' was a literary 'symbol' used to show divinity and was widespread in the Hellenistic world. Miracle worker and healing stories have previous examples in the stories of Asclepius, the Greek god of Healing, and other wonder-workers involved healings, raising the dead and calming storms. These myth stories were widespread around the Mediterranean and well known among the elite class, including the ruling elite. Even the ethical teachings of Jesus such as loving your neighbour, turning from anger, and forgiving debts, have previous traditions in Stoic philosophy, the Torah, Prophets, wisdom literature, and rabbinic traditions. The gospel authors are weaving Jewish scripture into the Jesus story, with one of the intentions being to convince listeners that Jesus fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecies. This is the case even when the contexts of the original Hebrew Bible passages have nothing to do with a future messiah, for example Psalm 22 which is a personal expression of grief, not a prophecy of crucifixion.

​

The Current Popular General Understanding of Christianity's Origins

 

The popular current general understanding of the origin of Christianity is that it naturally grew out of Judaism. It began with small minor and niche illiterate Jewish religious communities sharing, through word of mouth, theologies and stories about Jesus that passed down from the time of his ministry (approx. 27/29-30-33 CE). Those stories were later written down in the Synoptic Gospels by more literate members of the growing Christian community. Then, over 250 years later, Rome took control of the religion when Emperor Constantine 'The Great' (272-337 CE) adopted it and elites and political players fighting for status used fear to draw followers.

 

But the available evidence of the reading and writing capabilities at that time contradicts the idea that any supposed illiterate or semi-illiterate followers of Jesus would have had sufficient knowledge of Greek philosophy to borrow from. There is also no reliable evidence to support the first part of the above general understanding of Christianity's origins. This site will aim to provide an introduction to the evidence showing Rome’s control of the religion began at the very beginning. The gospels may to some people have the appearance of being written by only average literate Greek speakers who were part of a new Jewish group, but the evidence will show that was intentional.

 

An argument made in favour of a natural and ‘grassroots’ or ‘bottom-up’ process of development for Christianity comes in the form of highlighted archaeological and textual evidence. Regional variations in Christian practice, contradiction, debates, and uncertainty in early Christianity may indeed appear to undermine the idea of an elite and centralised control of the religion. However, it is well known in academia that Roman rule in conquered territories rarely involved the immediate or total adoption of Roman ways for the conquered people. Instead a gradual process was used where where local traditions were allowed to continue as long as they did not threaten imperial stability. Then Roman religions and political forms were slowly introduced. Local diversity, then, does not necessarily mean the absence of ruling elite influence; rather it can demonstrate how Roman elite control was exercised indirectly through flexibility, toleration, and select incorporation. The eventual combination of ‘Church+Empire’ can therefore be seen not as the unexpected triumph of a minor religious movement, but as the result of a deliberate imperial strategy working precisely how Rome typically ruled new provinces.

 

As for contradictions, the Roman ruling elite debated and disagreed on many things.  Contradictions do not prove ignorance of other texts, and the contradictions would only be known to the authors, not the mostly illiterate people. They can also be deliberate so as to appeal to different audiences – for example, Gentiles or Jews. A simplified summary of each gospel would be ‘Mark’=suffering in persecution; ‘Matthew’=Judean scriptural authority; ‘Luke’=Greco-Roman literary polish; ‘John’=theological speculation.

But contradictions can also be rival reinterpretations within the same intellectual network; evolving stages of a story reshaped for rhetorical or theological goals depending on the situation at the time. The same happens today in political, religious, and philosophical circles.

 

A gospel example would be the cleansing of the Temple in ‘Mark’ 11:15-19; ‘Matthew’ 21:12-17; ‘Luke’ 19:45-48 – Jesus drives out the money changers in Jerusalem during his final week, just before his arrest. This functions as the event which triggers the authorities to move against him. But in the gospel of ‘John’ 2:13-22 Jesus does the same thing, but in this narrative it is at the beginning of his ministry, after the wedding at Cana. This was done to introduce Jesus as the ‘new Temple’ by framing his ministry as a challenge to Jewish institutions. These examples are not ignorance of the other texts, it is purposeful reshaping. The Synoptic gospels use the event as a climatic trigger, ‘John’ uses it as a theological introduction.

 

An example from the works of Josephus would be the destruction of the Temple. In The Jewish War, Volume 2, Book 1, p. 17, Josephus sets up the conflict with Rome and deep tensions in Judea, framing the Temple’s destruction as inevitable judgement; Volume 3, Book 6, pages 413, 439 (Loeb), portrays Titus Flavius Vespasianus trying to save the Temple, but the Roman soldiers disobeyed orders and set it on fire. It is currently thought this was done to clear Titus of blame and flatter Josephus’s Flavian patrons.

But in Jewish Antiquities, Volume 13, Book 20, p. 133, we are told Titus was responsible for the Temple’s destruction and this was directly because Titus and the Romans were acting as God’s agents. Here then is the same event but contradicting stories. Titus is first the innocent man and later guilty but acting for God against a polluted city. So War, written soon after 70 CE, stresses Roman mercy, but Antiquities, written later for a broader audience, stresses divine inevitability. The contradiction, then, is not ‘ignorance’ it is purposeful adaption for different audiences and the reshaping of history for different rhetorical, theological, and political purposes.

 

Even stylistic differences do not prove independence. Writers of the same cultural network show different styles. For example the people known to us as Plutarch, Tacitus, and Suetonius all wrote about the Caesars, but have different styles. Variation was a feature as it allowed the content of the gospels to reach different audiences. In antiquity, stylistic training (rhetorical schools, imitations exercises, genre conventions) encouraged variation.

 

The idea the gospels are the ‘truth’ and comes from illiterate oral or word of mouth tradition comes from a 19th-century Biblical scholar assumption and has been repeated and therefore taken as ‘truth’ down to the present day. Although in recent times the assumption has been criticised by New Testament scholars, it still remains a ‘tool’ used to answer difficult questions.

Some scholars use a letter called the ‘First Epistle (letter) to the Corinthians 15:1-8’, which is part of the New Testament, to argue for an oral tradition. The argument is that in the letter the Apostle ‘Paul’ says he learned the gospel "from those who were in Christ before him". The context of the letter is ‘Paul’ discussing the information he received about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. But the above statement is not in Corinthians 15:1-8, what the letter actually says is the information about Jesus comes from scripture.  

 

The current scholarly conclusions about the man known to us as Paul, who was supposedly active in the 30-60's CE, and the Letters of Paul (Pauline Epistles) are also based entirely on assumptions made from the contents of the letters themselves. There is no contemporary first-hand external evidence to verify his historicity or the claims made in the letters. But Paul is argued as being one of the best evidenced early Christians and early witness, even without outside confirmation. This is a man who supposedly clashed with synagogues and was imprisoned by Roman officials, possibly appealing to Caesar (Acts 25:10-12). Other minor Jewish figures such as Theudas and "the Egyptian prophet" appear in the work by the man known to us as Josephus, so why not Paul? It has been argued that Josephus's work had a different focus and the Christian movement was too small to mention the obscure Paul. But these, again, are assumptions, in reality, the picture painted of the Paul character is he anything but obscure. The evidence or lack of evidence for 'Paul' means his historicity is even more fragile than the historicity of Jesus.

 

A new assessment published by Cambridge University Press also casts major doubt on the assumptions dressed as evidence and the narrative concerning the origins of the Letters of Paul. It is assumed that there was an early church in Rome and that a man, calling himself 'Saul', began a life of missionary work and wrote letters to various Christian groups around the Mediterranean in the 45-50's CE. We are told that 'Saul', who changed his name to 'Paul', began spreading the Christian message through the eastern Mediterranean as far as Rome. In the letters we read this man had little arguments with early churches, and these details are argued as historical 'nuts and bolts' facts of a man building communities. The evidence of the new assessment shows the above narrative to be based on the weak and circular reasoning of, again, the 19th-century. The methods of reasoning used by the majority of scholars at that time, and most today, do not meet the modern critical standards for determining historicity. The new assessment places the writing of the letters in the second century, between 101-200 CE.

 

One of the understandable reasons this later dating appears to make New Testament scholars, and some historians I guess, very uncomfortable is the insistence that Christianity must go back to the 30's CE, it leaves a big gap where Christian origins is supposed to be: a Jesus already announced as risen; a network of churches across the Mediterranean; early doctrinal disputes. That threatens the entire currently understood chronology and means Christianity has no secure historical record for forty years and then suddenly appears, the early timeline is a misleading illusion. The Letters of Paul, then, are currently the 'bridge' between when Jesus is supposed to have been active and when the gospels were written.

Some academics continue to support the traditional narrative, even in the face of evidence and interpretations that challenge it. Some maintain the narratives of the gospels were written down before 70 CE.

​

The Jewish War of 70 CE

 

A fair question is why I should question the views of respected scholars. My position is that what ultimately matters is not who presents an argument, but the accuracy of the evidence itself. However, throughout my formal studies I was not taught to never question the conclusions of classicists, historians, and scholars. I was taught, and I took this approach before doing my formal studies, to follow the evidence, even if that does mean questioning respected academics.

 

The four gospels, 'Mark', 'Matthew', 'Luke', 'John', which as sources are incredibly problematic (for comments on this see: 'Christianity' in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th Ed.), Oxford University Press), were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But the story was backdated forty years so as to claim the destruction was ‘foretold’. We can tell that is correct because the gospels describe the city's destruction in the form of a "prophecy" (for example Mark 13). After-the-fact or vaticinium ex eventu "predictions" are common in ancient literature. Examples include Virgil (Death and the Optimistic Prophecy in Virgil’s Aeneid, pages 128-29); Horace; Herodotus; and Pindar utilized after-the-fact predictions in their work. We also have the Babylonian "Marduck Prophecy" and the prophecies in the Book of Daniel.

 

But a post 70 CE authorship can also be seen in the evidence that the events in the gospels parallel, in sequence, the Roman military campaign in Judea of the Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. The following statements are examples of how the satire of the gospels is based on the Roman-Jewish War: "How can Satan cast out Satan?" Mark 3:23; "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot last" Mark 3:24; "Now if Satan has rebelled against himself and is divided, he cannot stand either – it is the end of him." Mark 3:26. These are satirical statements based on the point in the war when the Jewish sects/groups were divided and fighting each other, ultimately leading to their downfall and Jerusalem’s, as described in The Jewish War by the man who called himself 'Flavius Josephus'. Therefore, although not explicitly said in the texts, the New Testament is depicting Jerusalem as the 'House of Satan' and therefore 'Satan' is casting out 'Satan'. The themes of the gospels align perfectly with Rome’s needs after the war, rather than an awkward earlier 30’s CE setting.

 

The gospel's content is a literary recasting of recent events of the Roman-Jewish War. It is not just teachings and traditions that are reframed from Jewish scripture and mythology, but the narrative order of events is recycled.

 

Individually the parallels prove nothing, but when they are put together it can be shown something is going on. When a man called Joseph Atwill first presented the parallels in his book Caesar's Messiah, the work was received with controversy. Critics have described his presentation as sensationalist, and sometimes as 'fringe', which limited its reception in mainstream scholarship and left the arguments themselves unresolved. The evidence has also been labelled as a conspiracy theory, even though the core method – parallel textual analysis – is perfectly valid. Furthermore, reactions to the sequential parallels have led to arguments that the method is not how history is done. But comparative analysis of primary texts is one of the oldest and most fundamental historical methods, and historians do it all the time when dealing with Greek, Roman, and Jewish texts. Indeed, the method has been used by New Testament scholars to find textual parallels between the Synoptic Gospels, the ‘Synoptic Problem’ is based on it, and also the work of Josephus, Luke and Acts. The issue then is unfortunately one of double standards, scholars do not object to parallels themselves, only to where they point.

 

Arguments against the parallel evidence have been attempted, but, as far as I can tell, any attempts contain errors. One error made is the claim that Titus, the man whom the parallels mainly revolve around, did not begin his military activity in Galilee, unlike the ministry activity of Jesus. The argument is that Titus began his campaign in Judea when he met his father Vespasian at Ptolemais (War 3.60-66). However, that is not accurate. Although Titus did meet his father at a place called Akko-Ptolemais (modern city of Acre, Israel), an ancient port city on the Canaanite coast, his first direct, in person, military engagements took place in Galilee, when he, along with his father, advanced into Galilee (War 3.111-117).

 

Another error I have noted concerns the passages in the gospels of Mark (5:1) and Luke (8:26-30) which describe Jesus in the region of a place called Gadara (Gerasenes) and a 'demon/s' called 'Legion' who possess a man and are driven into a great herd of swine (pigs) in the desert which then rush into the sea and drown. The parallel sequence in War describes rebels or 'predatory bands' who are 'possessed' by 'an infection that spreads' and are plundering villages and then disappearing into the wilderness. War 4.402-415, as seen in the Loeb Classical Library version, describes the size of the bands of rebels as, "smaller than an army but larger than a mere band of robbers" (also see: Martin Hammond's Josephus: Jewish War, Oxford World's Classics, p. 235 (Ebook)) It has been argued that there is no parallel here because a Roman army legion, by definition, was the army. This, again, is not accurate. The above description in War corresponds with the approximate size of a Roman army legion at that time, which was the largest unit of the Roman army as a whole, but was not the entire army.

 

(For a sober and non-polemical analysis of the sequential parallels between The Jewish War and the gospels, see here for ‘An Analysis of Claimed Sequential Narrative Parallels Between The Jewish War and the Synoptic Gospels’. The current article contains a brief description of the feedback received from The Journal of Roman Studies.)

 

As mentioned above, the evidence of reading and writing abilities at that time shows that mass literacy was not a thing when the gospels were written. Evidence for this can be read in Ancient Libraries by Jason Konig, Katerina Oikonomopoulou, and Greg Woolf (pages 6-7 and 301.) Professor Catherine Hezser puts the Jewish literacy rate at "well below 10-15 percent" (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, p. 496). By and large ancient literature was meant to be heard and not read by the majority.

 

In fact, 'publishing' in ancient times was very expensive and was limited to a small circle of elite people who 'published' their work by sharing it with others in their circle. Ancient 'books' (scrolls) were also easily damaged by humidity, damp, insect larvae, and dust, among other elements. Because of this, the creating and publishing process would have required adequate storage of source materials-papyrus and vellum which were imported from Egypt, inks and supplies, as well as adequate storage for completed works. Secretaries/scribes would also have been needed for any dictation and duplication. Any building in which this work took place would need to be well protected from the weather and provide adequate light and heat. There would also need to be a means of distribution. In essence, the fact is it was very expensive to circulate 'books', which made books rare.

​

Historicity

 

The gospels could only have survived in the above conditions, and they have all the hallmarks of elite education and and a mix of Jewish, Roman and Greek historical literature.

For example they contain - eye witness testimonies,  miracle stories and themes, as briefly mentioned earlier, such as healing the sick, turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, feeding crowds with food made to appear out of thin air, exorcising demons out of men - all appear in Roman and Greek literature that would have been read by the elite, which Classical studies provides a wealth of evidence for.

 

One aspect that I feel divides Classical and Biblical studies is the level of critical analysis concerning an historical Jesus. I have observed that many Biblical/New Testament scholars assume the historicity of Jesus at the outset of their investigations. I think that many classicists are not particularly interested either way, or perhaps are interested but do not genuinely check how strong or weak the evidence is. But I believe many classicists understand the fact that on a surface read there is no reliable evidence available to begin a critical search for an historical Jesus that many consider to be an unknown radical Jewish preacher. 

 

A surface read of the gospels cannot be used because the stories contained within them borrow from other Greek, Roman and Jewish literature, as stated above. Archaeological remains connected to persons named in the gospels and details about life at the time are also used as signifiers of the authenticity of the narrative; for example geography, travel, court procedures and rules of citizenship. Unfortunately that only shows contemporary documents were used, it does not provide authenticity for the narrative.  

It appears that the study of Christianity’s origins is not something many historians and classicists are focused on when it comes to Roman history. Many consider it impossible to find out when it "separated from Judaism" and supposedly became a new and "forbidden religion"; it would be portrayed as such in Roman literature, for example, in the letters of Pliny the Younger.

 

Furthermore, it is my understanding that most of the scientific community shares the opinion that the Jesus of the NT is not a historic person. It seems some classicists, privately, consider Jesus a myth or are agnostic but feel the existence question is a completely valid one. To say so in print and in lectures, however, would likely invite unwanted and unprofessional insults from many, but not all, Biblical/New Testament scholars. Concerning this, a review of Cathryn Nixey's book Heresey by Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, has some interesting comments. Copson says, "A lot is down to a conspiracy of silence between theologians on one side and classicists and ancient historians on the other." Copson is referring to what Nixey terms a "gentlemen’s agreement", that is, as Nixey puts it, "For centuries, there was almost a gentlemen's agreement between classicists and theologians that the Greek and Roman gods, which fell into the categories of 'history' and 'mythology' (and, tacitly, of 'absurdity'), should be dealt with by classicists; while the Christian God and his followers, which fell into the category of true religion, should be dealt with by theologians." (Heresay, p. 23 - For Copson's review see here - for an article addressing the divide see 'Addressing the Divide Between Biblical Studies and Classics' by Sarah Bond - available here )

 

In terms of historicity, one location that is used by New Testament scholars to argue for an historical Jesus is Nazareth, an odd location in the story that comes out of nowhere. However, there is currently no archaeological evidence to support the area now called Nazareth as having ever been a city/town/village. The archaeological remains are agricultural structures, for example winepresses, oil lamps, and kokh tombs of the wealthy that date to after 70 CE, when Jews migrated to Galilee after Jerusalem's destruction, as detailed here.

 

Further arguments used for historicity are that the statements made by the men known as Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius are viewed as being 'multiple independent sources for Jesus'. The authenticity of the statement in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is still debated, but even so, the statements of the above men do not provide first-hand knowledge of a historical Jesus. They provide no new crucial information that cannot be read in other sources, the first of which would be the gospels. By the time the above men were writing, the mythical elements of the New Testament had been written, therefore it cannot be said the above men are not repeating a tradition narrative.

 

Another argument for historicity is that there are more sources for Jesus than any other more well known ancient individuals, for example, Alexander the Great. But that simply is not true at all.

The above facts, especially those concerning the literary capabilities at that time, mean that the ancient texts documenting Christian history and the histories written by the ancient Roman historians are all vitally important, especially concerning the details they provide for the ruling elite. That is because the ruling elite should not be dismissed as the authors of the New Testament, regardless of how controversial the idea is and if it goes against the consensus. This is consistent with other well-documented instances of Roman elites employing propaganda and narrative control.

 

By investigating all the ancient texts relevant to the issue being investigated here, it will be shown that: (1) there was an oligarchy in Rome controlling the Mediterranean and all publishing after 70 CE; and (2) there was indeed an historic person behind the Jesus character of the New Testament. However, the historic person was not an unknown radical Jewish preacher active between 27-30/33 CE. The historic figure behind the New Testament Jesus was an incredibly wealthy Roman who was a member of the ruling elite and was also a descendant of Herod the Great. The Roman elite man in question was active from approximately the middle of the first century CE to approximately the early part of the second century, and his name is presented within the New Testament texts, especially The Book of Revelation.

​

A Roman Oligarchy

 

Concerning an oligarchy in Rome, in 1939, one man who went against the consensus and significantly altered the standard views of Roman history at that time was the late Sir Ronald Syme, the great historian and classicist. In his highly controversial book The Roman Revolution, which he described as a rather shocking one that nobody will like (Select correspondence of Ronald Syme, pages 165-167), he made two striking statements, "In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the facade; and Roman history, Republican or Imperial, is the history of the governing class" and also, "The policy and acts of the Roman People were guided by an oligarchy, its annals were written in an oligarchic spirit" (Roman Revolution, pages 7-8).

 

Syme made the above statements because the evidence showed that the Roman Empire was ruled by an oligarchy created by Emperor Augustus (born Gaius Octavius-27 BCE to 14 CE) during his rule. Rome before Augustus was a democracy, a 'free republic', where ultimately power lay with the Roman people in the forum. Under 'Augustus' the power had been relocated to the imperial palace and the empire came to be ruled by elite ruling families closely connected by blood and marriage; Gaius Octavius even invented the name 'Augustus' to rebrand himself, with the new invented name meant to indicate that he was 'blessed by the gods'. Some academics consider Augustus’ success as being down to a good deal of luck and the ability to reinvent himself. That may be true, but the fact remains that Rome was ruled by an oligarchy and Syme declared that Augustus's political claim to have restored Rome back to a democratic republic was a "screen and a sham". In modern terms Augustus created what we would call a successful political 'public relations campaign', with the changes being so subtle over time that the majority of everyday Romans did not notice what was really happening.

 

Syme's book made Roman history more relevant to contemporary politics. It made historians think politically about the success of Emperor Augustus, and it was the most important political and social history of Rome since the work of German classical scholar Theodore Mommsen (1817-1903).

When Syme received his knighthood in 1959, Harold Julian Amery, a British Conservative Party politician, wrote a letter congratulating Syme. In his letter Amery made the following comments concerning Syme's book, "The Roman Revolution remains one of the great modern political text-books — though from the point of view of the stability of our society I trust it will never be too widely read in political circles!" (Select Correspondence of Ronald Syme, p. 77).

 

Ronald Syme was accused of not using the available archaeological evidence when writing his book, but as Professor of Classical Archaeology Tonio Holscher correctly stated, there were and are indeed passages showing Syme's acknowledgement of such evidence (Select Correspondence of Ronald Syme, pages 8-10.). 

How did Syme reach his conclusion? He reached it by studying the various names (nomenclature) acquired by the Roman elites through their place of birth, through marriage, through adoption and by studying their political careers. The method he used is called 'prosopography'. This method is not easy and not without its critics, but for understanding political history of that time it is essential and it confronts two problems.

 

The first problem is the reason, or reasons, for political action, that is, uncovering the deeper interests that lie behind superficial political speech and arguments. By uncovering these deeper hidden interests, the social and economic connections of political groups can be analysed and exposed, and those calling the shots can be made known; modern politics is no different.

 

The second problem prosopography allows an historian to understand is the role in society of individuals and groups, most often elite, and the ambitions of elite families to obtain power. Put simply, through prosopography an historian can understand the motives behind political action and expose the social reality of a situation.

 

The above is what Syme did to uncover the oligarchy behind Emperor Augustus's government and Syme's statement at the top of this page has been interpreted by some as him being influenced by the political situation of his day. That situation was World War I and the propaganda and the fascist authoritarian regimes in Italy and Germany. That may be the case, but that does not mean Syme was wrong. I will note here that the Prosopographia Imperii Romani does not include names from the New Testament.

 

Why Does This Matter?   

​

Building on Syme's investigations and observations, I have applied his methods to this evidence. If ancient Rome was indeed controlled by an oligarchy, and that oligarchy controlled all publishing - by 'all publishing' I mean the ancient history texts that have come down to us written by individuals including 'Flavius Josephus', Tacitus and Pliny the Younger - it changes the context of the historical narrative as is currently understood. Syme covered the period from 60 BCE to 14 CE. My research focuses mainly on the period of the Roman-Jewish War of 70 CE right up to the time of Emperor Constantine. However, because my work also includes investigating the origins of Christianity, I also focus on the period of the early first century and slightly before and the ruling oligarchy of that time, for example, the family connections between Herod the Great, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and Seneca the Younger.

​

​By using the same methods of investigation as Sir Ronald Syme, and other respected classicists, it has been discovered that following the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE, a ruling oligarchy in Rome controlled the entire Mediterranean. That oligarchy consisted of the following families who were related by blood and marriage: the Flavians, the Herodian royal family (the family of Herod the Great) and the powerful senatorial family called the Calpurnius Pisos (the Calpurnii). The Piso name is perhaps mostly known from the Pisonian Conspiracy, the failed attempt to kill Emperor Nero and replace him with a man called Gaius Calpurnius Piso; it is the names of members of the Piso family that have been discovered in the New Testament.

 

No material, such as that written by the individuals just mentioned, describing what had happened could be published without the ruling oligarchy in Rome approving. Again, simply put, the histories written by the ancient authors were approved for 'publishing' by the ruling elites and emperor.

That means that there was very little hope of honest information being presented straightforwardly. Any information that would allow a modern historian to easily uncover family connections between the emperors and the ancient historians, including those just mentioned, such as important details and dates for important figures, were often left out.

 

It may be argued that the ancient historians did not have the information to give, but because the genealogies have been pieced together, it means that information must have been available. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the ancient authors either chose not to provide, or were told not to provide, critical genealogical information in any way we would/could expect, or an historian could/would expect or like it to be provided. If they did, a ruling oligarchy would be revealed. Instead, the family connections were scattered and made difficult to connect.

 

Although the study of history is an official science today, the methods used in mainstream academia have only marginally improved since Roman times, and the ancient authors wrote comments portraying how they were supposedly studying the work of other ancient historians.

Another difficulty in connecting the ruling genealogies is the fact that the ancient ruling elites used pseudonyms, and their pseudonyms appear in the histories that have come down to us and on inscriptions.

 

Interestingly, here is what the late Scottish-American Classicist Gilbert Highet stated in his Juvenal the Satirist, p. 291, "It is suggested, therefore, that some of the names in Juvenal’s topical references are cover-names only, which have merely a metrical correspondence (and perhaps also faint similarity in sound) to the name of the real person known to Juvenal and his audience."

 

The Penguin Classics introduction to The Letters of the Younger Pliny reads, "It has even been suggested that in his choice of pseudonyms Juvenal satirises some of Pliny’s correspondents." 

 

Pseudonym usage means once again prosopography is one of the only methods available to determine which particular elite individual used a particular pseudonym. That is because many pseudonyms were created from ancestral names through the use of nomenclature, that is, names created from personal and family names. But different words that had the same meaning as their family name were also used. The names did not necessarily consist of the familiar ‘typical form’ of Roman nomenclature either, known as the tria nomina – first name, family name and nickname. The middle of the second century (101-200 CE) saw Romans begin to experiment with the ordering of the family name and nickname (for more on this see 'What's in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from 700 BC to AD 700', The Journal of Roman Studies).

The words of Syme, based on evidence, are yet again also worth citing, "The upper order usurped wide liberties in nomenclature, Who was to gainsay [speak against them]?" (see 'The Paternity of Polyonymous Consuls’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 61, pages 191-98).

 

To my knowledge, pseudonyms have not been the focus of continued scholarly attention, the most substantial work is that done by Syme, for example see his Emperors And Biography: Studies In The Historia Augusta, 'Bogus Names', p. 3.

​

Controlled Publishing

 

Concerning the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70/73 CE, the only detailed account we have is The Jewish War. That work was written with the blessing of Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus and presented to them. It would not have been published had they not approved of anything (Josephus, Life 1.357–62); we are told Emperor Vespasian approved those histories written during his rule. He, along with others mentioned by 'Josephus', would, apparently, not tolerate the publishing of what they determined to be distorted accounts of events or words expressing true negative views towards those in positions of power [1] and banished those who spoke against his rule.[2]

 

As stated earlier, within Classical studies it is acknowledged that the available evidence shows complex written works were the product of elite cultural producers who shared their work within their circles.[3][4] There was no motivation in the Roman Empire for those who controlled literacy and learning to make mass literacy available to all as we know it today. The majority of the people had no real need to read complex works and would not have had much reason to use the 'public' libraries in Rome. The 'public' libraries were more a show of wealth than anything else.

 

​The New Testament 

 

With the above being shown to be the case through evidence, part of my research requires me to ask the question could the writing of the early New Testament texts have taken place in the ancient imperial libraries in Rome and Alexandria? This appears to be doubtful, if the current understanding of Christian history is taken into account, for example, the supposed persecutions. The emperor controlled these libraries and, although it is not certain, it appears access was controlled and restricted.[6] Therefore, adequate personal libraries seem to be the logical answer.

 

However, if the authors of the New Testament texts were the Calpurnius Piso family, supported by the Flavians and the Herodian royal family, it means the libraries controlled by the emperor could possibly have been used to write the Synoptic gospels

 

Understanding the contextual motive of the time, another piece of evidence in support of the above, along with the parallel evidence, is the use of gematria and isopsephy, that is, numbers used to present names. This literary device was used to give the identity of the man behind the number/s of the ‘beast’ in Revelation, those being 666 and 616; no it was not Emperor Nero, but a member of the Piso family who wrote as 'Josephus'.

 

When investigating where the specific number 666 appears before its use in Revelation, the only other text that presents the number, outside of Biblical literature, is the Jewish Antiquities in the 90’s CE (Volume 5 (V), Book 8 (VIII), p. 667 (Loeb), where it says, “six hundred and sixty-six”. 666 is a specific number and was used for a specific reason. Keeping this in mind and honestly acknowledging the sequential parallels between The Jewish War and the Synoptic gospels, asking if 666 spells Josephus is not an unreasonable question.

​

666 spells the name ‘Christ/Flavius Josephus’ in Greek - ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΦΛΑΟΥΙΟΣ ΙΩΣΗΠΟΣ/ Χριςτος Φλαουιος Ιωςηπος:

 

Χ (Chi) is considered an abbreviation for Christ – ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ/Χριςτος - and in Greek totals ‘600’.

 

The name Flavius (ΦΛΑΟΥΙΟΣ/Φλαουιος) totals ‘30’ by the Greek alphabet following the removal of the zeros:

 

Φφ (Phi) = 5 (normally ‘500’) Λλ (Lambda) = 3 (normally ‘30’) Αα (Alpha) = 1 Οο (Omicron) = 7 (normally ‘70’) Υυ (Upsilon) = 4 (normally ‘400’) Ιι (Iota) = 1 (normally ‘10’) Οο (Omicron) = 7 (normally ‘70’) Σς (Sigma) = 2 (normally ‘200’).

 

The above total following the removal of the zeros = ‘30’.

 

The name Josepos (ΙΩΣΗΠΟΣ/Ιωςηπος) appears multiple times in The Jewish War, two examples in Greek can be seen in Volume 3 (III), Book 5 (V), p. 368, chapter 13, verse 3, line 542 “...Josepos was borne away...” and Book 6 (VI), p. 404, chapter 2, verse 1, line 99 “...Josepos cried aloud...” (Loeb).

This spelling is etymologically correct in Greek, but by using a ‘P’ to spell it instead of an ‘F’ made the name total 36 when zeros are removed, otherwise it would total 33:

 

Ιι (Iota) = 1 (normally ‘10’) Ωω (Omega) = 8 (normally ‘800’) Σς (Sigma) = 2 (normally ‘200’) Ηη (Eta) = 8 (normally 8) Ππ (Pi) = 8 (normally ‘80’) Οο (Omicron) = 7 (normally ‘70’) Σς (Sigma) = 2 (normally ‘200’).

 

The above total is 36 and the combined total is 666 and all that is required is the removal of zeros for the name Flavius Josepos. Therefore it appears the author of Revelation used a combination of thinking in terms of ‘normal’ numbers and numbers with the zero removed to create the riddle.

​

It may be argued that talking about removing zeros from 666 is anachronistic, that is, it puts a modern mathematical idea into a world where it did not formally exist. However, Revelation does not say what method to use. The current methods of letter moving and dropping used to try and identify the name behind the number are based on scholarly tradition and not a textual requirement.

 

Because isopsephy and gematria have been used in certain ways in other texts, it is assumed that the methods used in other texts is what is happening in Revelation. But what is forgotten is that the entire point of elite cryptic systems is that they were not public knowledge. It is often unrealistic to expect a confession from the ruling elite for something like this, for example, 'Caesar’s cipher'. The man known to us as Suetonius does provide information about the 'rule' used in the cipher, shift letters forward by three, so replace A with D, etc., but no actual detail, for example, were Z and C looped? (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Deified Julius, Volume 1 (I), Book 1 (I), p. 79). Modern scholars had to work this out from practice and context. There is no ancient confession explaining exactly in detail how to use Caesar's cipher, and the ruling elite were not bound by our modern rules of consistency.

 

If the ruling elite chose to manipulate numbers in original ways, even ones we do not have parallel examples for, no one could stop them. The ‘rules’ of literacy and numeracy were whatever the elite decided, since they controlled it. So ruling out the above zero method to solve the number-play in Revelation because we do not have other examples is inconsistent and unfair – scholars often put forward reconstructions without direct previous examples. If there was a previous example of removing zeros, would the method be criticised as just rehashing old evidence? That is why context is incredibly important.

​

As for the variant number 616, a question to ask is why the number 666 was changed specifically to 616, especially considering Revelation 22:18 says:

 

“If anyone should add to these things, shall add God unto him the plagues which are written in this book. And if anyone should take from the words of [the] book of this prophecy, shall take away God his part from [the] book of life, and out of the city holy, and of those who are written in book this.”     

 

What does 616 present? This time it appears both ‘normal’ Greek numbers with a zero and the numbers in sequence were used. If the name Christ is abbreviated to ‘Chi’ (Χχ), there is no reason the name Piso or Pisone cannot be abbreviated as ‘Pi’ (Ππ), which is the 16th letter in sequence of the Greek alphabet and therefore can be deciphered in the number 616.

​

Other literary devices, such as vowel and consonant switching, a common thing done in ancient languages, were also used by the ruling elite authors to essentially hide their identity, 'copyright' their work, and give genealogical and situational information; as Syme said in his Emperors and Biography book, "One trick is to modify the shape of familiar names" (p. 8).

 

The above being correct means that the Roman ruling elite played a central role in shaping a major literary and religious tradition, using deceptive literary techniques to obscure their authorship. It also means the libraries controlled by the emperor could have been used to write the Synoptic gospels; when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, we read the Jewish scroll of the law was taken from Jerusalem and stored in the imperial palace in Rome.[7]

 

But the Calpurnius Piso family had a villa, and in that villa the largest library collection of papyri outside of Egypt was discovered. The majority of the texts found at the villa, which was buried during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, include Epicurean texts, with Epicurean and Stoic thought playing a critical role in the philosophical background of the New Testament. There are also treatises on logic and mathematics.[8] Of course more reliable proof is required to conclude the villa was used to create some NT texts. It is interesting, however, that some scholars are hoping some as yet-unopened scrolls may reveal hints about early Christianity, although of course not from the same premise as mine. 

 

​Again, I will say I am well aware that what I have just said is very controversial, but that does not mean it is incorrect. A main valid argument against a Roman ruling elite authorship is why Rome would persecute believing Christians if the ruling elite circles of Rome created this new religion? To answer that, my next book will bring together the fields of Classical and Biblical studies and show that no persecutions of ‘Christians’, of the kind currently thought of today, took place. That includes the supposed 'trial' of Christians as described by the man called Pliny the Younger in his letters to Emperor Trajan, currently considered as one of our earliest sources on Christianity from an outsider. Of course, what I have said means nothing without evidence.

 

To that end, then, I invite you to read my current book, available here, here and here, and the evidence I present in my blog. One of my blog articles provides an introduction to the evidence showing an oligarchy ruling Rome and the Mediterranean, and the blood and marriage genealogical connection between Emperor Vespasian and the Herodian royal family.

 

Thanks
 

​

[1] Josephus, Against Apion, 1.48–52; Tacitus, Histories, 1.1; Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis, preface. Also see A. Ferrill, ‘Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian’, The Classical Journal 60 (1965), 267–69.

[2] Dio Cassius, Historiae romanae, 65.12–14

[3] Sherwin-White, A.N. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985 [1966]), 115; Johnson, W.A. ‘Pliny and the Construction of Reading Communities’, in Farrell, J. and Morris, I. (edd.), Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford, 2010), 52–3.

[4] Walsh, R.F. The Origins of Early Christian Literature Contextualising the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 8, 135–36, 149–55.

[5] Concerning Romulus, on p. 153 Walsh says in her book above an inaccurate statement, ‘The story of the Galilean peasant resurrected like Romulus was also timely’. Romulus was not resurrected but transported while alive, but the parallel concept is still there. Parallels within ‘imperial writing practices’ are evidenced by the tradition of imperial figures being ‘raised up’ into the heavens. Different stories of Romulus’ disappearance appear in Plutarch 27.

[6] Konig, J. and Oikonomopoulou, K. and Woolf, G. Ancient Libraries, (Cambridge, 2013), 6–7, 301; Houston, G.W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity, (The University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 238; ‘The Slave and Freedman Personnel of Public Libraries in Ancient Rome’, TAPhA (1974–2014), Vol. 132, No. 1/2 (2002), 139–76, at 172 n. 82.

[7] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume 3, Book 7, pages 549-53 (translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library).

[8] For more information on this villa see Zarmakoupi, Mantha (ed.) The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction (De Gruyter, 2010); Sider, David The Library Of The Villa Dei Papiri at Herculaneum.