top of page


I am an independent historical researcher with a passion for ancient history who is currently completing a degree in classical studies. Until I recently embarked on a degree, my knowledge of early Christianity, the classics, and ancient languages was self-taught. Although I would have liked to embark on a formal education earlier, I suffered from extreme anxiety and felt I could not do so. 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 and Old.

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.

  • You will not be taken seriously as a historian who lacks academic credentials and no formal education studying the classics.
    Perhaps, although I am currently in the final year of a degree in Classical Studies. The "amateur historian" argument seems to be used predominantly to attack those who question biblical scholars. I will say this: you do not have to have a Ph.D. 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 crafting original, persuasive history is important. Especially if that original research is backed up by prior research done by historians/classicists who are respected in the field.
  • Why are you focusing on the debunked theories that the Roman Aristocracy created the Christian religion?
    I don't. My research encompasses 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 statements are merely just that, statements. When asked for specific examples of why this evidence is wrong, none are ever given by those who seem to be only interested in vilifying the evidence. 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 accessible 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 wholeheartedly agree with this and that is what I have done 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 claiming you can prove a historical Jesus never existed?
    Based on the parallel evidence between the Gospels and the work of 'Josephus', and the context of the time, I do not see any evidence for the existence of the Jesus in the New Testament.
  • Are you a Jesus Mythicist?
    I don't believe the Jesus scholars talk about was real. Jesus of the Gospels being born and growing up in Nazareth, an obscure hamlet/city, is used as an argument for his existence. The argument is along the lines of why the authors of the gospels would create a place that has no relation to where the Judaic messiah was meant to come from, thereby creating a location problem. Therefore, the Jesus individual must have existed and come from Nazareth, correct? The problem with this argument, as I detail, is that there is no archaeology for 'Nazareth' being domestically inhabited, that is, evidence of early first century houses, and no evidence of the word/name Nazareth. The first mention of 'Nazareth' is in the Gospels. Kokh tombs have been found in 'Nazareth,' that date to after 70 CE, which means the archaeological evidence only shows constant agricultural activity in the area during the early first century. Currently, the consensus within mainstream academia is that we have evidence of the historicity of Jesus in the work of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. However, what has not been researched, properly, are the genealogies of these individuals; 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 the same circle of elites.
  • 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? Through my formal studies I have learned that 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. The most recent publication that comes close to this understanding is The Origins of Early Christian Literature; also see 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.
  • In your book you ridiculously state that the number 666 and 616 total 'Christ Flavius Josephus' and 'Christ Piso', why?
    If you had read the book properly you would know why and wouldn't feel the need to ask that question.
  • 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 complex material for a very long time, and when they could, it was only basic reading. Therefore, insertions of contradictions in the texts were only known by the Roman elite and by those who they instructed to read them. Specific 'contradictions' would be read out depending on the audience being read to, for example, Gentiles or Jews. 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 illiterate masses did not read the biblical texts, instead, those trained to do so read the texts to the illiterate people. Concerning stylistic variations, highly educated people can of course have different writing styles. Furthermore, the elites were deceiving the people by making the texts seem like strangers wrote them. One way they did that was through the use of pseudonyms.
  • 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. Their 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 into 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 are very different from rewrites. Many Biblical scholars have been basing their research on assumptions. They do not take into account that the ancient authors could 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 which 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” because the 'publishing' process was so tightly controlled.
  • If this information is correct, why have you not submitted any papers to academic journals for peer review?
    I have. However, I have realized that there is too much evidence to cross-reference and the word count limit of most journals doesn't allow a decent explanation to be written. The last paper I submitted was to the JRS (Journal of Roman Studies) but the paper was rejected for odd reasons, one of which was regarding a comment I made about sun-god worship being the state religion before Constantine took the throne. I am not sure how stating that sun-god worship was the state religion can be used as a reason for rejection, but it was. The cult of Sol had been Rome’s official state religion since Aurelian decreed it as such in 274 CE and Sol had appeared on Roman coins since the time of Septimius Severus, who reigned from 193 to 211 CE. The Journal for the Study of The New Testament, a British journal, is currently accepting reviews for my book, but only from UK academics. However, if an academic did want to refute this evidence, this would be a good opportunity for them to do that.
bottom of page