Well 'in the worst case' insofar as there is little or no evidence to support that proposition. The ancient Roman Empire like our own civilization had rules and laws. It would be eye-opening to say the least that a religion was founded on the premise that an unknown god came to earth to spread disorder and civil disobedience. But - and this is what you often fail to take into account - the idea that a religion could started as one thing and ended up as another is hard if not impossible to explain. In the period where better information survives it was not an antinomian religion. It was a religion which was compatible with middle class law-abiding values.
If Christianity could complete transform itself from A to B and turn itself inside out (where A is the unknowable beginning and B the religion of Irenaeus) then we still have to wrestle with the difficulty of the lack of information from period A. How do we know that it turned itself from an antinomian religion SPECIFICALLY to a law-abiding religion? We still have to prove that proposition. We still have to develop a history of period A and all your speculative nonsense doesn't substitute for actual evidence. Once we settle on the idea of a transformation we still have to prove that antinomianism was that 'A.' Where all inherited knowledge and traditions go out the window the door is open to all possibilities.
There are people at this forum who think that Jesus lived in the second century BCE. Others that Jesus was a pagan god. Others again that Christianity was a branch of the Essenes. The list goes on and on. Even if you get to the point of arguing for a transformation - and the religion of Irenaeus was just a B to some unknown A you still have to build a case for your bizarre theory to be that A. And even in the best case scenario you can't prove it. Of course your not even at that level. Your basically a guy who comes to a bizarre internet marketplace of ideas (= this forum) and you've set up a stand for a bizarre product (= a mishmash of crazy mythicist theorist theories from the nineteenth/twentieth century). You've been here for 3 years and haven't made so much as one 'sale.' No one has even come over to your booth.
So yes 'in the worst case scenario' is the right expression. Your theory is among the strangest of strange products hawked at this marketplace. Here's an example of why it doesn't work. I've noted that Clement of Alexandria has a variant of the 'antitheses' which begins in Matthew 5:17. As you may or may not know (this in spite of me talking about it almost every day here for 4 years) I argue, based on anomalies in Tertullian's Against Marcion (which I take to be three steps removed from Justin's original Against Marcion with Irenaeus's Against Marcion as 'stage two') the ur-text took this section of Matthew to be based on Marcion's original 'antitheses.' Clement's version of this same section of text (where the antithetical 'the Law says X ... but I say Y' is clearly exhibited points to Jesus having a dialogue with a Jew or Jewish leader rather than preaching a 'sermon on the mount.'
This/these lost 'antitheses' contextualizes the alleged 'antinomianism' of Marcion. Interestingly the antitheses are left out of Luke and are 'safely' relegated to Matthew, the alleged 'Jewish Christian gospel' (diffusing their antinomian character by associating it with an author who was allegedly pro-Jewish unlike Marcion). Yet even here, in the antitheses Jesus doesn't disparage the Law. He doesn't say the Law is evil. That's important. He doesn't advocate a position that lawlessness is good by contrast. His point seems to advocate (again according to Clement's version of the aforementioned 'antitheses') that the tenth commandment - the last 'iota' to borrow a gnostic concept from Matthew (which likely was derived from Marcion's gospel) - 'do not lust' is the ultimate commandment.
In other words ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται is part of the antitheses. It is found at 5:18:
MATTHEW'S PRESERVATION OF MARCION'S ANTITHESES
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not one iota, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The point is that I can't propose to explain why the surviving phrase of Matthew has 'ἰῶτα ἓν.' I can't explain the ἓν. But it is interesting that in Clement's version of this section - a section which was preserved as a dialogue again rather than a 'sermon' by Jesus - that coincidentally tenth commandment was the ultimate commandment - i.e. 'do not lust.'
We already have proof from the early period that a Semitic heretic Monoimus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoimus took special interest in the iota and likened it to a kabbalistic sephirot. As Wikipedia explains it:
According to Monoimus, the world is created from the Monad (or iota, or Yod meaning "one horn"), a tittle that brings forth the duad, triad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, heptad, ogdoad, ennead, up to ten, producing a decad. He thus possibly identifies the gnostic aeons with the first elements of the Pythagorean cosmology.
An astute eye will also recognize that this is one and the same with the Marcosian concept of the Tetrad (where Pythagoras notes 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10). The Marcosians were also Semitic.
So what I am telling you is that if you want to 'peer behind the curtain' and argue for a 'gnostic myth' the evidence would suggest that the iota/yod was taken to be the one power among the ten primal powers which would be sustained until the end of the world. Not commandments 1 - 9, not 'powers' 1 - 9 (whatever they were). But that the letter iota/yod was the beginning of the universe and that the last commandment which was the tenth would be sustained until the end.
Not only does that mean that a commandment 'do not lust' was still in force - it is said to be sustained until the end - but this shows that Chrsitianity was not identifiable with complete 'antinomianism.' Jesus wasn't saying that the law was evil or that he or his god was opposed to 'the law' (where Torah RIGHTLY was identified with the ten utterances from Sinai). Instead what he is saying is that 'the ten' - the iota, the yod - the little one, the least was at the root of the ten commandments, was the true power behind even the god of the Jews. I even wonder whether a saltire crucifixion was supposed to mystically point to the Roman number 'ten' and similarly by a similar stretch of symbolism whether the Tenth Roman legion would imply that the temple was conquered by the same iota/yod - a legion symbolized by the pigs in the Legion narrative of the gospel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote