Support via Patreon | Subscribe

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

Header Image for: What does the word "Catholic" mean?

 

For many people today, non-Christians and (low church) Christians alike, when they hear the word “Catholic”, certain images spring to mind: the Pope, the rosery, Catholic school, big old churches buildings, choirboys, maybe monks or statues of Mary even; and sadly more recently, sex abuse scandals.

But, generally speaking, all of these are actually aspects of Roman Catholicism — a particular branch of Christianity, and not what the word “catholic” truly means as we’ll see when examining how the early church used the word and what the original Greek word means.

καθολικός (katholikos)

The Greek word where we get the English word “catholic” from is καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal”, which comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general” (catholicus in Latin). In non-ecclesiastical use, it still retained its root meaning in English in some literature from the 1800s, though that usage has fallen out of common use in modern times.

The first Biblical[1] reference to the word is found in Acts 9:31 when speaking about “the church throughout [all] Judea, Galilee, and Samaria…”. The words “throughout” and “all” are καθ (κατά) and ὅλης (ὅλος) respectively in Greek, which together come to form the word καθολικός.

The earliest historical use of the word, in the context of the Church, is found in one of the letters of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written around A.D. 107, where he writes:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

From here on we begin to see that the word “catholic” was used in reference to mean “orthodoxy” (the word “orthodox” means “right belief”) as opposed to the non-orthodox heretics who were then by definition not catholic as they were not ‘according to the whole’ which was, as Jude wrote, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Catholic Church, in its original and Apostolic sense, would have meant the entirety of the Body of Christ across the world, i.e., all the believers wherever they may be, rather than it being “universal” in the physical sense that the institution of “church” should be all encompassing (like as an official, global institution that all must attend). The difference may be subtle, but it’s an important one.

The development of doctrine about Jesus after Paul’s death, with all its commonalities and unifying features, is seen as an early form of “Catholicism” by modern scholars, which really begins in Ignatius (outside of the New Testament) and continues to grow and spread as time goes on, with the definition becoming more refined.

Historical Use of the Term

As we saw above, Ignatius was the earliest Christian writer we have who applied the word katholikos to the Church. Some people object to using Ignatius as evidence of this, as some of the letters attributed to him are considered spurious (not authentic), though scholarly opinion on this is fairly universal in which are genuine letters, as neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any reference to the eight spurious epistles.

Justo L. Gonzalez explains in his book, The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation, Volume One:

The original meaning of Catholic church referred to this episcopal collegiality, as well as with the multiform witness to the gospel in several canonical gospels. … It was the church “according to the whole,” that is, according to the total witness of all the apostles and all the evangelists. The various Gnostic groups were not “Catholic” because they could not claim this broad foundation. … Only the Church Catholic, the church “according to the whole,” could lay claim to the entire apostolic witness. (pp.81,82).

The other early uses that appear after Ignatius are in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (around AD 150), “…and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place…”, and then also in the earliest New Testament list from around the second century,[2] the Muratorian fragment the phrase is found three times: “…in the esteem of the Church catholic …. received into the catholic Church … used in the catholic Church …”.

From here on we see the phrase occurring in more and more writers from the second century onward, such as Tertullian A.D. 200 (The Prescription Against Heretics XXX), Clement of Alexandria A.D. 202 (The Stromata 7:17), Cyril of Jerusalem A.D. 315–386 (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 26), Jerome A.D. 418 (writing to Augustine), and Augustine of Hippo A.D. 354–430 (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, ch. IV). Then we have Vincent of Lérins, who famously wrote in A.D. 434:

…in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. (Commonitorium, ch. II)

Another interesting use of term appears in the Edict of Thessalonica, Theodosian Code XVI.i.2 (A.D. 380), where Theodosius I, emperor from 379 to 395, declared “Catholic” Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire for those who “believe in the one Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity” and that they should “assume the title Catholic Christians”. All others will be “branded with the ignominious name of heretics”.

Overall, from the earliest writers to the emperor in the fourth century, the phrase “church catholic” referred only to those Christians and Churches who held to the ancient traditions passed on by the Apostles and evangelists (Gospels), and to those doctrines which were known as having apostolic origin. This view was more formally solidified by the words added to the end of the original Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 (“And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not … the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.”) and also its revision in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of A.D. 381 (“And we believe in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.”), where you could call Nicene Christianity the “catholic faith”.

Donatist Controversy

During the fourth century, a controversy appeared bringing schism with it in Carthage, when two bishops appeared, one in competition and opposition to the other. The Donatists, named after Donatus, were unlike any other group or heresy which had come before, as their error was not in the nature of Christ or some other aspect of Christology, but rather about ecclesiology.[3] Donatists claimed to represent the true Church and took for themselves the title of “catholic”. This struck against the historical, orthodox Church, which had been universally known as “the catholic church” (ἡ καθολική ἐκκλησία). The Donatists set about to create marks upon which catholicity could be tested—marks that were obviously only found within their congregations (such as the integrity of the believers, and purity and holiness of the community). This forced the historic Church to respond and find an answer to the question “What and where is the one Church?”. Optatus, the legitimate bishop of Carthage, refuted Donatus, interestingly, by using as his defence the fact that their churches were all in communion with the See of Rome. The Donatists were confined to a small area of North Africa and not in communion with Rome, which meant a breakaway from the chair of Peter and therefore unable to claim the name “catholic” as they were anything but. After this, Augustine came on the scene and was a relentless critic of the Donatists, building upon Optatus’ refutations, explaining that the true Church is the one Vine, whose branches are over all the earth. Eventually, this all lead to the schism being quashed in 410.

How the Roman Catholic Church Came to Be

In contemporary usage, the phrase “Catholic Church” (usually capitalised) brings to mind, for many, the Roman Catholic Church specifically. How did this perception shift from meaning the whole Church body to one particular branch of Christianity?

In the early days of Christianity, “Catholicism” was a broad term which encompassed both the Eastern and Western empire of the Greeks and Latins, respectively. The Western Church had its capital in Rome, while the Eastern in Constantinople, and the whole body of believers had the five main Bishops of the following regions, who were known as Patriarchs, overseeing them: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. Despite disagreements, catholicity, or unity, was somewhat kept across both Eastern and Western churches until rising tensions beginning around the 9th century finally came to a head in the 11th century resulting in what is now known as The Great Schism, traditionally dated A.D. 1054[4] (sometimes called the East-West Schism).

There were a variety of doctrinal factors leading up to this point mainly consisting of: the procession of the Holy Spirit (also known as the filioque controversy), if leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, the prominence of the See of Constantinople in the “Pentarchy”[5] and, a major sticking point, the claim to universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome. Out of the five Patriarchs (or “sees”[6]), Rome was considered “first among equals” for the prominence and pre-eminence of Rome both within the Empire and within Christianity as a place of the Apostle Peter’s bishopric.

After the Great Schism, both Eastern and Western churches regarded themselves as “catholic”, but the West recognised only the Pope in Rome as their sole leader, whereas the East continued with their historically recognised Patriarchs, and both sides thought of the other as “not catholic” or “schismatics” for various theological reasons mostly related to the Filioque.

Due to the split, the two sides of the Church came to be known under different names to differentiate them: the Roman Catholic Church (as its centre was now officially only in Rome), and the Orthodox Catholic Church which is more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Both claiming to be “catholic” and the true lineage of the ancient Apostolic Church  (usually in conjunction with Apostolic Succession[7]), yet both rejecting the others claims and doctrine and having no universal unity at all, which the name “Catholic” should imply.

Post-Reformation and Modern Times

Although, historically, a fair bit out of the scope of the title of this paper, it bears mentioning some modern usages to bring this case to a close with a more satisfying sense of completion. After the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century when groups of churches, monks and bishops across Europe broke away from the church in Rome, some of the resulting groups have reclaimed the name “catholic”. Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Methodists claim to be “catholic” in the ancient sense, believing themselves to be in continuity with the original Apostolic and universal church and in keeping with the faith as defined by the Nicene Creed, yet despite this, the phrase “Catholic Church” has been pervasive in the minds of the general populace as meaning only the Roman or Western church and nothing more.

Conclusion

As we can see, the word and meaning of “Catholic” is not so simple or straight-forward. It has a very wide history with a lot of nuances, and although the Roman Church has laid claim to the name, it is certainly not it’s only meaning or definition. Some qualification of terms is often needed (or should be) when speaking to Christians of various denominational backgrounds, in order to help people to see the wider, and more historical context, of the “one holy, catholic and apostolic Church”.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] The Greek words which make up our English word “universal” in this sense, had been around as a concept in Greek long before Christianity. Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) wrote in this On Interpretation, 17a: “I call universal (καθόλου) that which is by its nature predicated of a number of things, and particular (καθ᾿ ἕκαστον) that which is not; man, for instance, is a universal, Callias a particular”

[2] The traditional second century date still holds the biggest following amongst scholars, though there are some who propose a fourth century date, claiming it would be more suited to that period when NT lists were quite common, which is appears to parallel. Still, others argue that the fragment isn’t a canon list at all, but an introduction to the New Testament, similar to the Marcionite prologues, which would suit the second century date better. The debate is still unsettled on this matter. (The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, pp.175-177)

[3] The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 303–305).

[4] Even though there was a long period of time when the Eastern and Western churches had a resentful relationship, the date of 1054 is commonly taken as the beginning of the schism, as it is when Pope Leo IX and Michael Cerularius had major disagreements resulting in their mutual excommunication. The Crusades, eventual capture of Constantinople in 1204, and the establishment of a Latin Patriarchate replacing the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate, rendered all later efforts of unity between East and West by the Church Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), of no effect.

[5] Pentarchy, in early Byzantine Christianity, the proposed government of universal Christendom by five patriarchal sees under the auspices of a single universal empire. (Britannica, Pentarchy)

[6] A diocese or territory over which a bishop rules. (Catholic Dictionary)

[7] The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, Swedish Lutheran, and Anglican churches accept the doctrine of apostolic succession and believe that the only valid ministry is based on bishops whose office has descended from the Apostles. (Britannica, Apostolic succession)

 

Further Reading / Sources

Find this article on Academia.edu too: (PDF) The origins and meaning of the word "catholic" in early Christianity | Luke J . Wilson - Academia.edu

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 18.3K times   Liked 0 times

Support on Patreon

Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon! By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe to Updates
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

x

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 884 subscribers today!

My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to Blog updates



Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

| 12th March 2026 | Eschatology

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment. Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces. More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality. The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness. First, a Word About Context If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles. The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse. Rome on seven hills It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

| 09th March 2026 | Archaeology

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades. Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand. So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey. A Crude Drawing on a Wall Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857. The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god. It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool. But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood. Where the Donkey Slur Came From The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own. When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture. Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again. So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

| 08th March 2026 | Philosophy

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

We are living through a strange moment. People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated. And it is difficult to blame them. The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware. Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person? For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence. But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human. That world no longer exists. Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself. And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all. The Gap Between Process and Subject Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in. That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now. Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation. But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God. What Makes a Person? If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does? After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness. Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper. Continuity A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures. You do not simply register time — you live through it. You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy. Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now. Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange. Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between. Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing. Autonomy A person initiates. Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction. Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone. Even if fut...

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

| 29th December 2025 | Christmas

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction. For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious. As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7 So, why the silence here about Bethlehem? The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale. Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint. Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest. Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem. Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data   In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly: 7–8 children under two in a village of 300 12–13 children under two in a village of 500 25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number. This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys. Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world. This is an important number to realise and consider. Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it wou...

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

My new book is out now!
Myth, History, and the Council That Shaped Christianity

For over 1,700 years, the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) has been burdened with claims that refuse to die. That Emperor Constantine invented the Trinity. That the divinity of Jesus was decided by political vote. That the Bible was assembled to suit imperial power. That Christianity reshaped itself by absorbing pagan ideas.

This book subjects those claims to serious historical scrutiny.

BUY IT NOW

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

Close