More on Ralph Ellis and his Jesus as King of Edessa

In my last post I went through and showed the breathtakingly poor arguments of Ralph Ellis who argues, among other things, is that Jesus was a descendant of Cleopatra, was the king of Edessa, and was exiled to Britain by the Romans to become King Arthur. There I showed how in a single paragraph of his book that his ideas were so full of wrong that it is hard to imagine it was accidental. However, the one person that didn’t see it that way was Mr. Ellis, who left a long comment for that blog entry. Ellis has also been leaving plenty of comments elsewhere across the Internet, including in Amazon review pages (of a book he did not read) and other people’s blogs. So when it comes to critical responses, he is asking for it. And why not give it to him? 😉

Ellis battling his white Fail Whale.

So, I’m going to respond to his comment and show that his bankrupt methods continue to make him make even more mistakes and look all the more foolish.

He starts off claiming I critiqued his work by reading and studying blogs, implying I haven’t done by homework. Considering every point of criticism I made (besides attacking his bullying tactics) was based on what he wrote in his books, points that no one else had brought up, probably because they were still laughing about other things too much, that bluster is without merit. His talk about me in the third person is also odd; this is my blog, so why write as if people don’t know who this “Aaron Adair” is? Minor thing, but strange to me nonetheless.

On to more substantial points (supposing he has any), Ellis doesn’t see the point of why Jesus being king of Edessa is so odd considering what we are told in the Gospels about him.

Do you think that people did not travel in the 1st century. Indeed, since both Acts of the Apostles and the Doctrine of Addai state that there were ambassadors shuttling between Edessa (Antioch) and Jerusalem, and since it was the Queen of Edessa who furnished the Temple of Jerusalem, I think there are many links between the two regions. Indeed, in the guise of King Izas of Adiabene, it was the king of Edessa who fomented and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt, and was captured after the siege of Jerusalem.

So do tell us in what way Edessa is NOT linked and related to Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, Ellis doesn’t understand plenty and shows even more of his fantastical ideas of the ancient world. First, the logic is simply not there. There were connections between the king in Edessa and Jerusalem. And that matters why? How does having connections between two regions means that a foreign territory rules another? Besides, there were also connections between Rome and Jerusalem; Judea was directly under Roman control, there were Christians in Rome (see Paul’s letter to said Christians), and the city becomes extremely important in the future of Christianity. By Ellis’ logic, being connected to Jerusalem is good reason to think the leader of that nation is also Jesus since the Edessa king is supposed to be JC; should we then conclude Emperor Tiberius was Jesus? Then again, Ellis’ timeline is hard to unravel, so it could be a lot of other potential Caesars (Nero? Vespasian?). The argument is simply a non-sequitur.

But the evidence for that illogical connection is also revealing. Apparently now the city of Antioch is the same as Edessa? Now, perhaps he is confusing Antiochs, since there are more than one, but considering he mentions Acts of the Apostles, then Antioch on the Orontes River must be meant. And that is far away from the city of Edessa, and it is outside of the boundaries of the kingdom that Edessa runs, Osroene (and Ellis has already conflated Edessa with another city, Arbela).  Again, Antioch is on the Orontes River and almost on the Mediterranean coast; Edessa is east of the Euphrates River. Moreover, Antioch was the capitol of the Roman province of Syria at this point in history (no matter which chronology Ellis has come up with), and it was run by a Roman governor. There is no confusing Edessa and Antioch; it would be like confusing New Orleans on the Mississippi River and Austin on the Colorado River (and if you’re not sure you’re in Texas, there is a test for that). So both Ellis’ facts and logic are quite off.

Moving on, Ellis then thinks my point against Jesus being sent into exile rather than executed by the Roman authorities is mistaken. He brings up a defeated British chieftain, Caratacus, who after his defeat at the hands of the Romans was brought to the eternal city and was liberated (our main source here is Tacitus, Annals 12 and Cassius Dio, RH 60-1). But the tale we are told about him is that he was brought to Rome with the intention of being killed, not simply exiled as Ellis wants. Moreover, the reason Caratacus lived was because he knew what to do: lick boot. With some great platitudes about Rome and its people, he was pardoned and lived the rest of his life in Rome (and was not sent back home as Ellis said). And this is hardly the norm. For example, the leader of the last uprising of the Helvetii, Julius Alpinus, was captured and executed. Closer to the region of interest, bar Kokhba didn’t get any special favors from Rome, and instead he and all the defenders in the fortress of Betar were slain. So, if the analogy is supposed to hold, then Jesus had to also brown nose the emperor or be off with his head. Also, Jesus would be sent to Rome, not Britain, as the analogy goes. (For future reference, perhaps Ellis should consider the fate of Antiochus IV of Commagene. I’m so nice; am I not merciful?)

However, there are also two points that make Ellis’ analogy all the worse. First, it is premised on Ellis’ theory that Jesus was a king, namely of Edessa. Since that is, at the very least, suspect, then we have to believe Jesus would have been seen like any other rebel, such as Theudas, Judas the Galilean, and the unnamed Egyptian, all of whom Josephus tells us about and how they had some rather nasty ends because of their opposition to Rome. More important, I also pointed out with dripping sarcasm that we have some sources that say Jesus wasn’t exiled or pardoned, but instead was crucified and died. Mark 15 has Pontius Pilate note Jesus’ fast death, and the Gospel of John includes a spear in Jesus’ side to make sure he was super-dead. Now, we have reason to question the historical reliability of the gospel stories, but we also have to ignore Paul, who is adamant about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after dying on a cross and being buried (see Philippians 2; 1 Corinthians 15). The point is that Ellis has to ignore our sources about what happened to Jesus and pretend something about the Romans being nice to all their vanquished powers that rebelled. So once again, a failure of facts and reasoning.

Now, we move into the world of etymology. First off, Ellis complains about me mistreating his transliteration of the Egyptian word for ‘star’ because hieroglyphs do not act as vowels. While true that many have called Egyptian hieroglyphs an adjab alphabet, that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about pronunciation. So when it came to transliteration of the Egyptian word for ‘star’, I went to more than one dictionary. I linked to two different ones (here and here), neither of which are Wikipedia that Ellis complained about (because we can’t use somewhat reliable Internet sources when we can use Ellis’ linguistic fantasies). I also looked at a classical source, William Budge‘s Egyptian-to-English dictionary. They were all consistent with me. However, Ellis thinks he has a defeater by looking at Coptic. Already a dangerous move considering Coptic developed millennia after the rise of Egypt and has a lot of influence from Greek. But even so, the Coptic word for ‘star’ is not seba or even sba, but siou (spelled sigma-yota-ou-epsilon). Notice there isn’t even a beta; I’m not an expert in this, but this suggests that either the root used in Coptic didn’t have a b-sound, or it was elided with the s-sound, implying that there was not a vowel to space those consonant sounds out. So again Ellis’ derivations are suspect.

Ellis also mentioned how sba will in some cases have a “kite glyph” to denote an ‘a’ at the end of the word. If true (and I cannot find reliable info about a kite glyph in Egyptian writing), it doesn’t matter since I was complaining about a vowel added not to the end of the root but inside the word. Talking about suffixes is simply a red herring. I don’t think he really understands my point, or he refuses to. The point was that he is using an unsupported transliteration of the Egyptian, and he has a word for ‘star’ that has some unexplained suffix (which Ellis doesn’t care to address, so he may not understand he even screwed up).

Now, that was a fair bit of detail to get into there about some vowels, but now Ellis is firing nonsense with all 8 cylinders when he says how Ishtar and the Greek word aster are derived from the goddess Isis. That’s going to be a tough claim, considering the oldest written reference to Isis comes from the Fifth dynasty (25th-24th century BCE), though she may have been a local goddess as early as about 3100 BCE; however, the attributes of the goddess Ishtar are more in connection with Sumerian Inanna who is depicted even earlier, perhaps by as much as a thousand years. To see the connections between Inanna and Ishtar, just observe that first there was the story the Descent of Inanna into the Underworld; then Ishtar has an extremely similar story. Inanna and Ishtar also have a lot of the same iconography, including the eight-pointed star representing Venus. Isis, on the other hand, does not have a story of going into the Underworld, dying, and returning to life; at best, Osiris does something like that. Also, Isis wasn’t associated with Venus but with the star Sirius, an association that lasted even into the Greco-Roman era. Moreover, the linguistic connections between Isis, Ishtar, and aster are just non-existent. I already noted how aster and Ishtar are not even in the same language family; the Egyptian Isis has at least an Afro-Asiatic language name, so it has that much relation with Akkadian Ishtar, but these languages are still more distantly related than English and German.

Moreover, influence is more likely to go in the exact opposite direction from what Ellis wants. Egyptologists have known for a long time that the early Egyptian civilization had been influenced by the Babylonians, including using a lot of their imagery. It wasn’t until later that the Egyptians had developed their own, distinct icons. For a nice history of this and more, see The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson. So once again, the influence that Ellis wants is simply confounded by facts he is apparently unaware of. So much for that independent study.

Oh, and he must have mentioned this to piss me off: he also claims that Isis’ name is the source for the modern word Easter. I already noted how it was nonsense that Easter was related to Ishtar, but now the connection is made even more broken. Ellis, you need to actually learn how linguistics work. You can’t just look at English transliterations and squint.

In this same mess of a paragraph, he also says that Isis is the Queen of Heaven mentioned in Jeremiah 7:18 & 44:15-26. He also claims that my lack of biblical knowledge is something to apologize for. Sorry, but again there is a failure to note context on Ellis’ part. First off, Isis wasn’t known as the Queen of Heaven until the time of Ptolemy I, a general under Alexander the Great. Considering Jeremiah is writing centuries before then, and writing during the Babylonian captivity, it’s more likely he had something else on his mind. Perhaps instead Ishtar? Or how about Yahweh’s consort, a relative of Ishtar? There are plenty more likely possibilities than Isis being the point of reference here. And do I really also have to get into the Queen of Sheba? Best we can tell, Sheba is a region in Arabia, and has nothing to do with Egypt. Again, another false lead because Ellis doesn’t want to do real research and linguistic analysis.

Next up is some red herring about Mary Magdalene and water deities from Egypt. I think Ellis was trying to respond to the scholarship I brought out to show the etymology of the name ‘Ishtar’, but somehow in his ranting he forgot to even address it. And to repeat that point: Ishtar’s name has nothing to do with stars; it was never a viable option to linguists. So, what is there for me to respond to? However, he still trips over himself when he’s not even dealing with my point by screwing up who the Star of the Sea was. That was not a title for Mary Magdalene but for the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus. The connection between Mary and the Stella Maris is also based on a typo absorbed by Jerome in the 5th century. Several levels of fail here, and none of it even an attempt to rebut me. This is like watching a boxing match with the Three Stooges, but with more slap-stick.  Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

In the next disaster of a paragraph, Ellis wants Aphrodite to be a derivative of Isis. Again, it would help if he actually looked at some scholarship. There has been some good work done in figuring out the origins of Aphrodite, and she seems to be another relative of Ishtar, not Isis (Miroslav Marcovich, “From Ishtar to Aphrodite” Journal of Aesthetic Education 30.2, Special Issue: Distinguished Humanities Lectures II [Summer 1996]: 43-59; Stephanie Lynn Budin, The Origin of Aphrodite [2003]). But Ellis wants to connect Aphrodite to Isis because the former is born of foam. When was Isis born that way? I don’t get it. Perhaps he means a water connection? And again, there is the attempt to make Isis and the planet Venus/the morning star connected. Again, Isis’ star was Sirius, which would have its heliacal rising at about the time the Nile would start to flow strongly again and fertilize crop land. It wasn’t until much later that the Egyptians even connected the morning star and evening star as the same object (something the Sumerians had done millennia before); and when the Egyptians did learn about the singular object we call Venus during the New Kingdom, they associated it the soul of Osiris and not Isis (M. F. McDonald, “Phoenix Redivivus”, Phoenix 14, 4 [Winter 1960]: 196-7). Again, not a single fact is in favor of Ellis’ speculations.

Dude, I’m a dude. Surely, I’m not called Zoroastra. And don’t call me Shirley.

Enough with Isis for now. Let’s move on to Zoroaster. Ellis thinks that Zoroaster and Zoroastra are equivalent and perfectly fine. Um, no. One is just made up and a feminine version of the original Greek transliteration (Ζωροάστρης). Making shit up doesn’t make it true. Same thing when you claim that we don’t know what the second root to Zarathustra’s name means; as I indicated, it is universally agreed that –ustra means ‘camel’. It does not mean star, and it is easy to show that. Let’s actually look at some Persian words for ‘star’. In the Avestan language, which was used for the oldest Zoroastrian literature, the word is staro; in Middle Persian (Pahlavi), it is starag; in modern Persian (Farsi), it’s setare. In other words, no connection to –ustra. But the root does mean camel in Avestan. Sorry, but even an amateur like me can tell which of the possibilities is more likely.

After that Ellis questions my honesty in presenting his views, because I claimed Ellis said Zoroaster/Zoroastra was a god. Is that really so? Well, here’s the quote from his book:

[A]nd so we find references to gods and goddess called Astarte, Ashtoreth, Ishtar, and Zoroastra…

King Jesus, p. 120-1

So no, I’m not putting words in his mouth; he really does claim Zoroaster was a god. Ellis either just don’t remember what he wrote or he is terrible at communicating his ideas. Or both. In general, there is an incredible collection of incompetence. Mr. Ellis, why are you commenting on my critique of your book if you haven’t read your book? (*evil grin*) So you should be careful to not impugn me and insult Tom when you clearly don’t even know what you made up! I think that I have an apology coming.

Now, on to ester/Esther. Ellis claims, using a Hebrew-English lexicon, the name comes from the Persian for ‘star’, and I am wrong when it comes to what I suggested another possible root meaning of the name. Ellis probably should be careful using resources from a century ago, especially before the advent of Old Testament minimalism and the realization that much of the OT is not historically all that great. Old info can reflect old assumptions, and that is potentially the case here. So take a look at the Oxford Bible Commentary on the Book of Esther. It mentions a few possibilities of the origin of the name of Esther, including a hypothetical Median word astra meaning ‘myrtle’, which is what Esther’s Hebrew name (Hadassah) means. The Persian derivation from stara seems weak and more likely had legs in the past because of the assumptions of the historicity of the story of Esther, so she had to have taken a proper Persian name. However, the Book of Esther is more in the category of the ancient Jewish novel, especially the Greek additions to it, and one needs to understand the way the story was crafted before interpreting anything in it. As I noted in my last post, I favor the Esther/Isthar connection because of another name in use in the story, Mordecai, from Marduk. In the Babylonian pantheon, Ishtar and Marduk are cousins, and the same relationship exists between Esther and Mordecai. That seems to be too much coincidence, and it has rabbinic support (b. Megilla 13a). Thrown in Esther and the sex contest, and you get another connection between her and Ishtar (who had some raunchy stories of intimacy; think of it as the more direct version of what is said in the Song of Solomon). That is at least suggestive, and I think it helps to indicate the purpose of the author.

Now, this is actually beside the point, because the name of Esther is not the source of all the other names from the Ancient Near East for ‘star’. In Persian it is it a different word (see above). Even if the name of Esther is derived from Persian, it is just that, derived, not the root. Heck, that is what his own source even says. You can’t claim ester is the root of all words related to ‘star’ with a source that said it is derivative. Sorry, but straight-out FAIL.

Moving from Esther, Ellis claims to have been resurrected.

So did Lazarus rise from the dead.
So have I been raised from the dead.
And if you still have not twigged as to the meaning, then go down to your local Masonic Temple and ask them what it is all about.

Um, does he mean a spiritual rebirth? Since he seems to parallel his experience to that of Lazarus, I’m getting the impression he means bodily resuscitation. I cannot comment on his experiences without info, so I will try and not make him seem highly imaginative without more insight. But really, this is a dodge from what I said about Paul and earlier Christianity  Paul was not the first Christian, and Paul tells us so, giving a list of many people that saw the resurrected Jesus before him.

However, Ellis does finally get an attempt to justify himself in claiming a plethora of Christian groups existed very early on, but it’s another mess. He says Paul was of a different sect than that of Jesus, the latter known as a Nazarene. Well, considering how much he trusts the Acts of the Apostles, then he should know that Paul is also said to be a Nazarene (Acts 24:5)! Also, Acts has the story of Peter giving up on having to eat kosher, so that makes Peter a founder of Gentile-friendly Christianity before Paul did. And no scholar of Christian origins and development would call the Torah-observant sects of the early church(es) not Christian; there were Christianities, and of some amazing diversity as well. And if you don’t include Torah-based Christians, then what is up with the Gospel of Matthew? Is this not a Christian document? Is Ellis going to claim that book pre-dates Paul/Saul/Josephus? Every attempt to fix a mistake not only fails to get the point but adds even more layers of wrong. And this wall of shame has too many layers of paint now; it’s starting to peel off.

Turning to the life of Paul, Ellis claims that the story of Paul escaping from the ethnarch that ran Damascus under Aretas IV was “one of the most obvious interpolations in the N.T.” Amazing how he is so matter-of-fact when I know of absolutely no scholarship to back that up, nor do I see any indications that it interrupts the letter. Besides, the story is basically retold in the Acts of the Apostles. So is he doubting both sources, including the one that he usually does trust? Then again, I won’t be surprised if and when Ellis argues that Damascus is actually a pun on San Francisco and Jesus and Paul were gold-rush miners.

When it comes to Paul’s connection to Gamaliel, Ellis ignores the point that he blatantly contradicted himself from one book to another. Ralph, you can’t have Gamaliel dead in 50 and still alive in 66 CE. Pick a side, we’re at war! As for Paul being not too young given Ellis’ alleged birth year of 37 CE for Paul, Ellis has become very gullible in believing the child prodigy stories of Jesus and Josephus. When Josephus says how he was so smart at age 14 and everyone wanted to hear his opinions about matters of Law, there are two possible responses: bullshit or, well, no, there’s only one real possibility. Josephus is doing much to inflate his credentials. Hardly an unknown practice in the ancient world. Does anyone believe that a bunch of bees landed on the mouth of baby Plato to make his speech full of charm (Cicero, On Divination 1.36)? Now, if we consider real-world education in antiquity, we would not expect a 12-year-old to be a student of advanced interpretation of Jewish Law. At this age Paul/Saul would have more likely be learning his letters from a grammaticus, and after that even more work in rhetoric. Considering his ability to write, he definitely had a good education on that front. If he also had to learn a craft as a tent-maker (cf. Acts 18:3), then even more time away from learning exegesis; students of the Law were also supposed to have these sorts of hands-on skills, then go into study and practice of Law. As for ages, consider that rabbi Akiba was around 40 when he began to attend the academy. Similarly, Hillel was about 40 when he started his study of exegesis. That suggests rather well that no 12-year-old from Tarsus was learning biblical exegesis under Gamaliel in Jerusalem.

Before moving on, Ellis is impressed by the parallels between the story of Paul and Jesus and the story of the life of Josephus. Could it be because they are the same person? Well, there may be a simpler answer: Steven Mason and other scholars of Luke/Acts and Josephus have argued, persuasively in my opinion, than Luke is using the works of Josephus as a source (cf. here). So the parallels that Ellis sees can be rather nicely explained without the more incredible hypothesis, not to mention the one that contradicts so much more. That is, assuming his parallels exist; I’ll leave that to others for consideration, but either way there is an infinitely more plausible hypothesis than Ellis’.

Now, returning to Jesus, Ellis says that he does believe that Jesus was both a descendant of King David as well as of Persian lineage. I just had to read even more of his drivel to realize that. There was a queen Thea Muse Ourania, who was of the line of David as well as Egyptian (because for Ellis, all the pharaohs of Egypt were Jews), and she was sent by Caesar Augustus to become the Persian queen under Phraates IV. She later was kicked out in 4 CE and set up shop in Edessa to form a new dynasty of sorts with a Persian/Davidic lineage. And because of that, the Magi from Matthew 2 would have been interested in Jesus’ birth, and Herod would have worried about this birth.

So to defend his position, Ellis lays this turd of speculation, and please don’t ask me to shine it up. There is plenty wrong here besides the gross speculation. There is no evidence that Muse moved to Edessa, and in 4 CE there was someone else running Edessa, Abgar V. Then again, Ellis conflates several king Abgars into one person (it’s a trap), and that into Jesus, so I don’t know what in Seven Hells is going on here in Ellis’ imaginary history. Moreover, that the journey of Muse to Edessa in 4 CE worried Herod the Great is doubly stupid. One: Edessa is not in Judea. It’s outside of Herod’s dominion, even when Herod was procurator for Syria. Two: Herod was dead no later that Passover in 4 BCE. There is as much logic here as there is in believing that George Washington worried about the birth of Hugo Chavez (or is he Jesus, too?).

And if Ellis is going to be alright with the Magi story, does that mean he also believes that a magical star floated about, led the Magi to Bethlehem and stood over a particular house? Oh, and note that is Bethlehem of Judea, not Edessa. So, is Ralph going to support magic as well as bogus etymologies and geographies? I wouldn’t put it past him.

So, I really have to get a kick out of it when Ellis says this:

What is there in this theory that detracts from the established story? Indeed, this theory explains things that were previously inexplicable, like why Herod was afraid of this birth of a ‘lowly carpenter’ !!

What detracts from the story? How about doing real historical analysis? My book on the Star of Bethlehem coming out later this year (plug, plug, plug) will show what everyone in biblical studies has known for a long time: the story is, at best, hagiography, fitting into the stereotypes of the birth of the hero, and especially emulating the birth story of Moses. So why was Herod afraid of the birth of a baby? Because that is what the author wanted him to be and fit the Pharaoh/Moses typology. Or more generally, the Rank/Raglan hero pattern.

So, I think I have gone through every relevant points Mr. Ellis made in his long comment. And not only does he fail to show a single error on my part, he multiplies his own, making his theory even more untenable. The arguments from Ellis are basically how we define the Dunning-Kruger effect


30 thoughts on “More on Ralph Ellis and his Jesus as King of Edessa

  1. An excellent analysis. I’m guessing that Ellis wrote his comment in the third person for the same reason Philip Coppens did when blasting me with similarly slipshod scholarship: He isn’t talking to you but rather to his readers, to whom he is appealing with a great show of verbiage in hopes of retaining their loyalty and their money.

  2. Thanks for this continuing analysis of the books “Cleopatra to Christ”, “King Jesus” and “Jesus, King of Edessa”. My answers, point by point, are as follows:


    >>In my last post I went through and showed
    >>the breathtakingly poor arguments of
    >>Ralph Ellis

    Your previous post contained many errors. I shall highlight later the ones you have omitted from this article.


    >>There were connections between the king in
    >> Edessa and Jerusalem. And that matters why?

    Because you were implying that Edessa and Judaea were not linked. But I note that you did not know of those connections, before I pointed them out.


    >>How does having connections between
    >>two regions means that a foreign territory
    >>rules another?

    Because Queen Helena (the wife of King Abgarus V of Edessa) had the largest palace and the largest tomb in Jerusalem. She also paid for the furnishings in the Temple of Jerusalem, including the solid gold menorah. She also used her wealth to save Judaea from famine in AD 47.

    Having the most opulent constructions in a city, and saving a region from famine can and will give someone political control in a region. And this is especially true if Simon Boethus was linked to this family, as I have suggested. It was Mary and Martha, the daughters of Simon Boethus, who bought the High Priesthood for Jesus with cash, and yes, this does give political control. See Yebamoth 61a.

    In addition, it is known that the son of Queen Helena (a King of Edessa) initiated and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt. Surely anyone and everyone can see that the whole point of the Jewish Revolt was to take power and control over Judaea. And the king who was doing this was a king of Edessa.

    And so a foreign territory (Edessa) was indeed trying to rule another (Judaea).
    (Which is why Jesus was hailed as the King of the Jews. He was already King of Edessa, but wanted to take over all of the Roman East.)


    >>Then again, Ellis’ timeline is hard to unravel

    It is only hard to unravel if you have not read the book.

    In reality, the main gospel events all took place in the AD 50s and 60s, culminating in the Jewish Revolt. This is the revolt that Jesus was involved in, as is mentioned in the gospels.

    And there was one named Barabbas, who lay bound with those who had made revolution with him (Jesus), and who had committed murder in the revolution. Mr 15:7

    Is that such a difficult chronology to understand?


    >>But the evidence for that illogical connection is
    >>also revealing. Apparently now the city of Antioch
    >>is the same as Edessa?

    Edessa was also called Antioch. See Pliny History 6:21.

    And the suggestion that the true location for this Antioch was Edessa is not mine, it was suggested by Professor Robert Eisenman.

    The question, too, of which “Antioch” We are talking about,
    “Antioch on the Orontes”, the one usually referred to by
    most people, scholars or lay, or the little known “Antioch
    by Callirhoe” or “Antioch Orrhoe” a.k.a. called Edessa.

    The writer (Eisenman himself) contends that
    little or nothing was going on in Antioch on
    the Orontes at this time where early Christian
    history was concerned, as opposed to “Antioch
    Orrhoe” on the Upper Euphrates in Northern Syria.

    Antioch Orrhoe is, of course, Edessa. Do you presume to criticise Prof Robert Eisenman?


    >>Now, perhaps he is confusing Antiochs, since there
    >>are more than one, but considering he mentions
    >>Acts of the Apostles, then Antioch on the Orontes
    >>River must be meant.

    How do you know that the biblical Antioch in Acts, is Antioch Orontes (Antakya)? Please give your evidence for this assertion.

    The refutation of your argument is that King Abgarus is mentioned in Act 11:28, in relation to the famine that was alleviated by Queen Helena (his wife). Thus the Antioch that the disciples were in must have been Edessa (unless King Abgarus had control of Antioch Orontes as well, but that is unlikely). Again, Prof Eisenman is in full accord with this, as he closely links King Abgarus and Agabus.


    >>So both Ellis’ facts and logic are quite off.

    No. The real problem, is that you are reviewing a book that you have not read.


    >>Moreover, the reason Caratacus lived was because
    >>he knew what to do: lick boot. So, if the analogy is
    >>supposed to hold, then Jesus had to also brown
    >>nose the emperor or be off with his head.

    Which is exactly what Jesus did to Vespasian, when he was taken to Alexandria – he bequeathed the Star Prophesy onto Vespasian. But you would no know this, because you did not read the book.


    >>Also, Jesus would be sent to Rome, not
    >>Britain, as the analogy goes.

    And he was – but was sent to Britain later. Vespasian wanted him as far away from his Eastern power base as possible.

    We know this happened for many reasons, but perhaps the primary evidence is that a Temple of Pisces was built in western England in AD 75 by Vespasian – a temple that is unique in the Roman Empire. Now who would want a temple dedicated to fish? Who were the Fishers of Men? Which sect adopted the fish as their symbol?

    But you would not know any of this, as you did not read the book.

    As an aside, you have jumped books here. You have moved from:
    “Jesus, King of Edessa”,
    “King Jesus”.


    >Jesus would have been seen like any other
    >>rebel, such as Theudas, Judas the Galilean,
    >>and the unnamed Egyptian, all of whom Josephus
    >>tells us about and how they had some rather nasty
    >>ends because of their opposition to Rome.

    Err, the Egyptian False Prophet WAS Jesus (ie: King Jesus-Izas-Manu), as the both led the 5,000 into the wilderness and they both led the armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. Did you not know that? And yes, he did come to a sticky end, because he was crucified, just as Josephus relates. But Josephus also relates that he saved him (Jesus-Izas, the leader of the Revolt) from the cross. See the end of ‘Life’.


    >>More important, I also pointed out with dripping
    >>sarcasm that we have some sources that say
    >>Jesus wasn’t exiled or pardoned, but instead
    >>was crucified and died.

    Err, no. The gospels say that Jesus was crucified and came back to life again, just as does Josephus says of the leader of the Jewish Revolt in his Vita or Life.


    >>Egyptian word for ‘star’
    >>I also looked at a classical source, William Budge‘s
    >>Egyptian-to-English dictionary. They were all
    >>consistent with me.

    Now hold on a minute there. I have the same dictionary, and as you know Budge rarely inserts the additional vowels. What he does do is list the equivalent Aramaic or Coptic word, which in this case suggests a pronunciation of Sebah. And you forget to relate to readers your previous assertion that Sebah did not have an aleph on the end, which was also completely wrong.

    And anyway, the later Aramaic usage of Seba or Sheba in the biblical texts (in the correct context) rather defeats your peculiar assertion that no vowel was used. This word is always related as Saba or Sheba, rather than Sba.


    >>Ellis also mentioned how sba will in some cases
    >>have a “kite glyph” to denote an ‘a’ at the end
    >>of the word. If true (and I cannot find reliable info
    >>about a kite glyph in Egyptian writing), it doesn’t
    >>matter since I was complaining about a vowel
    >>added not to the end of the root but inside the word.

    That is a highly disingenuous thing to say, don’t you think? What you said was: “Somehow, Ellis has added a few more characters to his word for ‘star’ at the end.” The direct implication being I erroneously added the final aleph (from sab to saba). But the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor uses the final aleph, giving saba or sheba.

    As an aside – you call the aleph a vowel, but it is not a vowel. How can you criticise my Egyptian spelling, when you do not know that an aleph is not a vowel?


    >> I don’t think he really understands my point,
    >>or he refuses to. The point was that he is using
    >>an unsupported transliteration of the Egyptian

    It is not ‘unsupported’, the word ‘saba’ is in Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, from the 3rd millennium BC.

    But I daresay you will not apologise that you were wrong on all counts here.


    >>Now, that was a fair bit of detail to get into
    >>there about some vowels,

    Except, of course, that a ‘kite’ aleph glyph is not a vowel.
    And you presume to criticise MY understanding and work?


    >>Also, Isis wasn’t associated with Venus but
    >>with the star Sirius, an association that lasted
    >>even into the Greco-Roman era.


    Quote regards Anchises:
    His name identifies Aphrodite with Isis, whose husband was castrated by Osiris… 18:3. Robert Graves, Greek Myths.

    Do I need to add that Aphrodite is Venus? Thus the castration of Osiris can be compared to the castration of the priests of Attis. You may also remember that Jesus similarly asked for his disciples to be castrated.

    Michigan Uni reference, Isis and Venus:

    Budge Egyptian Dictionary
    Ashtoreth – Asiatic goddess whom the Egyptians identified with Isis and Hathor. See the Tell Amarna Tablets….

    Louvre Museum:
    “Aphrodite was the object of a widespread cult in Egypt and Syria during the Roman period. Patron deity of women and marriage, she was portrayed as the Hellenised form of the indigenous deities Isis–Hathor and Astarte.”

    Similarly Apollo was identified with Horus. Hercules is Orion. And Orion is Gilgamesh. One could go on and on, but I think you need to brush up on how these ancient religions were intimately interwoven.

    In fact, Isis and Horus were also the very prototype for the Madonna and Child. And the Madonna and Child in the Panthaeon in Rome is actually a reworked statue of Isis and Horus.



    >>Egyptologists have known for a long time that the
    >>early Egyptian civilization had been influenced by
    >>the Babylonians

    I very much doubt it. Truly ancient civilisations are identified with megaliths, and there are not many megaliths in Babylon. And the chronology of the Sumerian royalty is notoriously unreliable, with many inflated reign lengths.


    >>Oh, and he must have mentioned this to piss me
    >>off: he also claims that Isis’ name is the source
    >>for the modern word Easter.

    Because it is:
    The celebration date for a fertility goddess is Easter, by definition. Agreed?
    And the name for Isis was Ast or Est. Agreed?
    And the celebration of Est at Easter lasted into the 2nd century AD. Agreed?
    And the religion that took over the many temples of Isis was Christianity. Agreed?
    And the image of Est and Horus (with exposed breast) became Madonna and Child (with exposed breast). Agreed?
    The symbolic conception of Jesus was at Easter (born in December). Agreed?
    So the celebration of Est became the celebration Easter. Agreed?
    And Christian tradition adopted the symbolism of the egg at Easter. Agreed?
    And the name for Est is spelt with the Est Egg glyph (the Easter Egg). Agreed?


    >> First off, Isis wasn’t known as the Queen of
    >> Heaven until the time of Ptolemy I,

    Ha! You got this from Wiki, as it is the first thing it says. That is not a source. What are your real sources for this assertion?

    In reality, the goddess that Jeremiah was fulminating against is thought to have been Astarte. But since Astarte was Ast (Isis), then the Queen of Heaven was also Ast (Isis). Theologians say that the Queen of Heaven was a Moon goddess, but so was Ast a Moon goddess, in her alternate guise of Hathor.

    And before you say that Ast (Isis) and Hathor are not the same, here is Ast in the guise of Hathor as a Moon Goddess in the Temple of Seti I:


    >>Sheba is a region in Arabia, and has nothing
    >>to do with Egypt.

    You have not read the Kebra Nagast, have you? How can you comment on the Queen of Sheba, if you have not read the Kebra Nagast?

    In the KN, the realm of ‘Ethiopia’ went up to Gaza and the Dead Sea (ie, it was Egypt). In addition, it is clarified that the mysterious ‘Pharaoh’s Daughter’ who married King David was actually the Queen of Sheba.

    Thus it is obvious that yourself and many others have been deceived by orthodox traditions. In reality, the Queen of Sheba came from Thebes, and so she was a daughter of the Upper Egyptian pharaoh (‘Pharaoh’s Daughter’) during the 21st dynasty.

    And the story makes much more sense when viewed from this perspective. The Queen of Sheba was the Queen of the Stars – she was an incarnation of Ast (Isis), she was Muse Aurania, she was the Queen of Heaven.

    In reality this may have been who Jeremiah was fulminating against. The Queen of Heaven may have been the goddess Ast (Isis), but she may also have been a deified Queen of Sheba as an incarnation of Ast.


    >>he still trips over himself when he’s not even
    >>dealing with my point by screwing up who the
    >>Star of the Sea was. That was not a title for
    >>Mary Magdalene but for the Virgin Mary, mother
    >>of Jesus.

    They both had this title, because they were both incarnations of Ast (Isis) or Venus, as the Queen of Heaven. When, according to legend, Mary escaped by boat to France in the Stella Maris (a boat), do you really think that this was Mary the Mother? She would have been about 90 years old by that time.

    Check out the Birth of Venus by Botticelli. This is clearly an image of Mary Magdalene, with her long ginger hair, rather than Mary the Virgin. But here she is Mary Mag as an image of the Star of Venus in the foam of the sea (Aphrodite) – the Sea Star or Stella Maris.

    Mary the Mother was also linked to Venus, as you say, and often wore the Star of Venus on her cloak. Thus both Marys were incarnations of Ast (Isis), as has already been explained:


    >>Aphrodite to Isis because the former is born of
    >>foam. When was Isis born that way? I don’t get it.

    Of course you don’t. You need to open your eyes. (You also need to read the book.)

    The Heavens were the Seas of of the Cosmos. (Stella Maris, and all that).
    Upon which sailed the Solar Boat of Ra.
    The ‘Foam of the Sea’ was the ‘Milky Way’.
    And Ast-Isis (Aphrodite) was the Queen of Heaven.


    >>Zoro-Aster does not mean star, and
    >>it is easy to show that.

    Yes it does mean ‘star’.

    BDB Aramaic Dictionary:

    Es-tare’ – of Persian derivation. n pr f

    KJV – Esther 55; 55
    Esther = “star”


    >> ustra means ‘camel’

    No. Just because the Persians had a different pronunciation, does not make you right.
    Es-ta-re … means ‘star’.
    Us-ta-ra … also means ‘star’.

    (Although this may explain why the Koran says that the symbol of Islam will be the camel, when the symbol(s) of Islam actually turned out to be a Crescent Moon and a Star.)


    >>After that Ellis questions my honesty in presenting his
    >>views, because I claimed Ellis said Zoroaster/Zoroastra
    >>was a god.

    One mistake. I usually differentiate between the line of goddesses and the line of monarchs like Esther. In this case, Zoroastra is in the wrong list. But since I only mention Zoroastra in passing – perhaps a total of half a page on this subject within two whole books – you are grasping at error-straws here.


    >>Oxford Bible Commentary on the Book of Esther.
    >>It mentions a few possibilities of the origin of the
    >>name of Esther, including a hypothetical Median
    >>word astra meaning ‘myrtle’

    No, Astra and Esther do refer to a ‘star’.

    And this is not simply a matter of linguistics – this entire biblical monarchy was related to stars.
    King David …. the Star of David
    Bath Sheba …. Daughter of the Star
    Malkah Sheba …. Queen of Stars (Queen of Sheba)
    Queen Esther …. Queen of the Star (different language)
    Queen Thea Muse Aurania … the Queen of Heaven (Queen of the Stars)
    BarSabas …. Son of the Star (Barnabas – there are two spellings).
    Abba Saba Zechariah … Father Star Zecharaiah (Father of John the Baptist).
    Yahia Saba ….. Yahia Star (John the Baptist).
    Elizabeth …. the God Star (from Eli-Sheba)
    …… (Presumably a similar title to the Queen of Sheba.)
    Mary Virgin …. the Stella Maris (Sea Star)
    Mary Mag …. the Stella Maris (Sea Star)
    Jesus …. born under the Eastern Star.
    Bar Kochbar …. Son of a Star

    And if you look at the monarchs of both Parthia and Edessa, they are all associated with stars on their coinage.


    >>You can’t claim ester is the root of all
    >>words related to ‘star’ with a source that
    >>said it is derivative.

    Of course you can, when you know the history.

    In reality, the ultimate root for this name was Ast (Isis), who was the Queen of Heaven (the Queen of the Stars). It is from Ast that Aster (Esther) was derived. It is just that Esther was an Israelite (an Egyptian) princess who had been taken to Persia and became Queen of Persia, and so now the name had a slightly different Egypto-Persian pronunciation.

    Oh, and by the way, how did Esther become queen of Persia, if she was not an Egyptian princess? Yes, the Israelites were the Hyksos Shepherd Pharaohs, the Lower Egyptians, which is why the Patriarchs were all called ‘shepherds’. How do you think that Abraham (a shepherd) could afford an army of 30,000 men? Some shepherd eh? But quite normal for the Hyksos Shepherd Pharaohs.


    >>Um, does he mean a spiritual rebirth?
    >>Since he seems to parallel his experience
    >>to that of Lazarus, I’m getting the impression
    >>he means bodily resuscitation.

    The cult of death and rebirth has been with us for eternity. What do you think happened to Osiris?
    And the reenactment of that resurrection has likewise been a part of initiatory cults for millennia. Saul knew very little about this rebirth ritual, because he was never fully initiated, but he knew it had happened in the case of Jesus.

    But we know that this was a Masonic ritual, because the 3rd degree ritual is exactly the same as the raising of Lazarus. And no, the 3rd degree was not derived from Lazarus, it was derived from Hiram Abif, the architect of Solomon. This is why Jesus was called a Tekton – an Archio-Tekton (architect) – a Master Mason (and nothing to do with carpentry).


    >>He says Paul was of a different sect than that of
    >>Jesus, the latter known as a Nazarene. Well,
    >>considering how much he trusts the Acts of the
    >>Apostles, then he should know that Paul is also
    >>said to be a Nazarene (Acts 24:5)!

    Of course Saul was of a different sect. Have you never read the Epistles or Acts?

    Yes, both Saul and Jesus were Nazarene. See Math 2:23 But Saul was never fully initiated, because they did not trust him (he was black-balled). So Saul created his own Simple Judaism for Gentiles. The difference between these sects is clearly laid out in the many disputes, like Acts 11:1 -18. See also the Great debate between Simon Magus and Peter in Recognitions.

    Sorry, but please don’t presume to lecture me on the New Testament, if you do not know that Christianity was derived from the Church of Saul, rather than the Church of Jesus.


    >>Also, Acts has the story of Peter giving up
    >>on having to eat kosher, so that makes
    >>Peter a founder of Gentile-friendly Christianity
    >>before Paul did.

    Wrong. It was Saul and Barnabas who were up in Antioch (Edessa) preaching to the Gentiles, and resisting circumcision, not Peter. Saul makes this perfectly clear in Galatians:

    But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain (disciples) came from James, Peter did eat with the Gentiles: but when they had come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Gal 2:11-12 .

    So it was Saul preaching to the Gentiles, while Peter was afraid that he had eaten with Gentiles – fearing the wrath of the Nazarene Church of Jesus (those of the circumcision). Thus your contention here is completely and utterly wrong.

    And similarly in Acts.
    And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Act 15:1-2

    In addition, this dispute is a direct parallel with the apostles who were sent to Adiabene to preach Judaism and insist on circumcision (Josephus’ account). And also with the apostles who were sent to Edessa to preach Judaism and insist on circumcision (Doctrine of Addai account). In fact, all three accounts are about the same dispute – which is why this Antioch is actually Edessa/Adiabene.

    Sorry, but please don’t presume to lecture me on the New Testament, if you do not know that Christianity was derived from the Church of Saul, rather than the Church of Peter.


    >>Ellis claims that the story of Paul escaping
    >>from the ethnarch that ran Damascus under
    >>Aretas IV was “one of the most obvious interpolations
    >>in the N.T.” Amazing how he is so matter-of-fact when
    >>I know of absolutely no scholarship to back that up

    Corinthians has a list of persecutions of Saul, and then interrupts to tell of Saul being lowered in a basket. The last two verses in Corinthians have been added on. And even the details are implausible. Why get lowered in a basket, instead of climbing down a rope? Doubtless the basket detail is so that Saul can mimic Moses, but that means this tale is more allegory than fact.

    Besides, King Aretas never had jurisdiction over the city of Damascus, so the basic premise of these verses is incorrect. Clearly, someone wanted these verses to be based in the AD 30s, which they were not.


    >>Ralph, you can’t have Gamaliel dead in 50
    >>and still alive in 66 CE.

    I think you presume too much of the accuracy of these ancient documents. The main mention of Gamaliel is of his defence of the disciples in the gospels. But this is an event of indeterminate chronology, which I have assumed to be the early AD 50s. Gamaliel was also the recipient of the ambassadors from Edessa, in the late AD 40s. He was also mentioned in Recognitions, and the great debate between Simon Magus and Peter. I have placed a date of the AD 60s on this, but I will have to look again as to why I did so. In the light of all the Edessa material that has recently come to light, it may well be that the Great Debate was in the late AD 40s or early AD 50s.

    But this is the whole point of research – as new material comes to light, one can refine the details of the story.


    >>When Josephus says how he was so smart at
    >>age 14 and everyone wanted to hear his opinions
    >>about matters of Law, there are two possible
    >>responses: bullshit

    As I said previously, this was a standard barmitzvah test by the local rabbi (or the high priest if you were important, like Saul and Jesus). And this same barmizvah test is done to this very day. The fact that Josephus and Jesus have inflated this test into them being pseudo high priests is merely typical of the egotistical propaganda in both of these books.

    And yes, Jewish boys of 12 or 13 are indeed supposed to recite the Tankah; just as Muslim boys of 12 or 13 can recite the whole Koran. Have you never been to a Madrassa? Have you never witnessed these indoctrination techniques, where all the boys do is recite the Koran day in and day out.

    But the bottom line here, that you have appeared to have missed, is that if Saul had been born in AD 37 (as Josephus), then he would be taking this barmitzvah test in AD 52.


    >> If he also had to learn a craft as a tent-maker

    Oh, gosh, gosh, gosh, we are being a bit literal here, are we not? Do you still not see the propaganda and cover-ups in the New Testament?

    The ‘tents’ Saul made were not tents, they were sukkahs. These characters were important aristocrats, not artisans – they did not make tents, they made sukkahs for the Feast of the Tabernacles. And of course Queen Helena’s was the largest sukkah ever made, because she was trying to project herself as the Queen of the Jews (and her son to become the King of the Jews).

    “R. Judah said: ‘The sukkah [erected for the Feast of Tabernacles] of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty ells. The rabbis used to go in and out and make no remark about it” (Suk. 2b).

    And why do you think that Omar Khayaam was also a tent maker? Do you think all these important people were in the ‘outdoor pursuits’ industry, making tents for climbers to go up Mt Ararat? Think again.


    >>Steven Mason and other scholars of Luke/Acts
    >>and Josephus have argued, persuasively in my
    >>opinion, than Luke is using the works of Josephus
    >>as a source (cf. here).

    Which I said 16 years ago. But you would not have believed it from me, would you?
    Lena Einhorn probably does the best analysis of this theory.

    But what both you and Steve Mason have missed, is WHY Luke/Acts and Josephus are so similar. In reality, Saul was Josephus, and so all of these texts were written by the same person.

    Saul-Josephus wrote: Antiquities … Jewish War … Vita … Luke … Acts … Epistles … and some elements of the Talmud. And this is why there are similarities between Luke/Acts and Josephus.


    >>There is no evidence that Muse moved to
    >>Edessa, and in 4 CE there was someone
    >>else running Edessa, Abgar V.

    King Abgar V’s reign started in about AD 4, and he came from Parthia – he was Phraates V of Parthia (Phraataces), the son of Queen Thea Muse Ourania. You will have to read the evidence, as this argument cannot be summed up neatly.

    In short, we know that Queen Ourania and King Phraataces were exiled from Parthia in about AD 4, and they went to Syria. But where to? In short, if you delete or supercede the BC king list of Edessa (for which there is no evidence) then King Phraataces becomes King Abgarus. This is what the Syriac historians say, if you read them carefully.

    The Syriac historians continually conflate the Edessan and Parthian monarchy, saying that the father of Abgarus V was Phraates IV. This is why Abgarus was considered to be a king of Parthia, and why he was specifically named as a relative of the 1st century Parthian monarchy.

    Thus this king was called, in the different histories that record him:
    King Phraataces, King Monobazus and King Abgarus au Kama. In the biblical record he is called Agabus.
    The sister of King Abgarus was Queen Helena, and they married in the Egyptian fashion, just as Josephus relates.

    Oh, and if you want some real scandal, Jesus did the same – he married his sister, Mary Magdalene. This is why the gospel authors did not want you to know he was married. But the truth of the matter is that all of the disciples had sister-wives, as the New Testament admits.


    >>Then again, Ellis conflates several king Abgars
    >>into one person

    No I do not. That was one of Mr Verenna’s many lies.


    >>Moreover, that the journey of Muse to
    >>Edessa in 4 CE worried Herod the Great is
    >>doubly stupid. One: Edessa is not in Judea. It’s
    >>outside of Herod’s dominion, even when Herod
    >>was procurator for Syria.

    Not so.
    Herod (the Great) asked (King) Arsham for a multitude of unskilled workers to fill in (pave) the public squares in Antioch (Antioch Orontes? Antioch Edessa?), which were impassable and impracticable due to the mud and mire. But Arsham refused and gathered his army to oppose Herod. History of the Armenians, 2:25

    King Archam is Phraates IV. And this IS Herod the Great, for the next paragraph dovetails with Josephus’ accounts of this era.
    So here we have Herod the Great dealing with Phraates IV over an Antioch. This is unlikely to be Antioch Orontes, as Phraates did not have jurisdiction there, but it could have been Antioch Edessa.


    >>And if Ellis is going to be alright with the Magi story,
    >>does that mean he also believes that a magical star
    >>floated about, led the Magi to Bethlehem and stood
    >>over a particular house?

    Strange suggestion. Is this what you believe? I presume so.

    In reality these monarchs were all stars, as I related before – just as King Nabondius of Babylon was Lucifer, the fallen star. And their queen were stars too, like the Queen of Sheba (Queen of the Stars), Queen Esther (Queen of the Stars) and the two Marys (Stella Maris, Sea Star).

    The primary religion in Egypt, Persia and early Judaism was astrology, and so the Star-Monarch was closely linked to the movement of the stars. That is why all synagogues had a zodiac on the floor.

    Hamat Teverya zodiac


    In short, your analysis of my work is almost as bad as Mr Verenna’s. Since you have never read my books, you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions; and your understanding of New Testament history needs brushing up. I would suggest that you read all of my books and get a full understanding of the new chronology and the new biblical history. You may not agree with it all, but there is much in these books to enlighten the unenlightened.

    Ralph Ellis

  3. Remember people, Ralf Ellis holds all the knowledge in the world in his book(s); knowledge no-one else understands, nor has ever even thought of, proving all academic credentials worthless and built on sand.

    He’s not a crank, nor a one note obsessive with a narrow mind and an appeal to conspiracy mania.

    Overall, if he was a sportsman, he’d insist he’d won a tournament from which he’d been eliminated in the first round.

  4. .
    >>He’s not a crank, nor a one note obsessive with a narrow
    >>mind and an appeal to conspiracy mania.

    Thanks Scherben – but I note that you cannot refute anything I have said. Ad hominem attacks say more about yourself, than I.


    • It’s been refuted several times by several people who are much more qualified than I; and certainly more qualified than you.

      The difference is I don’t make crank claims and then claim to be a bloody genius.

    • .
      >>It’s been refuted several times by several people who
      >>are much more qualified than I.

      But each and every so-called refutation has been refuted by myself. Which, if any, of my refutations do you not agree with? And if you are not sure or cannot say, they why are you commenting?


      • You just repeat the same nonsense ad infinitum; you make absurd assumptions with no evidence for back up; basic errors like calling Zoroaster a god; your etymology was rubbished; you appeal to conspiracy; you have no intention of submitting any work for peer review; and appear to have a borderline personality disorder (though I can’t back that up).

        Overall you come across as a very embittered, unpleasant person whose opinion of yourself is certainly not matched by those whom you seem to see as inferior to yourself.

  5. Pingback: I’m Being Harassed and Threatened by Ralph Ellis | The Musings of Thomas Verenna

  6. Pingback: Ralph Ellis Swings and Misses Again–More on Jesus as King Arthur and Other Oddities | Fleeing Nergal, Seeking Stars

  7. .

    >>You make absurd assumptions with no
    >>evidence for back up;

    I have refuted about 50 assertions, with evidence. Do you not understand it, is that the problem?


    >>Basic errors like calling Zoroaster a god;

    Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I mention Zoroaster five times and placed him in the wrong list once. That means I made one mistake in 1,500 pages; so thank you for pointing out how superbly these books were written. I am fairly modest, so I don’t expect a major accolade – but I suppose I might accept an honorary doctorate.


    >>Your etymology was rubbished.

    My etymology was so robust, that my adversary gave up and deleted all the comments.


    >>You appeal to conspiracy.

    Do you think there is NOT a ‘conspiracy’ (or whatever you might call it).

    When Josephus fails to mention the monarchy of Edessa even once, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When Josephus fails to name the army who helped King Aretas, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When Eusebius interpolates a paragraph into Josephus, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When Eusebius changes the Emperor in the Doctrine of Addai (to make it agree with an AD 30s date), is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When theologians fail to point out that Josephus records an identical armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When theologians fail to point out that Josephus records an identical crucifixion, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?
    When theologians fail to point out that Josephus records that Abraham had an army 30,000 strong, is that not a ‘conspiracy’?

    Pray, do tell us – which elements of this history are NOT subject to some form of ‘conspiracy’?


    >>You have no intention of submitting any work
    >>for peer review;

    Actually, I did have an intention, but finding someone qualified enough was an insurmountable task.


    >>and appear to have a borderline personality disorder

    More ad hominems, which simply confirms that you have lost the argument.


    • Ralph, as noted in my recent blog post, you are blocked until you make amends I describe here. However, I let this comment through the spam filter because I think it showed even more how ridiculous you are. Everyone deserves to have a laugh at this.

    • You have no intention of submitting any work
      for peer review;

      Actually, I did have an intention, but finding someone qualified enough was an insurmountable task.

      So you get to decide who’s qualified and who isn’t? Is this because of your incredible historical knowledge you have that no-one else in the world does? (See your appeal to conspiracy above.)

      Genuinely embarrassed for you. Borderline personality disorder is a definite possibility, ad hominem or not.

      Oh, well done, you have recommendation from David Icke’s forum (tee hee)

  8. Pingback: The Star of Bethlehem in Alternative “Scholarship” | Fleeing Nergal, Seeking Stars

  9. Ralph Ellis is a historian. A very good one at that. His books are riveting and a lot of his claims seem to be back by evidence. Too bad you seem to have such a hard on for hating the guy. I can understand disagreeing with Ralph, but don’t get the hardcore disdain. You need to lighten up dude. Maybe take up Karate, or running to expel some of that negative energy. Or better yet smoke a dube. That’s what Jesus would do. Cheers!

    • 1) I’m calling Thread Necromancy on this one.
      2) A measure of a good historian is subject to peer review; Ellis has no corroborators in the historical / academic community. Are they all against him as a person?
      3) I can guarantee that many of the comments left by other people across all of the blogs attached to this feud carry the same IP address as Ellis’ comments. Why would a man comment under pseudonyms in his own defense?
      4) I’ve followed this debate for several years in silence. I’ve read at least two of Ellis’ books from cover to cover and I came to the same conclusion: that he is a total hack, who bends historical data to sell outlandish premises to historical laymen.

  10. Agree with Candy Jones, what is wrong with a professional discourse? Why the hate? This shows your insecurities. Nobody likes a prophet and many have been asassinated. This is what you are trying to do with Mr. Ellis. The blame falls on you.

    • A professional discourse necessarily requires peer review. The “insurmountable task” of finding “qualified” people to review Ellis’ work is at best a lazy excuse and at worst sheer arrogance. There are many, many people who have the same access to Ellis’ sources and the capability to translate and cross-reference. The “hate” that you refer to here is a clear product of frustration—not insecurity—on the part of the other participants in this thread. If one were to ignore the arguably reactionary comments above rather than using them to build a straw man, it becomes clear that the constant and unjustified conflation of a number of historical entities in Ellis’ work not only appears to subvert the scientific method but in many cases snaps Occam’s Razor into tiny little pieces. The comments you read above are likely motivated by sheer amazement that Ellis’ assertions could be so unscientific as to imply deliberate subversion, for whatever gains as suit his purpose.

  11. Occams’ Razor says that the simplest answer is the most likely. Is it likely that the entire NT is a fabrication? No, any old fool could devise a better fairy story, with far fewer contradictions and absurdities, than the NT.

    It is far more likely that the NT is a product of real history, with added embelishments. But if so, we need to find a minor prince-king from the Levant, who has been deleted from history. In the guise of the kings of Adiabene who fomented the Jewish Revolt, we have just such a line of kings. And the Syriac historians say that these monarchs were actually the kings of Edessa, who also ruled Judaea in the mid 1st century.

    Voila – Occam’s Razor fully supports my arguments.

    Besides, in this thread, Adair loses every argument and displays his lack of knowledge about so many toipcs – including his not knowing that Egyptian does not have vowels – and then presumes to have won the argument. If Adair this this thread is a convincing win in this debate, I would hate to see what he thinks losing is.

    In addition, since the first edition was printed, some 25% more material has come to light that supports this thesis. It is all in the e-book version. The evidence is now irrefutable.


  12. Oh, and I forgot to say that Adair is so confident of his arguments, he has to delete me from his site. Now that is Real scholarship – the scholarship of censorship. Way to go, Adair, I am sure you will find this facet of your personality Really useful in your future life.


  13. Contrary to your assertion, I WAS banned from your other thread – as that thread still states. And it would appear that I am still banned from that other thread, so I shall post here instead.


    Ellis conflates more than one king named Abgar …
    he also confuses the matter even more so by using coinage
    on the cover of his book by an even later Abgar

    If you had read the book, you would know that I do not conflate more than one Abgar. In fact, I do not conflate any Abgars. None whatsoever.

    And the different coin on the jacket is explained on the first page of the book – it is a much clearer example of the same design of coin (they are bronze coins, and easily defaced).


    Ellis, for example, doesn’t know how to use the final sigma in
    Greek, even though sometimes he gets it right.

    Actually, Ellis got 45 out of 47 final Greek sigma’s correct. And considering Amazon-Kindle will not allow normal Greek fonts, and the Indian e-book copyists could not read the Greek alphabet, it is a wonder we got any right.


    Tom is not a real scholar and somehow has multiple online personas.

    Mr Verenna is not a scholar, and sometimes uses the name Rook Hawkins. And since Mr Verenna has refused to retract his erroneous statements, and has refused to allow any debate on his assertions, he deserves his fate.


    Jesus assigned the Star Prophecy (Numbers 24:17) to Vespasian.
    Odd considering this is what Josephus was supposed to have done
    are Josephus and Jesus now the same person?

    If you had read the book, rather than relying on rumour, you would know that Josephus makes a prophesy that the Eastern Star Prophesy will be given to Vespasian, but it is Jesus who gives this prophesy to him. (Because the Eastern Star Prophesy belonged to Jesus – because he was born under the Eastern Star.) Is that so difficult?


    The Kebra Nagast, a late medieval document, gives the real
    scoop on the Queen of Sheba, proving she came from Thebes.

    That’s what it says. And the interesting thing is, you cannot discover this unless you read the Tanakh and the Kebra Negast together. And this fits with all the other descriptions of the Q of Sheba, like her being the Queen of the South. Plus the Queen of Sheba means ‘Queen of the Stars’ in Egyptian (i.e.: she was an incarnation of Isis). And the Tanakh does record that Solomon married pharaoh’s daughter, but its only the KN that records this lady as being the Q of Sheba.


    The biblical monarchy (who are also Egyptians, mind
    you) are all related to stars;

    Have you not heard of the Star of David, or the Eastern Star of Bethlehem?


    Saul/Paul/Josephus wrote Antiquities, War of the Jews, Vita,
    and the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles,

    It is well known that Luke and Acts draw extensively on Josephus. I presume you know that. It is only a small step to say that Josephus had a hand in writing or editing these N.T. books. And we know that the N.T. was written in the post-revolt era, because Jesus describes the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.


    If Edessa was “trying” to rule Judea, then that means it actually
    didn’t rule Judea …. Ellis also claims that because the Queen
    of Edessa, Helena, had the largest tomb in Jerusalem and financed
    the Temple, therefore Edessa had political control of the region

    Have you never heard of an opposition party? Just because the Republicans are not in power, does that mean they have no influence in American politics?

    Yes, the Edessan monarchy were ‘in opposition’, and their bid for power came with the instigation of the Jewish Revolt. As Josephus clearly states, it was the Adiabene royalty (the Edessan royalty) who fomented the Jewish Revolt.


    Ellis also claimed that Barabbas from Mark 15 was also a
    revolutionary with Jesus. Where does it say that?

    “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him (Jesus), who had committed murder in the Revolution.” Mark 15:7


    Where is Antioch?
    Ellis does try to use another argument about Agabus from
    Acts 11:28, but that person is said to be a prophet, not the
    king of Edessa named Abgar.

    Who says Agabus is just a prophet? Eisenman agrees that Agabus is actually King Abgar.

    Because Abgar prophesies the great famine…
    And famine relief is given by the disciples in Antioch…
    Queen Helena also gives famine relief, from Adiabene (i.e.: from Edessa)…
    But Queen Helena is the wife of King Abgarus (in Edessa)…
    So Helena’s famine relief and the disciples famine relief is one and the same…

    But do remember that it was Saul and Barnabas who took this famine relief from Antioch to Judaea. And if they were taking it from Queen Helena and King Abgar, then they must have been in Antioch Edessa, rather than Antioch Orontes.



    Now, how do we know one of the people Josephus helped save from
    dying on the cross was the Edessan king? Two things, Jack and Shit,
    and Jack left town. And this actually relates to how terrible a case Ellis
    has. His primary premise to combine Jesus with (a) king Abgar(s) is
    simply based on nothing but hot air, which he thinks is “axiomatic“.
    Unfortunately, Ellis doesn’t know what axiomatic means.

    Actually, this just proves that you have not read the book – because I do not conflate Jesus with any King Abgar. Not once.

    In reality, Josephus says that that the person who was crucified in AD 70 was the leader of the Jewish Revolt. Josephus also says that this leader was called King Izas of Adiabene-Edessa (and also, Jesus of Gamala).

    But since King Izas was the son of Queen Helena, and Queen Helena was married to King Abgarus of Edessa, we can be quite certain that the person who was crucified was indeed a king of Edessa. Is that so hard to follow?



    One is that there isn’t any good evidence that precession was a
    well-known phenomenon among the public.

    The biblical progression – from Bulls, to Shepherds, and onto Fishermen, precisely mimics the known Precession of the Equinox. Precession in these same eras moved from Taurus, to Aries, to Pisces.


    In fact, I find no evidence for anything to do with the zodiac in this
    building at all. More importantly, there are no undisputed Christian
    symbols, such as the cross.

    Christian symbols? Sorry, Mr Adair, but that comment deserves some derision. Jesus was NOT a Christian. Jesus was a Nazarene Jew, who was circumcised and kept the majority of Mosaic Law.

    It was Saul who discarded Mosaic Law in favour of Faith. It was Saul who embraced Gentiles and mocked ‘those of the circumcision’ (i.e.: the Nazarene Jews). And it was Saul who created Christianity (Simple Judaism for Gentiles).

    So why would the presence of Jesus in any location be marked by symbols of Saul’s new Simple Judaism for Gentiles (i.e.: Christianity)? No, it would be marked instead by the Nazarene veneration of the zodiac.


    The archaeological reports of the semi-elliptical building do
    not say that it has the shape of a vesica piscis. Now, why is
    that? Perhaps because the shape is not a vesica piscis! To
    form that shape, you need two circles of equal radius with
    each of their centers on the perimeter of the other circle.

    You can create a 1/2 diameter Vesica Piscis, a 1/4 diameter Vesica Piscis, or an 1/8 diameter Vesica Piscis – take your pick. The Elliptical Building (Temple of the Zodiac) is a 1/4 Vesica Piscis. The archaeologists are unlikely to know this, because it is not their field of expertise. But how do you not know this?


    This gives an error from an actual vesica piscis of about 25.4%.
    That is a huge error for a design based on simple geometry.

    Actually, the building is accurate to a couple of centimeters.

    It is not a 1/2 Vesica Piscis, it is a very precise 1/4 Vesica Piscis. And we know that the Vesica Piscis was the intended design, because when the temple was rebuilt in the 3rd century, it was redesigned as a very precise 1/7 Vesica Piscis.


    Moreover, this person was known as “the Egyptian”. But
    this is Jesus, a Jew? And Persian since he’s from Edessa?
    So Egypt and Edessa are the same region now?

    Have you never read the Bible? As this venerable book says: “Out of Egypt I have called my Son”. So yes, Jesus was (partly) Egyptian, just as were the Jews. Have you never read the Bible? Which nation did Joseph rule? Please do tell us.

    And the history of how an Egypto-Judaean princess ended up in Parthia, is given in ‘Cleopatra to Christ’.


    • I see I was mistaken. I saw the name “Silver Tate” rather than Ralph/Ralf Ellis, so I did not realize it was you, Ralph. And I see the reason you posted again is by changing your locale of emailing. So I have blocked that.

      For those that don’t know why, here is the quick-and-dirty version: Ralph was libeling my friend, Tom Verenna, and I told him not to do that on my blog page. He did. I also told him that he needed to apologize to me for claiming I lied about a specific bit of content in his book (in that book, Ellis claimed that Zoroaster [spelled Zoroastra in his volume] was a god; Ellis said he didn’t and claimed I lied, I showed him he did say just that, and Ellis acted like nothing happened). Libeling people, making demonstrably false claims about what is said and libeling me in particular, and then acting like nothing is the matter and then insulting me, along with being generally, let’s say, difficult to work with, gets the ban hammer.

      See here for details:

  14. Gospels and Paul’s and Peter’s lettres are all propaganda. Using what they say to prove or disprove Ellis or any other specialists is worth some laughing.

  15. May be we should all find out the true history. It is very clear that real history is hidden from humanity. Why not try reading Anatoly Fomenko’s new world chronology and watch videos done by Sylvie Iwanova on her yourtube channel newearth. For instance noone can explaine me why the country called Grand Tartaria is not in history books? The world is changing rapidly and the truth will be out soon for everything I hope.

  16. Love a good speculation based argument!

    I wonder when people are going to realize that Jesus didn’t actually die, he is believed to have been crucified, but equally believed is that he is in Heaven and ascended bodily into Heaven, like Enoch or Elijah, and no death means no death to resurrect FROM!

    Also, as if there were any actual support for the Jesus is God theory in the Gospels, and no information making this impossible (Greatest Commandment :The Lord OUR God is ONE GOD worship HIM, so also the most ignored Commandment), it is not possible for God to die, as all creation would perish with God.

    So while I find Mr Ellis to be a buffoon, I don’t know if he is to blame, after all if Christians weren’t so quick to deny God by worshipping the Messiah AS God, despite claiming they worship one God, who died, and one Who didn’t die and one who is just a Spirit from God, which is 3 and not one and a flagrant transgression of the Greatest Commandment, which is clear that God, the God OF Jesus, is ONE GOD, Worship HIM, if you didn’t ignore this like a Pharisee for the tradition of his fathers, the Nicene Creed that made it law, and pagan, people would not be writing this or reading it because they wouldn’t have a reason.

    As it is people do it because everyone but Christians know that 1 God is monotheism, but 3 is not, as every religion with more than one God admits, with the exception of the Trinitarians.

    Once you people realize Jesus was not a Christian and Abraham not a Trinitarian people will stop, but Christians are so stubborn not even the words of the man they call God can convince them he is not God and HAS A GOD. OUR GOD, OUR FATHER.

    Islam is the truth. Isa al Masih (as) is not God. He is the Messiah and did not die. Islam is the religion OF Isa (as), Christianity the religion that worships Isa (as).


  17. If you can’t convince Christians of simple matters like 3 and 1 being different numbers and the fact that Isa (as) HAS A God, a God who can not die and is superior to Jesus (as) according to Jesus, by simply quoting the Greatest Commandment and pointing out the fact that Trinity is not Biblical or Monotheistic by any means of logic, you will never be able to convince them that Jesus was the King of Edessa, because they wouldn’t care if the Bible said it, they believe that the Nicene Creed is more authoritative than the Gospels, we are not talking about a people who require logic and evidence to believe something, and evidence is usually discarded or explained by using so many words you forget the question.

    Because they have never been able to, never will be able to, use the Bible to support the Trinity, because it does not, and the fact that Jesus (as) having a God means he is not God, who does not have a God, goes in one ear and out the other.

    And this is IN THE BIBLE!!

    I don’t know what pseudo scholars like Ellis expect but he seems to want to be a hero for telling people something that they should know already and probably do but won’t admit it, which is that Jesus was a man, not a godman, and he did not die, is not dead, BECAUSE OF GOD.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s