I am an independent historical researcher with a passion for ancient history. My knowledge of early Christianity, the classics, and ancient languages is self-taught, and although I wanted to embark on a formal education in classical studies, I suffered from extreme anxiety and felt I could not do so. I was determined not to let my anxiety disorder stop me, so I decided to learn everything I could myself, with help from family and friends, who had achieved degrees in classical studies. I have read the work of respected historians/scholars/classicists, including Dame Mary Beard, Tom Holland, Sir Ronald Syme, Gavin Townend, and Anthony Birley, to name only a few. I have also, of course, studied the work of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Flavius Josephus, again, to name only a few classical works, as well as the literature of the New Testament.

My belief is that we usually only learn something new when preconceptions are put aside when we discover that we have been mistaken about something.

Frequently asked questions

Why are you focusing on the debunked theories that the Roman Aristocracy created the Christian religion?

I don't. My research encompass information given about the Roman aristocracy as a whole, which includes the Jewish aristocracy. I do not just focus on the theories of a Roman creation of Christianity, which, by the way, have not been debunked. Most scholars have said they cannot see anything in the evidence presented, whether they have taken the time to investigate the evidence, properly, is another question. Many times I have often been pointed to an article on a site called ' Rational Wiki' as "proof" that certain evidence regarding the distinguished senatorial family, the Calpurnius Pisos, has been debunked. Apart from the article being old, it only discusses about 0.5%, if that, of the overall evidence that has been investigated.

What makes you think you are right?

The issue is not about just ME being right. I am presenting evidence in a way that is hopefully accessable to many people. The difficult part of presenting this evidence is that it will be viewed as very controversial, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. It is about the validity of the evidence that has been investigated. Scholars/Historians/Classicists state that history is more about evidence than facts, and for claims to be taken seriously, credible evidence from primary sources needs to be provided. I whole heartedly agree with this and that is what I have and continue to do. When examining this subject, I feel it is very sensible to put ideology, emotion, and ego aside. The evidence investigated on this site, and in my book is backed up by the research done by the late and current very much respected historians/scholars/classicists I cite, whose qualifications and expertise are very relevant to this subject.

Are you a Jesus Mythisist?

If you are asking do I think the Jesus spoken about in the Gospels existed, an individual who still eludes scholars, some of whom are considered the most expert in their field, personally I would have to say no. The best argument I have heard as to why the Jesus of the Gospels did exist, is that the Gospel authors say he apparently came from Nazareth, thereby, creating an unnecessary location problem, so a Jesus individual must have existed and come from Nazareth, correct? The problem with this argument, as I detail here, is that archaeology has found no evidence of the word/name Nazareth. The first we read of 'Nazareth' is in the Gospels. Currently the consesus within mainstream academia is that we have evidence of the historicity of Jesus that comes from the classical works, including that of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. However, what hasn't been researched properly, are the genealogies of these individuals, and those genealogies show they were all related. That means they were all members of the aristocracy, which means the histories and religious writings of that time were all written by royaty.

Biblical scholars are not trying to work out who the New Testament authors were. This is lost to the mists of history, so why are you trying?

Many academics/scholars do believe that to be the case, yes. They also feel that the individual identities are not as important as the historical context. I did agree with this, however, a scholar should always be curious, correct? One of the most important qualities that every research scholar should possess is to question everything you come across that doesn't feel right, so that is what I do. Knowing who the authors of the New Testament were changes everything about the context of its creation, especially if the authors were royalty. Going where the evidence leads is vitally important, regardless of whether that evidence supports your current understanding.

The majority of scholars disagree with this information, are you saying they are wrong?

Maybe they are. Agreeing with the majority of scholars is fine up to a point, but I don't actively try to stick to a consensus position when new evidence emerges. Unfortunately, it does it appear that bias and preconceptions are coming in to play, which means that the consensus is, more often than not, always followed, and controversial topics are avoided. In my view, that does not lead to the most objective read on the evidence and any new controversial evidence is dismissed. Many scholars seem to show their biases by rejecting out of hand the evidence that has been presented about this. But, as I have said, my investigative work draws on the scholarship of respected historians and classicists. Diligent investigation into who authored the New Testament got underway in universities in Germany in the late 1800’s, however, the authors of the four gospels and other books in the New Testament continue to be unknown within mainstream academia. But when evidence is presented that gives information pointing to an ancient royal Roman/Jewish authorship, it is ignored; although two publications within mainstream academia also present evidence supporting this- The Origins of Early Christian Literature and Class Struggle in the New Testament Biblical criticism is defined as being - the scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible, and the belief that the reconstruction of the historical events behind the texts, as well as the history of how the texts themselves developed, would lead to a correct understanding of the texts.

Are you claiming you can prove a historical Jesus never existed?

No, I have not said that a "historical Jesus" on whom the later figure of "Jesus Christ" as portrayed in the Gospels we have today never existed.

In your book you ridiculously state that the number 666 and 616 total 'Christ Flavius Josephus' and 'Christ Piso', why?

The evidence I detail in the book explains why 666 and 616 did not point to Nero. Biblical scholars feel (or at least used to feel) that it appeared that early followers of Jesus understood the number of the beast in Revelation to indicate Nero Caesar. The number was changed to 616, when translated to Latin, because apparently one early copyist solved the puzzle but couldn’t get the numbers to add up. The question I ask regarding this point is why not just write the name? Even Dr. Shushma Malik feels that the idea of Nero as a fearsome and cruel tyrant was not yet well-established in the first century CE.

So you are saying that the same group of people wrote all three Synoptic Gospels? Why do they then contradict each other and have massive stylistic variations?

The common people, did not read for a very long time, and when they could, it was only basic reading. The people were kept ignorant, so insertions of contradictions in the texts only benefited those who read them, ie. royals and those who were instructed to read them by the aristocracy; a structured process of critical analysis in order to make an assessment of why and how an event happened, needs to be done when working on this particular issue. For example, the practice of what is known as prosopography investigates common characteristics of historical people by the collective study of their lives and multiple career analysis. It is this practice, along with others, that has allowed the genealogies of the Roman historians to be pieced together. Why did the royals insert contradictions? Because it gave them the freedom to choose what they wanted to say in terms of quotes and cherry-picking texts to point out to slaves and other believers. The biblical texts were not read by the illiterate masses, instead, the people were read to, by those trained to do so. Regarding massive stylistic differences, a group of different people working together, but on their own writing, can absolutely have stylistic differences. You also have to consider the fact they were deceiving the people, by making the texts appear to have been written by individuals who didn't know each other.

You say that the authors placed their names into the scripture, but with so many rewrites and forgeries, how do you know those names were originally there?

The authors did not place their names into the Greek texts in an obvious way, they used literary techniques like that used on royal coinage. Them placing their names and other information within the Greek texts is one of the main reasons the later rulers translated the texts into Latin. The translating of the texts in to Latin really makes no sense if thinking in terms of the current understanding of Christian history. There were what we could describe as some 'rewrites' and changes made in some ancient texts. But copyist errors or forgeries is very different to rewrites. Many Biblical scholars have been basing their research on assumptions. They do not take into account that the ancient authors had the ability to deliberately mislead future readers, as happens in politics today. Those who were producing the histories and religious texts were skilled in rhetoric and propaganda, and knew how to place certain information within their work that has led to researchers being misled. Royalty (the aristocracy) controlled the means of production of the books of the time, as well as distribution, because of that, there could be no “copyist errors” or “forgeries” within such a tightly controlled system.

You willl not be taken seriously as an historian who lacks academic credentials and no formal education studying the classics.

Perhaps. Although I will say this, you do not have to have a PhD to be an expert. Some do not have the opportunity or funds to pursue academic qualifications through universities. Spending the same time reading primary sources, being in the archives, reading the literature, and spending the time crafting original, persuasive history, is what is important. Especially if that original research is backed up by prior research done by historians/classicists who are respected in the field.