I am an independent historical researcher with a passion for ancient history. My knowledge of early Christianity is self-taught, and although I wanted to embark on a formal education studying the Classics, 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, not just 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 information, whether they have taken the time to investigate the information, properly, is another question. I have often been pointed to an article on a site called 'Rational Wiki' as proof that certain information regarding the distinguished senatorial family, the Calpurnius Pisos, has been debunked. That article discusses about 0.5% of the overall information I have investigated.

What makes you think you are right?

The issue is not about ME being right. I am presenting information in a way that is hopefully accessable to many people, the difficult part of presenting this information is that it will be viewed as controversial, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. It is about the validity of the information I have investigated. When examining this subject, I feel it is very sensible to put ideology, emotion, and ego aside. The information I have investigated is backed up by the research done by the historians/scholars/classicists I cite, whose qualifications and expertise are very relevant to this subject.

Are you a Jesus Mythisist?

That depends on which Jesus in history you are referring to, there were many. Although there is a small timeframe between the execution of the Jesus of the Gospels, and the mention of Jesus and his apparent brother by the individual known as 'Paul', the individual described in the Gospels still eludes scholars. If you are asking do I think the Jesus spoken about in the Gospels existed, personally I would have to say no. It doesn't really bother me if the Jesus portrayed in the Gosepels existed or not. 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, which show that 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, bias comes 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 show their biases by rejecting out of hand the information presented on this site and in my book. But 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 information is presented that gives information pointing to an ancient royal Roman/Jewish authorship, it is ignored. 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. Historians use a structured process of critical analysis in order to make an assessment of why and how an event happened. 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.

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 is why not just write the name?

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 ignorant masses, 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 this royal family. 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?

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. 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. The authors did not place their names into the Greek texts in an obvious way, as I have said before, 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, which really makes no sense if thinking in terms of the current understanding of Christian history.