ABOUT THE AUTHOR
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.
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.
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.
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?