top of page
ABOUT
+FAQ
Henry H Davis is a historian with an Honours degree in Classical Studies from the Open University. Having struggled with anxiety all his life, he is proud to be a best selling author and is fully aware some his work will be seen as very controversial in certain areas of academia. His focus and passion is ancient history and he is currently investigating the aristocracies of Rome and Judea and unravelling their involvement in creating Christianity. His first book is available to be reviewed by UK academics in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament and he is currently busy finishing his second book. Because of his current area of research, he has been accused of being a 'conspiracy theorist' and not using proper historical research methods in his work/book, mainly by individuals who do not like the premise of his work. But that is not the case at all. The methods he has used, and continues to use, 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.I do have academic credentials, I hold an Honours degree in Classical Studies. The "amateur historian" argument seems to be used predominantly to attack those who question New Testament scholars. The important aspect to notice about the 'academic credentials' argument is that none of the arguments address the evidence being presented. Many historians believe you do not have to have academic credentials, Degree, Masters, Ph.D. to be an expert. Having a formal education certainly helps, it makes researching and understanding a chosen subject much quicker. But some do not have the opportunity or funds to pursue academic qualifications through universities. Furthermore, the structures of formal education do not suit everyone, and some incredibly bright minds have only thrived outside of the formal education system. 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 supported by prior research done by historians/classicists who are respected in the field. I agree.
-
Why are you focusing on the refuted theories that the Roman Aristocracy created the Christian religion?I'm not. My research encompasses information given about the Roman and Jewish aristocracies as a whole. I do not just focus on the evidence showing a Roman-Jewish rulership creation of Christianity. My focus is currently on the entire political, social, religious and conflict context of that time. Furthermore, the evidence has not been "refuted". Statements made by those who wish to vilify this work because of emotional reasons 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 "refuted". 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?The textual and archaeological evidence and the context of the time. A very quick example would be the evidence showing that only the elite of the time could have written, copied, stored and distributed the New Testament texts. This is because there was no mass literacy at that time. 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 aided 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 currently see any evidence for the existence of the Jesus as described in the New Testament. I also don't believe Jesus was a historic person, and, as far as I know, neither does the scientific community. If there was an historical Jesus, his existence is based on assumption and currently we know nothing about him. Some may argue Jesus existence is not important, I disagree. Christianity is a major religion of the world and a major backbone of it is that an historical Jesus existed and Christians should follow his philosophy. 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 a man called Arrius Piso, of the Calpurnius Piso family. Jesus of the Gospels being born and growing up in 'Nazareth', an obscure town/hamlet/city, is used as an argument for his historicity. 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 or material 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 and were created after the Jews migrated to the Galilee area when Jerusalem was destroyed. The current 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 New Testament academia is that we have evidence of the historicity of Jesus in the work of Josephus and Pliny the Younger. However, there has been a lack of proper research on the genealogies of these individuals. 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?That is incorrect. New Testament scholars are trying to work out who authored the New Testament, but they may not be of the opinion that we may ever know their names. Two recent examples of work concerning this are God's Ghostwriters by Professor Candida Moss and The Origins of Early Christian Literature by Associate Professor Robyn Faith Walsh. Both books have some great value concerning the literacy and publishing capabilities of the time, it is their foundational assumption premise I have to reject, that is that Jesus, Paul and the apostles were historical figures. I reject their foundational premise because 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 curiosity and 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?Yes. 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. But which scholars are being spoken about when stating "The majority of scholars"? If New Testament scholars are being referred to, then I am not surprised they don't like this evidence. If classical scholars are being referred to, then evidence of their comments needs to be provided. As far as I know, most Classicists are not interested researching Jesus, historical or otherwise, likely because they know there is not much reliable evidence to begin a search for an historical Jesus. Biblical criticism was defined as being: 1. "The scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian, reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible, and 2. 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." Unfortunately, it appears that bias and preconceptions are still influencing the situation, leading to the consensus being, for the most part, consistently followed and controversial topics being avoided. That does not lead to the most objective read of the evidence, and any new controversial evidence is dismissed. 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 shows the ruling Roman/Jewish elite authored the New Testament, mainstream New Testament scholars ignore it.
-
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. But for reference the answers can be found on pages 257-260 (paperback).
-
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 ruling elites insert contradictions? 1. Because they were continually developing the story and 2. 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 ruling elites were unfortunately 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 and the fact Greek was the commonly used language. There were what we could describe as some 'rewrites' and changes made in some ancient texts. But the fact remains that the names of the authors remained in the Greek texts because of the way the names were given and because those in control of the texts made sure the names remained. But copyist errors or forgeries are very different from rewrites. Many New Testament scholars base their research on assumptions. They do not really take into account that the ancient authors had the means to deliberately mislead their audience and 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. The ruling elite controlled the means of producing, '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. See the about page for more information.
-
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 unfortunately 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 still don't understand this reason for rejection, but perhaps it was the way I worded my statement. The context was the period of Constantine's reign and just before, so there should have been no confusion. 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 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, which, apart from being incorrect, focuses on me instead of the evidence. I have also said something about the 'credentials' argument in another FAQ answer.
bottom of page