Henry Davis 2018 follows the great works of his predecessors, implicating Rome as the author of the Bible. His main topic is Arrius Piso of the Pisonian Conspiracy that attempted to assassinate Nero, whom Davis suggests as writing Josephus, proto-Mark, Judith, Esther, Maccabees, Enoch, and Noah. Per Davis, even after antiquity, Rome followed a dual rulership model, with the tribes electing two tribunes, seemingly Caesar and a hidden hand, like the dual messiahship of Israel (Kingly/Priestly or Northern/Southern messiahs). Davis holds that Arrius Piso was this hidden Caesar, as a descendant of Mark Anthony, Cleopatra, and John Hyrcanus (the Parthian High Priest). Per Davis, Arrius Piso ruled and/or was exiled to Syria as Gaius Cassius Longinus and Gessius Florus/Cestius Gallus (132).
Davis fails to or weakly attributes many of his assumptions, rehashing the defamed Joseph Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah 2011 and coming up with unsupported zingers suggesting Catholics as even now continuing to say the Mass in Latin, Seneca’s stoicism becoming the ideological basis of Christianity, Rome forcing Pharisees to retrofit Jewish scripture to promote pseudepigrapha, Pharisees fighting to end Roman slavery, and Nero as pro-Jewish and besmirched for supporting Pharisees by preventing the grand new religion from taking root. Davis contends that biblical authors left their Roman fingerprints with a bible code, using cross-linguistic grammatical anomalies to declare their true identities.
For example, Davis notes 666 as written with 660 in Greek and 6 in Egyptian, negating the standard interpretation as Nero by proposing another as The Beast, dating Revelation to 140 and explaining that Nero couldn’t have persecuted Christians for Rome’s fire in 64 because, per Davis, Christians didn’t exist at the time. Davis suggests that Rome continued authoring into the third century, hoping the opportunity would arrive to assert Roman preeminence over the church and suggesting Constantine, who revived the scriptures, as a descendant of Piso. Unfortunately, even Davis admits that some of his proposed authors, such as King Agrippa II, Julius Piso, Arrius Piso, Seneca, and Pliny, might be mistaken.
To me, Davis’s work is much like Robert Eisenman’s first attempt at writing, with too much information density and too little of a story to tell. Like all authors, Davis also worries about how much of an introduction to give, seemingly cropping his insights into others’ works by only lightly introducing their original impact, thereby accidentally claiming others’ works as his own and crippling his own foundational assumptions which become indecipherable. His excellent conclusion chapter and bibliography belies his weak references to Sir Ronald Syme 1970 and Abelard Reuchlin 1986 as merely the original researchers of an amorphous something to which Davis ought pay more hommage. I look forward to his further works with Davis honing his ability to declare his conclusions while developing his authorship abilities.