The New Forensic Study Of History

The New Classical Scholarship: The New Forensic Study Of History
(Roman Piso, 11-25-2016, edited & updated 03-22-2017)

[Note: To fully understand this, it is recommended that other related papers be read as well, as this is a complex subject, and the study of this employs methodology not generally taught yet.]

This paper is meant to introduce the subject of the forensic study of history. And therefore, a Summary. The reason for this new way of studying ancient history is the discovery of it in an entirely difference context; that of being written from within a closed or controlled environment, which consisted of royalty who comprised a sustained Oligarchy. That condition is now known as ‘Royal Supremacy’.

The New Classical Scholarship, or the NCS was developed and founded by Roman Piso. Some of the ideas for it originated from methodology by others who, through their work had managed to reach the conclusion of a Roman authorship for the New Testament texts. [a]

However, the main procedures and methodology (as well as some terminology) was developed by the author of this paper. In the 1800’s, Professor Bruno Bauer had reached the conclusion that the New Testament was authored by Romans. He was not able to go much further than was reflected within his papers and books, and so, he was not able to actually name just who those Romans were.

But, he (Prof. Bruno Bauer) did identify “word usage” and phraseology, as well as conceptual and ideological comparisons between the gospels and the works of Seneca and Flavius Josephus. Thus, paving the way for further research into their probable association with the creation of Christianity. And our research, has now verified his suspicions. Particularly, that of Abelard Reuchlin, who was the very first to name the authors of the New Testament texts in his ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ (1st printing, 1979; 2nd printing, 1986).

In the early part of the 20th century, several scholars of the time were making great strides in terms of word meanings and word usage in the New Testament; and in fact, the Bible as a whole. One of those scholars was James Ballantyne Hannay, a contributor to the ‘Encyclopedia Biblica’, which was produced by Oxford university and various scholars of the time. [b] There were several books written by scholars and researchers of the time, which shed light upon words and word usage in the Bible; many of which are very rare, out of print, and/or non existent today. [c]

Much of that earlier work was destroyed by many people who did not like what it revealed or what it would do in terms of scholarship should it become more widely known. At the time, Christians destroyed copies of these books and many were destroyed due to two world wars. The Vatican hierarchy knew about various discoveries made by researchers both in and out of Academia, and likewise, did not want that material to get out to other scholars or the public in general.

Hitler and his followers too, had destroyed many thousands of books which, of course, included anything that the Vatican did not like and/or which revealed Christianity in a bad light. Many rare and one-of-a-kind books and other materials were destroyed simply because some people did not like that material for whatever reason.

One of the main things that has been wrong with academia for so long is that many of its members have always consisted of the religious and thus, it has been strongly “Christian” in nature. That has alarmed many of us who realize the problem that that has been to getting at the truth in history and religion.

The religious are biased due to their personal beliefs. And what should be taught early on (and required by any true Academia) is that it requires objectivity and the lack of bias in order to get at and verify any proof, truth or evidence. Also, many important papers showing Christianity and/or religion in a less than flattering light have often been “passed over” or rejected, by bodies of reviewers who were mainly religious in nature. Thus, the supposed actual purpose of “peer review” is more than compromised, it is virtually destroyed (see my work regarding Academia). [d]

There are records of the religious who have gone into the field of archaeology, who have destroyed evidence because it “offended” them, such as that which was of a phallic nature. But certainly, they have also destroyed evidence that could have been viewed as proof that Christianity was a deliberate fraud and/or a Roman creation. So, this is one thing that IF we are to have a truly objective body which is seeking the truth, must overcome. And, this also includes the privy royals themselves deliberately destroying books and evidence, namely via the Crusades and various Inquisitions. [e]

As has been mentioned above, the first person known to have identified the Romans involved in the creation of Christianity was Abelard Reuchlin (now deceased). He did so first in his work titled ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’. In this work, he identified the main creator of Christianity as Arrius Calpurnius Piso. And, Reuchlin explained that he, Arrius Piso was able to do this because of the help that he had received from his family and other royal relatives. [f]

However, this work, ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’, in order to get out to as many people as possible, had to be written in a very scholarly and condensed form. And so, several people who read it were not sufficiently educated, nor were they able to absorb what was actually within that work. Though an important work, it was virtually ignored by main stream academia.

A part of that, I think, was because it may have been viewed as ‘impossible’ by those who could not wrap their minds around the fact that the history that they were familiar with, actually occurred in a different context; it was an “inside job” and an oligarchy was controlling all that was written and produced for the public. [g]

Many of the people who purchased and read ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ did not know where to get the reference material, nor did they realize what would be necessary in terms of utilizing the information given within that work. To do an honest study of Reuchlin’s booklet, one must know that it is much more complex than it appears to be on the surface, and would take a great deal of time to study and a great deal of concentration from the average individual in order to verify the statements and contentions made within that work.

The average person, for instance, would probably go to their local public library to look for the books and other material cited in Reuchlin’s booklet, not find them, and then give up. However, the place to look for that would not have been a public library, but their local college or university libraries.

Another thing, for instance, is that Reuchlin’s work stated that the authors of the time in question (1st & 2nd centuries CE/AD) were using pen names and were giving alias or alternate names to many of those whom they were writing about. But Reuchlin gave basically only one example that readers could verify for themselves; that of Tacitus as Neratius Priscus. And, it did not do a very good job of it at that. I could do it, but I could see how others would not be able to, for a variety of reasons. [h]

As for me, I had studied the work for about a year before I could say definitively that what he was stating within that work was indeed true. And I had a huge head start, because in my own work I had concluded that Flavius Josephus had played some part in the authorship of the New Testament texts. And had clearly found connections between The Revelation and the works of Flavius Josephus (as well as other NT connections). I had read Seneca (as well as other ancient classics), so I knew what Bruno Bauer was demonstrating in his work. I was still developing methodology, using trial and error, and using the process of elimination (POE). It became apparent that in order for what Reuchlin had proposed, that some measure of control over what was written within the Roman Empire had to exist. If, it was indeed, an “inside job” then history must be examined with that in mind. [i]

I was already familiar with much of what Reuchlin was presenting, but he had added more to an area that I had not done as much work with; the Jews of the time. I had read about many of the events in the history of the time, but had not considered just how much I could learn by examining the Jews and their records of the time. I was familiar with several languages, as was Reuchlin.

But, he (Reuchlin) knew more about Hebrew & Aramaic. Whereas, I was stronger in Greek and other languages of the time. So, he would ask me questions about items involving the languages that I knew best, and I would do the same with him when it came to Hebrew and Aramaic. I began to chart the genealogies of Jewish leadership, and examine the Jewish sects far beyond what was generally known in academia.

My work then focused more upon the Roman creation of Christianity, and in checking Reuchlin’s conclusions. I corrected some of his initial work. For instance, originally, he thought that Gaius and Lucius Piso were the same individual. They were in fact, brothers. He had a few minor errors in his original version of ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’, which, as I had stated, I corrected and where said corrections were now present in his 2nd printing of his booklet.

But Reuchlin, in his work, referred to a ‘code’ being used in the New Testament by the authors. As time went on and I investigated this further, I found that this was not simply a ‘code’ but another language within the language of the time. I termed this ‘The Royal Language’. [j] I would begin to discover more things and develop new terms for those things. [k]

Once I had realized that they had utilized what amounts to an “inside language” (as in an “inside joke”), I could then actually read those texts in the same way that the authors themselves did, as well as anyone else at the time could have read them, as long as they knew how to read that other language.

How was it that there was a language inside of another language in usage at the time? How long had they been using this language? Could this be a language that was known to all or most of the royalty of the time? Were royals using this language be writing in two ways at once and for two different audiences (one for the royals and one for commoners)? Yes, as I said, I termed this the Royal Language. As with any language, it had its rules and a certain way that it worked. I began to observe and write down details. I found that it had been built into and used within virtually all major languages in antiquity, and was in use long before the First Century of the Common Era. However, a new version of it appeared upon the creation of Christianity. And that was because new key words had been created and used. [l]

These were just some of the questions that I had to answer. Both Reuchlin and I had seen patterns in the literature of the time, even outside of the New Testament texts. We had both, discovered, separately, that there are places within the Pauline Epistles that match places in the works of Pliny The Younger, exactly. Thus, giving us proof that Pliny The Younger was indeed the author of those epistles and therefore, playing the part of the NT ‘Paul’. But I also discovered where the NT authors had used certain patterns to give their own authorship and to establish the usage of “key words” (see my work on ‘Circles & Strings’ of words). [m]

Anyway, at this point, I was now able to read the writings of the time and understand them as they were understood by those who could read them in The Royal Language. That means that I was so far ahead of any other researcher of those texts, that that had now created a problem because of their extreme lack of knowledge of the subject.

And that was about 20 years ago. So, for about 20 years now, I have been studying ancient history in the correct way (in the correct context and reading it in the Royal Language), while I could see other so-called scholars continue to do so incorrectly. Again, I had learned this key information, but even so, there were still many more things to find out; questions to ask, and other things to explain.

Back to the basics, I had learned from Abelard Reuchlin just how he was able to tell what names ancient authors were using. I got so good at this that Reuchlin had begun to learn from me. He had taught me that I needed to build up “profiles” of each principle individual and find how they were related to each other. A “Profile” is a collection of information of every type that related to each individual. And, it would be necessary to create cross-references as well. Their are several purposes for creating these profiles, one of the main ones is to determine aliases. To understand what we few do, it is necessary to have the alias names for each individual. That IS the main key. See my work on the subject of aliases. [n]

One of the most problematic items of this study was trying to explain to others that history was not written in the way that they had thought it had been written. That is, in reality, it was written in an entirely different context. And, thus, to understand it correctly, one must now begin to understand it in that OTHER context and not the one that had been studied in the past.

And, I mean that it was, as said earlier, an “inside job”. It was recorded by members of a huge royal family with several branches; an oligarchy. And, that also meant that attempts had to be made to find out just when that situation had begun, and when/if it ever ended. That earlier oligarchy had undergone changes. There were several stops and starts. At one point, a new oligarchy was created with those who created Christianity. It changed a bit under Constantine and his family, and then changed again when it became consolidated under what was to be known as the “Holy Roman Empire” which was brought down by Napoleon. It rose again two more times as the “2nd” and “3rd” Reich. And it continues today via its descendants who are now known of as the 1%, the ‘Oligarchy’ or by other names. [o]

Finally, in an attempt to help my fellow scholars and researchers, I began to explain these things as best I could. And, in order to better explain the existence of an oligarchy which changed the way in which we should be viewing ancient history, I gave a list of things that I had noticed those in academia were never taught to consider. I call those things ‘The 6 Major Assumptions’ within Academia. [p]

In addition to ‘The 6 Major Assumptions’ within Academia, there were a number of created facades. That is, facades and illusions created by ancient royalty as they were writing both world history and other literary works; including religious texts. [q]

Notes & references:

[a] To keep track of just what level of scholarship each scholar arose to we define scholars by these terms (three categories): Old Classical Scholarship, or OCS; Transitory Classical Scholarship, or TCS, and the New Classical Scholarship, or NCS. These are ratings as to how far scholars have gotten in their work in terms of a Roman authorship for the New Testament.

Those in this list are ranked with what stage of scholarship they are or were at. An ‘O’ next to their name means that they are those of what we refer to as the “Old Classical Scholarship”, or the OCS.

Those with a ‘T’ next to their name are those who are/were at the point of transitioning from the Old Classical Scholarship, to the New Classical Scholarship. We term that stage of scholarship “Transitory”, as they are at a point where they are transitioning, but not quite at the stage of New Classical Scholarship. So, ‘T’ represents “Transitory Classical Scholarship”.

And of course, those who have an ‘N’ next to their name have reached the stage of being of the New Classical Scholarship, or NCS. Note that some of these scholars have reached the stage where they have concluded that there was a Roman authorship for the New Testament texts and the creation of Christianity, but have not or could not go any further than that (for whatever reason).

Examples:

Richard Carrier – ‘O’ (Calls himself Atheist, studied at Columbia & Berkeley)

Marcus Borg – ‘O’ (New Testament scholar & Theologian)

Joseph Atwill – ‘T’ (New Testament Scholar/Researcher, Roman Authorship)

Rod Blackhirst – ‘T’ (New Testament Scholar, La Trobe University, Roman Authorship)

Abelard Reuchlin – ‘N’ (Biblical Scholar, Member of The Piso Project, Roman Authorship)

Robert M. Price – ‘O’ (Theologian)

Santos Bonacci – ‘T’/’N’ (Biblical Scholar, Roman Authorship)

James Ballantyne Hannay – ‘T’ (Biblical Scholar, Roman Authorship)

Bart Ehrmann – ‘O’ (Biblical Scholar, Author)

Robert Eisenman – ‘O’ (Biblical Scholar, Author)

Cliff Carrington – ‘T’ (New Testament Scholar, Roman Authorship)

Roman Piso – ‘N’ (Biblical Scholar, Founder of NCS & The Piso Project, Roman Authorship)

Ronald Syme – ‘T’ (‘N’) (World’s Foremost Authority, his work confirms NCS)*

Werner Eck – ‘O’ (Biblical Scholar, Author)

Anthony Birley – ‘O’ (‘T’) (Roman Historian, Author, ‘The Antonine Dynasty’*

Dorothy B. Thompson – ‘N’ (Biblical Scholar, Member NCS, Piso Project, Roman Authorship)

Jay Gallus – ‘N’ (Biblical Scholar, Member of NCS, The Piso Project, Roman Authorship)

Bruno Bauer – ‘T’ (‘N’) (Biblical & New Testament Scholar, Roman Authorship)

[b] Read this paper: ‘Corollaries Between Josephus and The New Testament’
http://www.academia.edu/15214594/Corollaries_Between_Josephus_and_The_New_Testament

[c] Other papers will have to be written to shed more light upon work upon word meanings and usage. But until then, we can look to the work of Prof. Bruno Bauer, James Ballantyne Hannay, the (Oxford) Encyclopedia Biblica (circa 1913), Abelard Reuchlin and those whose works are referenced by the above authors and works.

[d] Read my paper regarding problems with current academia. Many problems still exist within Academia. We need to bring Academia into the 21st Century.

‘Essential Changes To Academia Now Required’
http://www.academia.edu/10632376/Essential_Changes_To_Academia_Now_Required_For_A_Quality_Education

[e] Pope Urban II started the first Crusade, which happened to run through Jewish towns, villages and cities both en route to the Holy Land and on the way back; where many of the inhabitants of those places were robbed, pillaged, raped and killed.

‘Pope Urban II: His Descent From Arrius Piso’
http://www.academia.edu/31504904/Pope_Urban_II_His_Descent_From_Arrius_Piso

[f] These two papers should give enough basic information to show close royal relatives of Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

The Calpurnius Piso Family And The Origin Of Popes
http://www.academia.edu/28071713/CalpurniusPisoFamily_and_TheOriginOfPopes.pdf

Flavian Ancestors, Relatives, And Descendants
http://www.academia.edu/28292879/Flavian_Ancestors_Relatives_and_Descendants

[g] Regarding the Oligarchy. These papers give information upon the Oligarchy both in antiquity and down through history.

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors
http://www.academia.edu/s/cc567b0350/the-true-context-of-ancient-history-and-the-gordian-emperors

Oligarchy And Ancient Genealogies
http://www.academia.edu/28345792/Oligarchy_And_Ancient_Genealogies

Napoleon Bonaparte & The Holy Roman Empire
http://www.academia.edu/10994708/Napoleon_Bonaparte_and_The_Holy_Roman_Empire

[h] These papers will show both the importance of discovering the use of alias names by ancient authors, and will show a better example of Tacitus as Neratius Priscus than was given by Abelard Reuchlin. Besides these, I have written several other papers to explain this as well. But I suggest that beginners begin with this example.

Discovering Tacitus As Neratius Priscus
http://www.academia.edu/10784164/Discovering_Tacitus_As_Neratius_Priscus

Descent Of Emperor Tacitus From Historian Tacitus
http://www.academia.edu/11003483/Descent_Of_Emperor_Tacitus_From_Historian_Tacitus

[i] Royal Supremacy, the New Classical Scholarship, and new methodology.

Dating Ancient Texts (New Methodology)
http://www.academia.edu/14951642/Dating_Ancient_Texts_New_Methodology_

The Biblical Dynasty (A Summary)
http://www.academia.edu/15043822/The_Biblical_Dynasty_A_Summary_

Royal Supremacy: When The World Lacked Freedom
http://www.academia.edu/15817675/Royal_Supremacy_When_The_World_Lacked_Freedom

True Nature Of Ancient History
http://www.academia.edu/11700170/True_Nature_Of_Ancient_History

[j] Read the paper on the subject, ‘A Few Words About The Royal Language’.

http://www.academia.edu/30347785/A_Few_Words_About_The_Royal_Language

[k] ‘New Classical Scholarship – Discoveries’
http://www.academia.edu/15433084/New_Classical_Scholarship_-_Discoveries

[l] The book ‘Piso Christ’ gives examples and more information regarding key word usage. See Chapter III, ‘Understanding the Royal Language’, pg. 116.

[m] The book ‘Piso Christ’ has a section that explains and demonstrates ‘Circles & Strings’, pg. 118.

[n] Building ‘Profiles’ and alias names. Read this paper:

Ancient Alias Names List (2017)
http://www.academia.edu/s/a339f0df02/ancient-alias-names-list-2017

[o] Virtually all of Modern European royalty can trace its ancestry back to Pope Alexander VI, and of course, many more through King James I of England.

Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), leader of the notorious Borgia papal crime family, was Pope from 1492-1503. The likeness of ‘Jesus’ that most Christian believers have thought to be that of their Christ since the early 1500s was actually that of Cesare Borgia (born 1475, died 1507), Pope Alexander VI’s son. Read more about Pope Alexander VI and his family… ‘Pope Alexander VI (his ancestors & descendants)’.

http://www.academia.edu/11025420/Pope_Alexander_VI_Ancestors_and_Descendants_

The Audacity Of King James (Part I)
http://www.academia.edu/18868444/TheAudacityOfKingJames_Part_I_

[p] ‘The 6 Major Assumptions’ within Academia. These are outlined and explained in the book ‘Piso Christ’.

[q] ‘How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions’.

[The Effective Creation of an Alternate Version of Reality]
http://www.academia.edu/15285175/Ancient_Royal_Facades_and_Illusions

The Biblical Dynasty (A Summary)
http://www.academia.edu/15043822/The_Biblical_Dynasty_A_Summary_

==