An Alternative Theory of the History of Antiquity
ARGUMENT and ABSTRACT to the THESIS
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

ARGUMENT to AHISTORICITY

The Argument to Ahistoricity (2007)

Did Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) exist in the Pre-Nicene Epoch?

There are two ways to "prove" ahistoricity: [1]


(1) The Argument from Silence:

If you can demonstrate that there is both

(a) insufficient evidence to believe Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) existed in the Pre-Nicene Epoch, and

(b) sufficient evidence to disbelieve Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) existed in the Pre-Nicene Epoch,

then it is reasonable to disbelieve Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) existed in the Pre-Nicene Epoch.

(2) Argument to the Best Explanation

If you can demonstrate that all the evidence can be far better accounted for by a theory y (ie: Constantine invented christianity 312-324 CE) other than historicity (theory x), then it is reasonable to believe y and, consequently, to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

[1] Adapted from Did Jesus Exist? - Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002) by Richard Carrier

Here is a tabulated presentation of the first three centuries showing here and there a scattering of evidence ( X? ) purported to subtantiate the postulate of a christianity before Constantine. The period BCE contains two questionable citations that are sourced from Constantine himself in his Oration to the (Last of the Pagan) Saints, c.325 CE.

The fourth century shows a literal explosion of citations in all fields to substantiate the explosion of christianity in the fourth century. The question being addressed here is: "How long was the fuse?".

Did Christianity actually exist in the first three centuries?
If it did, what is the evidence for this existence?

Matrix of Evidence for Pre-Nicene Christianity
Field	BCE	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Comments
Christian Authors	X? X?	XXXXXX?	XXXXXX?	XXXXXX?	XXXXXX	Eusebian History; Unexamined Postulate; See separate review
Non-Christian Authors		X?	X?	X? X?	XXXXXX	A la Eusebius; See separate Review
Literature		XXXX?	XXXX?	XXXX?	XXXXXX	Eusebian History
Philology					XXXXXX	Eusebian History; Constantine's Bible; Photius, etc
Codexes					X X X	Late 4th Century or after ... Sinaiticus; Vaticanus; Alexandinus; Bezae
Papri			X? X?	X? X? X?	XXXXXX	See separate review
Paleography			X? X?	X? X? X?	XXXXXX	See separate review
art, paintings and graffiti			X?	X?	XXXXXX	Dura-Europa; Alexandros
Epigraphy		x?	X? X?	X?X?X?	XXXXXX	Rome to Phrygia; See separate review
burial relics, funerary ornaments				X?	XXXXXX	Catacombs; Callixtus
sarcophagi				X?	XXXXXX	Catacombs; Callixtus
Architecture and buildings				X? X?	XXXXXX	Dura-Europa; Meggido; BASILICAS
coins (gold, silver, bronze, other)					XXXXXX	Constantine 314CE;
sculpture, relief’s, frescoes				X?	XXXXXX	Jonah's Marbles
Carbon Dating				X	XXXXXX	gJudas (290+/- 60); gThomas (348CE)


The thesis examines all the evidence presented above X? within the first three centuries, which has been used to support the literature tradition (itself tendered in the Fourth Century by Eusebius to Constantine, c.324 CE).

The conclusion of the review of the evidence is that there does not appear to be any citation which, when examined objectively, cannot otherwise be explained without reference to christianity.

That is, there does not appear to be even one unambiguous archaeological and/or scientific citation to substantiate the postulate of the existence of Christianity in the first three centuries, and prior to the rise of Constantine in the fourth.

Is there sufficient evidence to disbelieve Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) existed in the Pre-Nicene Epoch? What sort of integrity problems does the literature tradition have in respect to its own claims? In the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius many authors and many texts are introduced, many of which are unknown outside of Eusebius. Some texts are known to be forgeries. Some authors are known not to have written certain texts. How internally consistent is the corpus of the new testament literature? Was is the extreme ranges of scholarly opinion about Eusebius' reputation as an historian, and chronographer? What about the Testimonium Flavianum? Did Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Celsus and Porphyry mention "Christians"?

Constantine, who considered himself the “thirteenth apostle”, and “the bishop of bishops”, invents a monotheistic religion in the fourth century. From his promotion in Britain (304-311 CE) he patiently consolidated his position and marshalled a supremely victorious army of provincial and barbarian troops. From his base in Rome (312-324), armed there with the technology of writing in the Greek and the Latin language, he patiently marshalled the production of army of fictions, which themselves would become supremely victorious in the realm of literature.

With a keen military mind, he mocked the contemporary models of literary integrity, authenticity and academic legitimacy by a variety of methods.

• 1) Constantine sponsored the wholesale forgery of additional works in the names of genuine authors of antiquity, such as Pontius Pilate (c.-10), Lucian of Samosata (c.165), Julius Africanus (c.170), Origen (c.185), Mani the Prophet of Zoroastrianism (c.210) and particularly Porphyry (c.234), perhaps the leading academic of the Roman Empire at the turn of the fourth century.

• 2) The original texts of other historians, writers and even Roman emperors were targeted for various degrees of interpolation, or the insertion of a phrase or a paragraph. These include the authors Flavius Josephus (c.37), Trajan (Marcus Nerva Traianus) (c.53), Tacitus (Cornelius) (c.56), Pliny the Younger (c.63), Suetonius (c.70), Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus) (c.121), and Galen (Claudius Galenus) (c.129).

• 3) Constantine sponsored the fabrication of legions of entirely fictitious authors and their inter-related texts too numerous to name other than in the footnotes. By doing so, he fraudulently misrepresented the natural course of history by the fabrication of a pseudo-history that was to be associated with his new top-down-emperor-cult.

• 4) Before Nicaea, Constantine set unambiguous and political precedent. He arranged for the execution of leading priests at a number of ancient temples, and for the destruction of other shrines of worship. At Nicaea he burnt the written petitions of attendees whom he had supremely summoned – in their presence. After Nicaea he legislated for the destruction by fire of the writings of the Hellenic academic and philosopher Porphyry, for the destruction by fire of the writings of the Hellenic philosopher and logician Arius of Alexandria, and for the death by beheading of anyone caught concealing said writings.

One hundred years earlier the Persian King of Kings Ardashir had essentially done the same thing. He created the new nation of Iran with the army, and a new monotheism Zoroastrianism from a few old hymns, and he then burnt and destroyed all the ancient writings of the previously existent (Parthian) civilisation. Constantine was about to take the gold and the Greco- out of the Greco-Roman empire of the fourth century.

To the overall editorship of this massive fabrication he appointed his minister of religious and historical propaganda, the masterful rhetorician Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, yet did Constantine retain an active and creative role. Eusebius describes his task as novel. He openly admits that he is the “first to enter upon the subject”, and “to attempt to traverse, as it were, a lonely and untrodden path”.

He described the religion as “new and strange”. Perhaps it is easier to contemplate the role of Eusebius as “yes boss” and “no boss”. Constantine’s career as a supreme imperial mafia thug commenced with the order to have the head of the ex-emperor Maxentius affixed to a pike and sent around the streets of Rome, and then to Africa as a stern warning: there was a new boss in Rome. What was really new? Only the nickname. This was thick-necked or bull-necked.

Our thesis postulates that it was common knowledge from the year 325 CE until at least the end of the fourth century, in the Greek speaking community of the Eastern Roman empire, that the christian literature had been openly and mockingly fabricated by Constantine.

The thesis cites the identification of Christianity (Jesus and the Gospels) as a fabrication and fiction by the academic emperor Julian. This common knowledge (Gospel Fictions), the thesis argues, was subject to political censorship. This censorship is identified and demonstrated in the refutation of Julian’s arraignment (“Lies”) by the tax exempt Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril.

The thesis that Constantine invented his own religion is eminently falsifiable, and can be refuted either in whole or in part with the provision of appropriate unambiguous evidence from the fields of archaeology and/or science. I have attempted to gather together and exhaustively review all this available evidence in this article, but as most researchers will acknowledge, information is still forthcoming from the field.

With this further research into the ancient history of antiquity in mind, I would like to sincerely thank those whose research I have used in this article.


P.R.F. Brown
Student of Ancient History

Index | Mountain Man Graphics