top of page

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
+FAQ

Henry Davis is a historian and bestselling author and is completing the last part of a degree in classical studies. Currently, his research focuses on the Roman elite and the origins of Christianity. Until he embarked on a degree, his knowledge of early Christianity, the classics, and ancient languages was self-taught. Although he would have liked to have embarked on a formal higher education earlier, he suffered from extreme anxiety and felt he could not do so.

Henry has been accused of not using proper historical research methods in his book, that is not the case at all. The methods he has used in his book are the same as those used to complete his degree.

  • You will not be taken seriously as a historian who lacks academic credentials and no formal education studying the classics.
    Perhaps, although I am currently in the final year of a degree in Classical Studies. The "amateur historian" argument seems to be used predominantly to attack those who question biblical scholars. Many historians believe you do not have to have a Ph.D. to be an expert. Some do not have the opportunity or funds to pursue academic qualifications through universities. Spending the same time reading primary sources, being in the archives, reading the literature, and crafting original, persuasive history is important. Especially if that original research is backed up by prior research done by historians/classicists who are respected in the field. I agree.
  • Why are you focusing on the debunked theories that the Roman Aristocracy created the Christian religion?
    I don't. My research encompasses information given about the Roman aristocracy as a whole, which includes the Jewish aristocracy. I do not just focus on the theories of a Roman creation of Christianity, which, by the way, have not been "debunked". Statements made by those who wish to vilify this work are merely just that, statements. Many times I have often been pointed to an article on a site called 'Rational Wiki' as "proof" that certain evidence regarding the distinguished senatorial family, the Calpurnius Pisos, has been "debunked". Apart from the article being old, it only discusses about 0.5%, if that, of the overall evidence that has been investigated.
  • What makes you think you are right?
    Scholars/Historians/Classicists state that history is more about evidence than facts, and for claims to be taken seriously, credible evidence from primary sources needs to be provided. I wholeheartedly agree with this and that is what I have done and continue to do. When examining this subject, I feel it is very sensible to put ideology, emotion, and ego aside. The evidence investigated on this site, and in my book is backed up by the research done by the late and current very much respected historians/scholars/classicists I cite, whose qualifications and expertise are very relevant to this subject.
  • Are you claiming you can prove a historical Jesus never existed?
    Based on the parallel evidence between the Gospels and the work of 'Josephus', and the context of the time, I do not see any evidence for the existence of Jesus in the New Testament. The evidence points to the Jesus of the New Testament being based on the activities of both Emperor Titus, the eldest son of Emperor Vespasian, and Arrius Piso.
  • Are you a Jesus Mythicist?
    I don't believe the Jesus scholars talk about was real. Jesus of the Gospels being born and growing up in 'Nazareth', an obscure hamlet/city, is used as an argument for his existence. The argument is along the lines of why the authors of the gospels would create a place that has no relation to where the Judaic messiah was meant to come from, thereby creating a location problem. Therefore, the Jesus individual must have existed and come from Nazareth, correct? The problem with this argument is that currently there is no archaeological evidence for early first-century houses in the 'Nazareth' area, as I detail here. Kokh tombs exist in the area, but they date to after 70 CE, which means the archaeological evidence only shows the possible existence of a single-family farm in the area during the early first century. Currently, the consensus within mainstream academia is that we have evidence of the historicity of Jesus in the work of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. However, there has been a lack of proper research on the genealogies of these individuals. The evidence I present shows they were all members of the aristocracy and the same family circles, which means the histories and religious writings of that time were all written by the same circle of elites.
  • 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? Through my formal studies, I have learned that 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 affects everything about the context of its creation, especially if the authors were the ruling elite. 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, it appears that bias and preconceptions are influencing the situation, leading to the consensus being consistently followed and controversial topics being avoided. That does not lead to the most objective read on the evidence, and any new controversial evidence is dismissed. Many scholars seem to exhibit biases by immediately dismissing the evidence that has been presented about this. But, as I have said, 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 evidence presents information pointing to an ancient royal Roman/Jewish authorship, mainstream Biblical scholars ignore it. The most recent publication that comes close to this understanding is The Origins of Early Christian Literature; also see Class Struggle in the New Testament 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.
  • In your book, you ridiculously state that the numbers 666 and 616 total 'Christ Flavius Josephus' and 'Christ Piso'. Why?
    If you had read the book properly, you would know why and would not feel the need to ask that question.
  • 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 common people did not read complex material for a very long time, and when they could, it was only basic reading. Therefore, only the Roman elite and those they instructed to read them knew about the insertions of contradictions in the texts. They would read out specific 'contradictions' depending on the audience being read to, for example, Gentiles or Jews. 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 illiterate masses did not read the biblical texts, instead, those trained to do so read the texts to the illiterate people. Concerning stylistic variations, highly educated people can, of course, have different writing styles. Furthermore, the elites were deceiving the people by making the texts seem like strangers wrote them. One way they did that was through the use of pseudonyms.
  • 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?
    The authors did not place their names in the Greek texts in an obvious way, they used literary techniques like that used on royal coinage and the meanings behind certain words to give names. But this information being presented in the Greek texts is one of the main reasons the later rulers translated the texts into Latin. The translating of the texts into Latin makes no sense if thinking in terms of the current understanding of Christian history. There were what we could describe as some 'rewrites' and changes made in some ancient texts. But copyist errors or forgeries are very different from rewrites. Many Biblical scholars have been basing their research on assumptions. They do not really take into account that the ancient authors could deliberately mislead future readers, as happens in politics today. 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 to mislead readers Royalty (the aristocracy) controlled the means of producing and 'publishing' and distributing books of the time. Because of that, there could be no “copyist errors” or “forgeries” because the 'publishing' process was so tightly controlled.
  • If this information is correct, why have you not submitted any papers to academic journals for peer review?
    I have. However, I have realized that there is too much evidence to cross-reference and the word count limit of most journals does not allow a decent explanation to be written. The JRS (Journal of Roman Studies) rejected the last paper I submitted for odd reasons. One of those reasons concerned a comment I made about sun-god worship being the state religion before Constantine took the throne. I don't understand how they justified rejecting my paper based on my comment about sun-god worship being the state religion, but they did. The cult of Sol had been Rome’s official state religion since Aurelian decreed it as such in 274 CE and Sol had appeared on Roman coins since the time of Septimius Severus, who reigned from 193 to 211 CE. The Journal for the Study of The New Testament, a British journal, is accepting reviews for my book, but only from UK academics. However, if an academic wanted to refute this evidence, doing so through that journal would be an excellent opportunity.
  • Why should we buy your book when it has 1-star reviews? Some reviews say that it is 99% conjecture and mis-information and that "Nothing he wrote about was well researched. He was easily proven wrong on many accounts with minimal effort." What is your response?
    Well, one glaring thing to note, as I have noted in another FAQ answer, is that none of the reviewers provide examples in their review of how they have easily proven the evidence wrong on many accounts, even though there is space to provide such examples. All are just statements. One reviewer also uses the 'academic credentials' argument, focusing on me instead of the evidence. I have also said something about the 'credentials' argument in another FAQ answer.
bottom of page