Customer Reviews

King Jesus, from Kam (Egypt) to Camelot. (King Jesus of Judaea was King Arthur of Britain)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The latest book by author Ralph Ellis, "King Jesus", is nothing less than a tour de force. Ralph marshals a compelling case that the New Testament Saul and the Jewish historian Josephus are one and the same person. The claim may sound preposterous, but the reasoning behind the claim is what is important (one reviewer seems not to have understood this simple fact). In fact the author could have rested his case on the Saul-Josephus connection after the second chapter, but he continues to build the case throughout the book.

Other claims are made as well (which I won't go into as others have already mentioned them), but the author painstakingly and methodically builds his case for each claim--he works for his conclusions, he doesn't just assert them. The claim that Jesus cum King Arthur was exiled to the Deva Victrix fortress (which relies mainly on the author's analysis of the anomalous Zodiac arcurate found at that site) is mainly speculation--as the author admits. However, this is a setup for Ralph's next book and a La Brea tar pit for unsuspecting critics (he knows more than he lets on). Ralph likes to play his cards close to the vest as he did when introducing the Saul-Josephus connection in "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs".

While connecting the dots and decoding the New Testament, the author displays brilliant scholarship and a very engaging writing style. He is a bona fide writer--and a very talented one at that.
In short, "King Jesus" is a damn good read!

First, I'd like to say that I have read every book published by Ralph Ellis - cover-to-cover in detail, and all the appendices. They are that good. It is like reading an excellent mystery novel, except this is history! Outstanding scholarship, AND impressive lateral thinking.

(By the way, the chronologically first reviewer had no sense of Ellis' work. He skimmed for trivia, without wrapping his head around the larger issues surfaced in this book. He even admits only reading the first few pages. He is either a 'plant' for the orthodoxy, or a 'born again' type. The other reviewers cleave more to the true 'flavor' of the book.)

Now, to this book. Basically, Ellis states how his thinking was in his Acknowledgments page. "[This book] was intended as a joint effort on the subject of Saul-Josephus, but no agent or publisher was forthcoming and the project stalled. However, the concept still looked worthwhile, so I built it into an investigation into the entire New Testament."

With apologies to Ellis for 'reading him', this is probably what happened: Ellis did his usual excellent work, this time extending his earlier material on Saul-Josephus. The results clearly exposed some major inconsistencies in Biblical history. Various 'agents or publishers' took a look at his material, said "Oh, my God!", and either backed away slowly or ran screaming into the woods. They knew what a can of worms he was presenting them with. (Assuming no Orthodoxy freezeout.)

Ellis was then presented with either canning the project or making it acceptable in some way. I presume that he chose to 'water it down' or 'disguise it' by wrapping it in the Jesus and Grail materials (which DO provide much to think on). But, the really explosive and provable content remains the Saul-Josephus 'core'.

For anyone who allows themselves to think deeply about this, the Saul-Josephus identity should be both highly enlightening and troubling. This one man, who may have been a Roman agent since early in his career, has been responsible for much of the shaping and 'information flow' of his version of Christianity (or what Ellis calls 'Simple Judaism'). With the near-extermination of the original Jesus/James side (at the hands of the Roman legions), Saul-Josephus had a near free hand.

(Although Ellis does not speak of this, I feel that Saul-Josephus was unlikely to have been 'alone' in his later career. As Saul/Paul or Josephus, he was probably accompanied or even 'coached' on what he could speak or write. Remember, if he was not already a deep-cover Roman agent from his early days, he was a top Judaic general who had turned quisling against his own people. He was in a very vulnerable position. He was also [intentionally or not] one of the few top-level survivors of the day. If you were a Roman emperor or Roman intelligence officer, would you have failed to make use of this fabulous asset?)

Ellis does a virtually watertight proof that Saul and Josephus are the same person. His comparison list of the two lives (especially in the details) leaves any fair reader with no doubt. Other details from many sources corroborate the point. This is the true 'core' of the book.

Other 'gems' for me were: A real sense of how royalty moved, jousted, or intermarried (including spoils of war) in those times. A real sense of the region east of the river Jordan (Aurania, Bethanya, etc.) that has been mostly ignored or distorted in the Bible. A 'heads up' on the very unusual Dewa Victrix (Roman) fort at Chester, England. A sense (in continuation of his other Egyptian research) of how there is likely an underground stream of "heirs to the theology of Pharaoh Akhenaton and perhaps even bloodline descendants too" extending through Jesus and at least to Roman Emperor Elagabalus.

One cautionary note: Readers may not like some of what they read about Jesus' revised family history. If true (and Ellis makes a good case), Jesus' grandmother (Thea Muse Ourania, or Cleopatra of Parthia) was a real badass. She was given to the King of Parthia (Persia), Phraates IV, and had a son, Phraates V or Phraataces. Then, she "managed to manipulate the aristocracy into excluding all the king's other sons from the succession bar her own, and have them sent to Rome as hostages." Oh, and she also murdered (with or without help) her husband, Phraates IV, and then married her son, Phraataces. The latter was an Egyptian custom, but decidedly not Parthian. So, as a result of all of the above, the Parthian aristocracy raised an army and persuaded/drove Jesus' grandmother, son, and entourage westwards out of Parthia. Quite a black widow.

About the only minuscule criticism of the book (as mentioned by another) I have is that - while spell-checked - there are about a dozen cases where a sentence, if read through, has an obvious flaw (contradicts an earlier sentence, wrong name, etc.). These are easily unraveled by a conscious reader. I expect them to be gone in a later edition.

In summary, this is a must-read. If you are at all conscious, it will bring up quite a few feelings and a desire to know more. I recommend it highly. A slight caveat: You will get a better 'flavor' of the huge scope of the research by reading at least some of Ellis' other books first, although this is a true stand-alone.

Author Ralph Ellis has certainly impressed me with his exhaustive research and solid logic in most of his conclusions. Ellis is a great non-fiction storyteller and keeps the reader's interest moving along nicely.

The first half delves into the characters of Saul (St. Paul) and the 1st-century historian, Josephus Flavius, who both appear, through their identical families, travels, trials/tribulations, and writing styles, to have been the same individual. This section of the book also uncovers other 'Biblical' identities and offers an alternative, yet more plausible, timeline for New Testament events.

The second half begins by inspecting a 1st-century Roman garrison in Chester, England, containing a fountain in the center of a zodiacally-oriented Temple and separate bath quarters for a special 'exiled' prisoner of the Roman Empire; unusual in that it was built using the Thoth-cubit. Ellis then connects all the historical records and finds King Jesus of Gamala, his wives Mary & Martha, and the 12 Disciples engaged in the Jewish Wars, which ended with the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 A.D. John the Baptist, however, was beheaded in 33 A.D., according to the book's new timeline for Jesus.

Anyone interested in Grail lore should read Ellis' deconstruction of this saga in the book. His speculative arguments in favor of the King Jesus/King Arthur/wounded Fisher King characters, and how these 'myths' are linked to ancient Egyptian traditions, are on target. I do believe Jesus must have been the grandson of Cleopatra VII and Marc Antony, as Ellis suggests, in order to have the claim to the INRI/King of the Jews title.

A great read-- I've already read it twice on vacation! Highly recommended; Four & a half stars, points removed only for poor proofreading by Ellis' editor, though I am available!

Although, the Bible has a great moral tone for all mankind to follow and has filled the coffers of many that promote it, Josephus Flavius, alias Saul (St.Paul)being the first. Investigative author, Ralph Ellis says it ain't so in his book, King Jesus. Who would have thought that behind the scenes another story emerges of a wealthy man of royalty named Jesus, who had fought the Romans and lost. Survived a crucifixion and ended up as prisoner of the Romans in England, and in those part known as, King Arthur. What is the true story then? you decide, although I'm leaning towards......

The Bible is that special genre of literature known as historical fiction.

In his previous work on The Exodus, Ralph Ellis laid the foundation for this latest book by showing, once again, how The Bible consolidates & displaces historical people, places & events by putting them into a FALSE time which renders history into myth. This is precisely why the preponderance of archaeological artifacts & records demonstrates the failure of The Bible to establish a valid historical timeline that is consistent with the evidence. This is mainly due to the ideological practice of trying to selectively correlate bits & pieces of evidence to "prove" The Bible "correct" instead of the opposite method of correlating it to the majority of historical evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that so-called "biblical history" has no consistent basis in real time.

In "Exodus & Tempest", Ellis showed how The Old Testament condensed two historical events almost two hundred years apart, i.e. the Hyksos Expulsion or Big Exodus (1534 B.C.) & the Amarna Exile of the heretic pharaoh, Akhenaten, or Little Exodus (1353 B.C.) into a single event, mythos. Subsequently, in "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs", Ellis unraveled the history of Jesus of Gamala, the first elected High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple, who was crucified by the then Roman general & future emperor, Vespasian, but saved by the infamous, Jewish/Roman soldier/historian, Flavius Josephus (the "Benedict Arnold" of Israel), then known as Saul of Tarsus who subsequently became the Apostle Paul. Jesus of Gamala was then exiled to a prison/fortress in the outskirt wilderness of the Roman empire, i.e. the British Isles. In this latest book, Ellis consolidates all his previous books into a master work that shows Jesus of Gamala's historical & cultural origins in the origins of Judaism, an offshoot of the mystery schools of the Egyptian pharaohs.

By showing the descent of Jesus of Gamala as the great grandson of Julius Ceasar & Cleopatra VII by way of their daughter, Queen Thea Muse Ourania (Thermusa), the exiled queen of the Persian/Parthian empire, Ellis begins the process that eventually connects Jesus to Moses (Egyptian Crown Prince, Tuthmoses, brother of Akhenaten). Thea Muse's daughter, Julia Ourania, the now famous, Queen Helene (actually, former queen of the Hellenes or Greeks) of Adiabene (a Jewish kingdom on the shores of the Caspian Sea in Northern Iraq) who's giant tomb with rolling stone was recently excavated in Jerusalem, completes Ellis' thread that establishes the various links that made Jesus the heir to the largest empires in the history of planet Earth, i.e. Egypt, Persia, Greece & Rome.

There is a substantial body of written material that explicitly identifies Jesus with the Glastonbury area of Cheshire England. It is not clear to me whether this association is with a young Jesus, or a young and old Jesus. The least we conclude is that Jesus visited this area of England with his uncle Joseph of Arimathea when Jesus was a child. Joseph of Arimathea owned British mines and operated large oceangoing ships.
I have come to the conviction that Chester in Cheshire England is central to the core story of the foundation of Christianity there before the establishment of it in Rome. Those who have studied the establishment of the Christian religion know that there is scriptural basis sufficient to make it statistically likely that Jesus lived a well-documented life. Some have questioned this. That documentation is catalogued [...]
With the massive and ancient body of scripture it has, it is not surprising that the Christian religion has a wide variety of liturgies and some differences in details in texts. A great mass of Gnostic scripture was peremptorily rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to meet the doctrinal demands of Roman Emperor Constantine. Since then the canon has been varied quite a bit by innumerable denominations.
Superficial scan of the cited source of Christian apologetic references show that this religion has had its skeptics and detractors. Most fair-minded students of it will agree, however, that Jesus the Christ (anointed king) has had a long run in popular literature, starting near the time Bibles declare he lived. I am satisfied that we have secular and doctrinal evidence Jesus lived and was crucified--but controversy on resurrection.
Author Ralph Ellis has complicated history and lore around the name Chester. He puts forward evidence to show that Jesus the Christ may have been confined in a special detention camp there. That flies in the face of orthodox Christian belief. Most Christians are firm in their belief that Jesus was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven from Jerusalem, to which he will return in his ultimate glory.
Assuming that there was the detention camp that Ralph Ellis suggests was built in Chester between 75 and 77 A.D. to house a Jesus who survived the crucifixion, what is a possible alternate to occupancy of it by Jesus? First of all, we should note that Jesus would have been an old man at the time he supposedly resided there. Where might he have lived for more than thirty years between crucifixion and confinement?
Best guesses, based on current popular DAVinci Code sources, Egypt and the south of France seem to be good bets, if Jesus survived his admittedly short crucifixion. It seems likely that the Romans had enough trouble with Jesus in Jerusalem that they would have surveillance on him constantly, wherever, if a deal had been made that enabled his survival of crucifixion. Such a recovery may have taken months to years.
Ellis assumes that as a Jewish rabbi Jesus would have been a married man. Popular lore identifies Mary Magdalene as his wife. This absolutely defies Roman Catholic doctrine and sensibilities. I will point out in passing, however, that the great Roman Catholic churchman William Payette of St. Amour took on the Roman Catholic hierarchy in his condemnation of celibate clergy in his Signa identifying Catholic errors.
William Payette was excommunicated. If the Ralph Ellis thesis is to have validity, Jesus would have to have been put into a sort of Roman "witness protection" program. If Mary Magdelene went into that program with Jesus, it seems possible that she may have borne him a child. If that happened it might have complicated the dynastic political issue. It is possible to see where castration might have been performed.
These things give Ellis possibility if not credibility in a Quantum Physics universe. If it happened, Jesus would have been assigned at least a Roman military squad to guard him. Knowing Jesus from the scriptures that guard squad would have soon been devout Christians. And Jesus would have ministered to a faithful flock wherever he was confined. Growth of a flock would complicate the crucifixion survival.
Given the possibility of basis in fact for the King Jesus of Ralph Ellis, logic seems to drive the theoretical inevitability of such a priest king being relocated to a place out of reach of new adherents to his militant flock. The Dewa Fortress of King Jesus in Chester of Ellis's book would fill the need for isolating the priest king, while providing him a modest dignified but functional living space and religious chapel.
I believe the The History of Chester, Pennsylvania, by Morgan Kelly is driven by the lore that inspired the speculations of Ralph Ellis. It is hard to ignore the myth in culture and history. I think that King Jesus lore is behind the selection of it for the site of the first town in the Penn colony, in keeping with the strong Quaker convictions of Pate, Penn, and Pitt shipbuilders in colonial America:
"Today, Chester is a city of about 42,000 people. It occupies only 4.8 square miles, and is located just 15 miles south of Philadelphia. In the past, Chester's location along the Delaware river made it ideal for small-scale manufacturing. It was the sight of William Penn's first landing in Pennsylvania,in 1682, and by the early 1700 it was a successful mill town by. In fact, Chester's economy continued to grow all the way up until 1940. The 1880 census shows that Chester made ships, steel, iron, brass, cloth, carriages, barrels, shoes, and pottery. It also had an oil refinery and a chemical manufacturing plant. Throughout the first part of this century, Chester was widely known as a center for economic growth. Industries like Sun Ship, Scott Paper and Ford Motor Company employed so many people that they were small cities onto themselves. Many people moved to Chester to find work, including a large number of blacks from the south and many immigrants from Poland and the Ukraine. Chester was well know for its jazz scene and it's good educational system."
Wikipedia expands on the Chester history to show involvement in Pennsylvania of Baltic descent of Frisian Water Lords: "The first European settlers in the area were Swedes. They called the settlement that became Chester first Finlandia, then Upland. They built Fort Mecoponacka in 1641 to defend the settlement built in Chester in 1690 by Swedish farmers, was moved to Wilmington, Delaware, in 1958...
"Chester's naval shipyard supplied the Union during the Civil War, and the United States in subsequent wars until the shipyard at Philadelphia became dominant after World War II. America's largest postbellum shipyard, John Roach's Delaware River Iron Ship Building and Engine Works, was also located at Chester. The Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., later Pennsylvania Shipyard & Dry Dock Company, was located in Chester until it closed in 1990. Two ships of the United States Navy have been named USS Chester in honor of the city."
If Jesus survived crucifixion it seems unlikely to me that the reporting gospel writers were party to the conspiracy. Some have claimed arrogant cynicism behind the scriptures. Compound cynicism with lying fraud, and it is not likely the gospels could have survived. It seems likely to me Jesus was a brilliant teen in Chester, and that his brilliance was enhanced by God's manifestation in him in his Jerusalem ascension.
This matter is going to get significant credentialed academic attention. My ignorance and age preclude my making any contribution to the study of it. We have to presume that the DaVinci Code adherents will spearhead the ultimate story telling. In the meantime the faithful (of whatever convictions) will have their faith tried and titillated, as the world's faiths are pruned and trellised to provide religions that compute.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing," and nowhere is this saying more appropriate than with Ralph Ellis's King Jesus. Some of the book's outlandish ideas might be palatable if they were found in a work of fiction, as in the case of Robert Graves' novel, King Jesus. But Ellis' work purports to be a work of serious scholarship. There are a multitude of unrelated `facts' jumbled together, at times without rhyme or reason. The first shock that confronts the reader is three pages of "Advertisements" at the front of the book, advertising Ellis' previous books. In the first chapter, "History or Faith" he unashamedly makes reference to each of these works of his, with the exception of Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots," which, however, he references on p. 513.
Regarding Jesus, he says: "This is the rich, powerful, aristocratic and princely Jesus, the Jesus with palaces, riches, castles and a private army." "Jesus was a royal prince in exile, a legitimate claimant to the thrones of Egypt and Persia (and Rome)." Also: "Jesus was acknowledged by many as the `Christ,' meaning king," [`Christ' actually means `anointed' or `Messiah.'] an assertion that he backs up with Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, published in 1832. He claims Jesus' mission and death occurred in the AD 60s rather than in the AD 30s. Jesus was "sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Artur-tii ... or King Arthur and the Twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table." But his biggest `find' is that Paul (Saul) was in reality Josephus Flavius , the renowned historian. He has identified 21 similarities between the New Testament Saul and the first-century Josephus Flavius, using as his sources the New Testament and the works of Josephus. Then he says: "Is it not amazing that this similarity between the life of Josephus and that of Saul has not been commented on before, except in my books?" He does admit that "the idea of Saul being Josephus Flavius brings with it some thorny theological problems, especially regarding the chronology of Jesus' mission in Judaea." But not to be deterred by traditional scholarship or just plain commonsense, he continues: "Nevertheless, this very novel theory does explain some interesting theological puzzles." He also believes that much of the Acts of the Apostles was written by Saul, not by Luke as just about every other Biblical scholar believes.
Another thing that Ellis cannot understand is why we don't have more of the writings of the disciples. He writes: "There is ... no good reason why Jesus' disciples could not have been taking notes and writing diaries themselves." He seems unaware of the fact that people who thought the Kingdom of God was at hand would not be interested in recording contemporary events for the sake of future generations. Ellis laments: "Where is the Gospel according to Jesus, Joseph, Mary or Joseph of Arimathea?"
He says Elymas bar Jesus "was called a magi ..." Unfortunately `magi' is the plural form; Ellis means `magus.' He uses the terms `Syrio-Jordan" and `Judaeo-Israel.' He means `Syria-Jordan' (or `Syrio-Jordanian') and `Judah-Israel (or Judaeo-Israelite'). `Syrio' and `Judaeo' require the following element of the compound word to be an adjective, not a noun.
This critique covers only the first 33 pages of the text. You can imagine where he goes in the next 548 pages. Save your money and time by not reading this drivel. The only kind thing I can say about it is that Adventures Unlimited Press has finally published a book with an index, but this is no doubt due to its primary publisher Edfu Books of England.