Alternative Genealogy

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
you both seem to be going along with the Ellis version of the historical Manu VI being combined, together as Ellis has it, or perhaps as separate layers of, Izates Monobazus II and some Jewish War Jesuses for the Christ of the New Testament?
I don't see any reason to dispute Ellis's view that Manu VI is the same person as Izates Monobazus II, and indeed that the entire Abgarid dynasty of Edessa is exactly the same as Josephus's dynasty of Jewish converts in 'Adiabene'.

I'm not so completely sold on the idea that Josephus's high priest Jesus and his Galilean rebel Jesus are one and the same person, or that either one or both are the same person as Manu / Izates. If Bushby is correct, then we have two Jesus characters (twins) who were both sons of Miriamne Herod and the emperor Tiberius, and thus couldn't be the same person as Manu / Izates son of Helena and Phraates V/Abgarus V.

But, Bushby's Jesus twins could be the same as the Jesus characters in Josephus.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I'm not so completely sold on the idea that Josephus's high priest Jesus and his Galilean rebel Jesus are one and the same person, or that either one or both are the same person as Manu / Izates.
If not, could they be part of the "composite" Jesus that was created for the New Testament, composed of more than one actual person, since they all appear to be contemporary with each other?
If Bushby is correct, then we have two Jesus characters (twins) who were both sons of Miriamne Herod and the emperor Tiberius, and thus couldn't be the same person as Manu / Izates son of Helena and Phraates V/Abgarus V.
As far as Jesus and/or his twin being sons of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, I think that is the main reason that I put Bushby at the bottom of my listing. Personally, I cannot see Jesus being any natural or otherwise son of Tiberius, nor Tiberius being the "Panthera" soldier buried in Germany, unless Caligula really had him smothered and dumped the body there! However, as far as Jesus having a Judas Thomas brother, twin or not, Ellis does have a "Judas Thomas Didymus Thaddaeus (two apostles for one?) Addai) as the brother of "Manu VI/Izas Monobazus II/Jesus/Arthur" in his "Jesus, King of Edessa" genealogy. Again, I do not know if Ellis later updated or retracted any parts of this genealogy later on.
But, Bushby's Jesus twins could be the same as the Jesus characters in Josephus.
I like that! Both Bushby and Ellis seem to have a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" version of Jesus.
 

Seeker

Active Member
For the sake of convenience, since I will be using the genealogy found in the "Jesus, King of Edessa" book by Ralph Ellis, I shall use the initials "JKE" for it. It looks as though Ellis connects his genealogy to the genealogy proposed by Roman Piso, because the "Claudia Piso" on page 554 of JKE, married to "Gaius Julius Alexio" (Priest-King of Emesa), is the daughter, according to Roman Piso, of "his" Arrius Calpurnius Piso/Jesus/Josephus/St. Peter etc. Furthermore, this Gaius Julius Alexio is the son of Drusilla, the daughter of "Pantera" Ptolemy of Mauretania, who may be the secret father of the Ellis "Jesus". In other words, the daughter of Piso Jesus married the nephew of Ellis Jesus!
Two things must be borne in mind, here, however: (1) According to Roman Piso, "Jesus" was a literary invention of Arrius Calpurnius Piso (who may not even be real himself), along with Josephus and the rest of his Biblical identities, created for his New Testament, and so may not count as a real human being "Jesus", unless he is accepted as the pseudonym of a supposed Roman aristocrat, and (2) the "Julius Caesar" naming of these Emesan Priest-Kings was due to the fact that their family had supported Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, consequentially receiving Roman citizenship and taking the name of Gaius Julius, not because of any perceived blood relationship to the Caesars, in their case.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The possibility that Ptolemy of Mauretania was the true consort of Julia Ourania (aka Queen Helena) and thus the father of Izates Monobazus III (aka Jesus) is discussed at p. 309 of Ellis's King Jesus. However, this scheme seems to be modified somewhat in JKE. In the latter book, Ellis has decided that Jesus, son of Julia Ourania, is Monobazus II (Manu VI) rather than Monobazus III. The possible role of Ptolemy of Mauretania is only mentioned in the notes (p. 21) which states that Ptolemy's nickname was Pantera, same as Talmudic name for Jesus's father. Since this doesn't get mentioned in the text (at least if the index can be trusted), nor does it show up in the genealogy chart, it seems that Ellis may have backed off from this claim.

According to Roman Piso (Piso Christ, location 708) the daughter of Arrius Piso was Claudia Phoebe aka Pompeia Plotina, Trajan's wife, whose dates were ~77 CE to 129 CE. This doesn't seem to be the same person as the Claudia Piso who was married to Gaius Julius Alexio who died in 78 CE.

According to Roman Piso, "Jesus" was a literary invention of Arrius Calpurnius Piso (who may not even be real himself), along with Josephus and the rest of his Biblical identities, created for his New Testament, and so may not count as a real human being "Jesus",
Perhaps we could define the real historical person 'Josephus' as the one who wrote the Wars, Antiquities and Life? This 'Josephus' may have had some help from students, but I'm not aware that anyone has seriously contested that the works of Josephus show stylistic & thematic continuity that are indicative of a single primary author.

Whether this same person was a high-born Roman whose true identity was Arrius Piso, or whether he wrote the Pauline Epistles and/or Gospels, or whether Gospel Jesus is a pseudo-autobiographical representation of this person, would be much more controversial topics.

This is all very confusing, and now I'm not sure how Ellis Jesus is related to Roman Piso Jesus.
 

Seeker

Active Member
it seems that Ellis may have backed off from this claim.
Yes, it looked as though he might have in JKE, except for the Pantera mention, but in a 2018 You Tube video where he was lecturing on the genealogy of Jesus, he distinctly showed his audience a chart that had Ptolemy as the father of Jesus. I remember that well, but unfortunately I did not remember to save the video, as this was a couple of months ago, and I had no idea at the time that I would be starting this thread.
On the Roman Piso Homepage I see Claudia Phoebe/Pompeia Plotina as the second wife of Trajan, but on another site she is now a separate (and presumably much older) sister Claudia of Pompeia Plotina wife of Trajan and married to Gaius Julius Alexio. Another case of more recent info?
Perhaps we could define the real historical person 'Josephus' as the one who wrote the Wars, Antiquities and Life?
I agree 100% with that, because Josephus seems to be the only projected authentic person so far in that mix, although there certainly was a historical Roman Piso family, and now I just found that Ancestry has her as a sister of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, not a daughter.
This is all very confusing, and now I'm not sure how Ellis Jesus is related to Roman Piso Jesus.
If Ellis has not "disowned" Pantera Ptolemy, and if Claudia Piso who married Gaius Julius Alexio is not the same sister anymore as Pompeia Plotina who married Trajan, then her Piso Jesus father is the father-in-law of the Ellis Jesus nephew (because the mother of Alexio, Drusilla, would be the sister of Jesus if he is still the secret son of Pantera Ptolemy).
However, if none of the above sentence is true, Ellis Jesus would still be a half second cousin, once removed, to Gaius Julius Alexio, because of their common descent from Cleopatra, and his wife Claudia Piso would be thus be his half second cousin-in-law, once removed, sister of Piso Jesus, if of course Piso is not the actual son of Caligula (as you wrote about here), then Claudia would be his stepsister. Just sayin'.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I just found that Ancestry has her as a sister of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, not a daughter.
Somebody has been reading Roman Piso and/or Ralph Ellis, and making entries into the Ancestry genealogies based on their work. With all due respect to our favorite authors, my feeling is that Ancestry's quality control department ought to be alerted. This material is speculative and it ought to be flagged with a disclaimer. Conventional Roman historians up until now have had no clue that Arrius Calpurnius Piso ever existed.

About "Pantera" Ptolemy, note that the rumor about Jesus's paternity comes from the Talmud, which is not exactly an unbiased source. Instead, the rabbis had every motivation to undermine any claims of Jesus's divinity. So it's one thing to duly note that this scurrilous rumor exists, and quite another thing to take it seriously. Only Jesus's mother knows for sure.
 

Seeker

Active Member
With all due respect to our favorite authors,
Ralph Ellis is certainly one of those favorite authors on Postflaviana, are you also including Roman Piso, or am I reading this wrong?
Conventional Roman historians up until now have had no clue that Arrius Calpurnius Piso ever existed.
I think that you have hit the nail on the head here, and also concerning the "Pantera" parentage of Jesus. So do we go by "convention" for now, which may have been formulated to discourage alternative investigation, it is certainly a lot easier to do. The Pisos were a historical Roman family, so for now can we deduce that Claudia Piso, father uncertain, was a member of this family? Also, if we go by "convention", do we believe the New Testament instead of the Talmud, which tells us that Jesus was the son of Mary and the "secret" son of Joseph, with someone else as his actual father? Skeptics might just as well argue that the New Testament is not exactly an unbiased source, as the "Christians" had every motivation to undermine any claims of Jesus's illegitimacy. Perhaps two sides of the same coin, "divide and conquer?". Jesus's mother was sure enough about his real paternity to tell others, including her husband and her cousin Elizabeth, if we believe the "conventional" story of the Nativity, which many sincerely religious people do, and I am certainly not mocking them. I am only wondering if we need to read between the lines here, as Postflavians appear to do on topics such as these, and also including those alternative authors that I have listed, although they can certainly overshoot the mark and make themselves look ridiculous and us gullible if we believe them without question, as some might infer that reading the New Testament uncritically does also.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jesus's mother was sure enough about his real paternity to tell others, including her husband and her cousin Elizabeth, if we believe the "conventional" story of the Nativity, which many sincerely religious people do, and I am certainly not mocking them.
LOL!! I was meaning to be ironic in my post, and should've used more smiley emoticons.

Yes, Roman Piso is certainly among our favorite authors here, not respective of whether we believe all his theories can be treated as proven fact. And with Jesus's mother telling stories about a Virgin Birth, what are we supposed to think? If people sincerely believe these stories, Postflavians are certainly NOT above mocking them! Somebody must have been the real father, and the "conventional" story of the Nativity only invites scurrilous rumors.

If only we could order up a DNA test to get the true facts.
 

Seeker

Active Member
LOL, I should have warned you and Richard from the beginning about how literal-minded I can be when I am in a serious frame of mind! Glad to hear that we all like SOME of Piso, whether he is actually "Roman" or not (lol)! I was trying to be sensitive in case some viewers do have deep-seated personal religious beliefs, as some of my family and friends do. As far as DNA testing goes, are there not a number of people who claim to be descended from Jesus, let us put them to the test!
 

Seeker

Active Member
However, this scheme seems to be modified somewhat in JKE. In the latter book, Ellis has decided that Jesus, son of Julia Ourania, is Monobazus II (Manu VI) rather than Monobazus III.
So, I think we can agree that Manu VI (aka Izas Monobazus II aka Ellis Jesus?) was a historical person in the latest revision of Ellis in JKE? According to page 554 of that book, Ellis has a "Julia Emesa" as the wife of Gaius Julius Longinus Sohaemus, King of Emesa, and they have, among other children, Gaius Julius Avitus, shown without descendants. Please hold that thought for now, as on page 555 Ellis has the historical Agbar bar Izas VII aka Elymas ben Jesus (according to Ellis) as the son of the above Manu VI. I have found a pedigree without a source, which looks like something the French genealogist Christian Settipani may have hypothesized, or a more dubious genealogist named David Hughes, in which an unnamed daughter of Agbar VII marries this same Gaius Julius Longinus Sohaemus mentioned above, and has son Gaius Julius Avitus.
In this pedigree that I found, Gaius Julius Avitus has descents which can possibly be traced down to the present day. Thus, they would be the descendants of Manu VI/Ellis Jesus also. This hypothetical/possible descent goes down from the Kings of Armenia to the Mamikonians to the Visigoths to Charlemagne, which would make the many theoretical descendants of Charlemagne from Western Europe (including myself) as also the descendants of Manu VI/Ellis Jesus. Also, there are several theoretical descents through the Byzantine Emperors to Charlemagne descendant Charles Constantine, which leads to the wife of William the Conqueror, giving many of us with English heritage a Manu VI/Ellis Jesus pedigree from this line too.
Finally, going back to the JKE genealogy, Ellis has Julius Bassianus, Priest of Ela-gabal, as a brother of Gaius Julius Avitus, which would make Manu VI/Jesus the ancestor of the Severan Roman Emperors, including Elagabalus, who renovated Deva Victrix at Chester where his presumed gt-gt-gt-gt-grandfather Manu VI/Jesus lived. Incredibly, the pedigree that I found has Septimius Severus, the founding Severan Dynasty Roman Emperor who married Manu VI/Jesus descendant Julia Domna, as a maternal descendant (his mother was actually of Italian descent) of "alternate Savior" Roman Emperor Titus (and/or also Arrius Calpurnius Piso/Jesus in the Roman Piso pedigree), and having a daughter Bassina (not shown on the Ellis and Roman Piso pedigree charts) by an unknown woman, with her line going through to Constantine the Great and then on to Charlemagne (again)! To tie in Charles N. Pope and Tony Bushby with the Manu VI/Jesus/Arthur of Britain, we also have them both giving "Jesus" a "Bran the Blessed" alias, which would also lead to many descendants today for those of us who have royal Welsh ancestry. Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive Postflavians!
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Art thou the Son of Manu foretold unto us?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Very Good! Then you, Jerry, and Ralph Ellis must be the Three Wise Men who made me possible!!! Wait until Christmas when I become "Seeker's Messiah"! Guess what, I just got my final Y-DNA results in from FamilyTreeDNA, and my male line ancestors were living in North Africa about the time "Pantera" Ptolemy was King of Mauretania, so he might be my "secret" male line ancestor after all, just like you know who that Ellis is now fudging on, because the truth must remain hidden until the time is right (All I need to figure out now is how to be around in 2066, maybe I really will have to come down from "space" by then!).;)o_O:eek:
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I say that each and every one of us is the Son of Manu that was foretold unto us! But not all Manu are created Equal, at least not genealogically speaking.

The various individuals mentioned above in Seeker's post, such as Manu VI, Julia Emesa, Gaius Julius Longinus Sohaemus, Izas VII, Gaius Juliius Avitus, the Kings of Armenia, Charlemagne, William the Conquerer and so forth, all belong to the classification of "Royalty and Nobility of Western Civilization". In general, throughout recorded history, these "High Born" individuals have sought to marry other "High Born", either from their own country or internationally. The number of such Royals and Nobles has been relatively small in each generation, as the vast majority of individuals in classical and feudal societies were peasants, warriors, merchants and so forth, who were definitely NOT Royalty or Landed Gentry.

Thus, the population of Royals and Nobles in Western Civilization make a small, highly inbred pool of related individuals. To quote myself from an earlier thread:

"There's a lot of genealogical data available about this community. The best databases, such as ww-person.com and www.genealogics.org, have over 700,000 names in their indexes. A smaller database called royal92.ged has about 3,000 names, focussed on royalty and their immediate relatives. There's an interesting graphic tool at http://www.datasketch.es/october/code/nadieh/ that enables a visualization of the degree of interconnectedness among European royalty. One other site, www.thepeerage.com, also now has about 700,000 names in the database, but they mention in the FAQ that they calculate consanguinity whenever they can, and that they can name 3,910 ancestors for Prince Charles."​

As a very rough estimate: if the above databases cover 1000 years (~40 generations) with a reasonable level of thoroughness, they would document an average of 17,500 individuals per generation. And as discussed in my article "Genetics of the Oligarchs", (and also see Pedigree Collapse at Wikipedia): the phenomenon of pedigree collapse within a population of 17,500 individuals, occurs within less than 400 years. That is, we find that every Royal or Noble person alive at any given time, is descended from virtually each and every Royal or Noble person who was alive 400 years earlier, and who left any descendants at all.

And furthermore, many or most of those Royal and Noble men were "culturally degraded" individuals, who by no means confined themselves to monogamy with their High Born wives. To the contrary, they had plenty of kids with the servants, courtiers, and anyone else who caught their fancy. Some of these couplings were documented, but many were not. This means that at every generation, there was some leakage from the breeding pool of the Royals, into the general population. As a result, a reasonable guess is that all of us "White People" are related to some Western High Born person who was alive 700 or 800 years ago, or less.

Beyond that, we can probably all trace our genes back to Charlemagne, and from there back to Manu VI, whether we can prove it or not. But most of us have only a tiny percentage of "Royal Blood", based on some random coupling hundreds of years ago. By contrast, elite individuals can trace their descent to Charlemagne by many pathways, and nearly all their ancestors are among the "High Born".

In closing: to understand what I'm talking about, don't miss the interactive royal genealogy map at:

http://www.datasketch.es/october/code/nadieh/
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Yes, in my post I was also referring to articles that I had read in the past, stating that virtually everyone with Western European ancestry who is alive today is descended from Charlemagne, and that many people of English ancestry today are probably descended from William the Conqueror, though they cannot prove it generation by generation going back in time to them, only a small percentage can worldwide. By humongous contrast, we have the Habsburg dynasty with its past purposeful inbreeding, whom I have also read are the true de jure Roman Emperors of today, having the legal descent from both the Western and Eastern Roman Emperors passing to their Holy Roman Emperor Habsburg ancestors, and then to the Habsburg Emperors of Austria during the time of Napoleon. It must also be remembered that the last Emperor of Austria, the Blessed Karl, never formally abdicated the throne after World War I. The Elite take these things very seriously, even if we do not.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Beyond that, we can probably all trace our genes back to Charlemagne, and from there back to Manu VI, whether we can prove it or not.
Years ago I read that everyone on Earth today is a descendant of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, whether they know it or not, or whether they can prove it or not, which I find even more interesting now from my reading of Postflaviana. Did the first serious separating of the "wheat from the chaff" take place during this time frame, leaving the core tribal family of Elites in first place from then on?
 
Beware the Bushby, Jerry.
I don't see any reason to dispute Ellis's view that Manu VI is the same person as Izates Monobazus II, and indeed that the entire Abgarid dynasty of Edessa is exactly the same as Josephus's dynasty of Jewish converts in 'Adiabene'.

I'm not so completely sold on the idea that Josephus's high priest Jesus and his Galilean rebel Jesus are one and the same person, or that either one or both are the same person as Manu / Izates. If Bushby is correct, then we have two Jesus characters (twins) who were both sons of Miriamne Herod and the emperor Tiberius, and thus couldn't be the same person as Manu / Izates son of Helena and Phraates V/Abgarus V.

But, Bushby's Jesus twins could be the same as the Jesus characters in Josephus.
Everything I find from that author is BS! But what do you expect from the Mononeuronal Maniac from Maroochydore? Fanatic from Queensland's Sunshine Coast where only the prosperity gospel and holy-rollin' evangelism were ever taught.

I.e. the proper Jesus twin theory is Thomas.

Yours faithfully
Claude not from the Sunshine Coast though conceived atop the Great Dividing Range not too far from there.
 

Seeker

Active Member
we have the Habsburg dynasty
Actually, descendants of the Habsburg dynasty do actually rule in Europe today, for Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, is the great-grandnephew of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, just as the late Habsburg pretender Otto von Habsburg was. Liechtenstein, despite its diminutive size as a country, was once known as a billionaire tax haven, and Prince Hans-Adam himself is a billionaire, owning LGT banking group and being the richest monarch in Europe. His daughter-in-law Princess Sophie, born Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, is the daughter of Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, who is the heir presumptive to both the headship of the former royal Bavarian house and the Jacobite succession.
 
Dear Seeker,
I can only disagree with the emphasized section...
Liechtenstein, ... was once known as a billionaire tax haven...
...since Frank Lowy, Australia's flamboyant and noisy billionaire, parked much of his money there - and it's there still as far as I can tell.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Seeker

Active Member
Liechtenstein, ... was once known as a billionaire tax haven...
I'm not a billionaire so I can't tell, but my guess would be that this is the official line now about Liechtenstein being once known as a billionaire tax haven, since no action was taken in 2008 against Lowry and his sons for allegedly being involved (via LGT documents stolen by a former employee) with financial institutions in tax havens located in Liechenstein and Switzerland. After all, this was messing with the personal company and domain of the billionaire Prince Hans-Adam II of Habsburg descent, we are not amused!
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Actually, I think that Prince Hans-Adam II has the best of both worlds, as Roman Piso and Charles N. Pope have both mentioned that since World War II ended the great bankers and corporations now really run the world instead of the royal families, and Prince Hans-Adam II is actually a royal ruler AND a billionaire banker at the same time, in a supposedly small and insignificant country, what a great front for global activity by contrast! Interesting that he was born in Zurich (city of the "Gnomes") on Valentine's Day (a Roman feast day) in 1945, the year that World War II ended, and his name ends in "Adam", signifying a new beginning and a new world to be conquered by the Habsburg dynasty?
 
Top