Ellis often makes these claims that two or more historic characters, traditionally considered to be different people, are in fact one and the same. And he might very well be correct in those claims, because the coincidences are quite remarkable. But we also have to keep in mind, that it's possible that the similarities might be typological or literary. Or, that one historical character could be deliberately emulating another. Or even that strange coincidences can happen.
OK, I fixed the problem ;):

... David and Solomon were actually Tanitic pharaohs - at the precise time accorded for David and Solomon in the Bible.

Well, yes, Jerry, this would be somewhat of a typological issue, as the Biblical David and Solomon, as depicted in the Bible, never existed. There being only one minute archaeological reference to a minor tribal chief named David. And nothing else. And then there is such as how all the Davidic lineage names match up to the line of these same pharaohs so well.

These Tanis pharaohs were actually so rich that they had 'silver' death masks, as opposed to such as Tut's mere gold mask. Silver was much more valuable back in that day, as it was much rarer than gold, which the pharaohs had plenty of.

What we are seeing here is a very similar textual transposition of locations as Ellis points out for the real, contrived, controlled opposition, revolution of nominal Jews (the Galilean Egypto-Jews - the royal Nazarites) in that their foundational gospel narratives are shifted from 'Syria' to Galilee and Judea. In this case the narrative transposition is from Tanis (Zoan) to Jerusalem (later Zion). There has always been a problem with this issue of such as what was Mount Zion, versus Mount Moriah. And the initial seat of governance was Bethel, in what was known as Ephraim (not Judea).

Even the name Tamar, matriarch of the Jews, was a common royal Egyptian name of the Tanitic period.

This text of Isaiah is supposedly from the wider period when non-compliant tribes are being swapped out for compliant (and non-Semitic) ones, such as Gomer (from Hosea 1:1). The same thing would occur later with the Ashkenazim (who are also Gomers).

And while the texts have us transfixed on the 'Holy Land', various Sab...s are setting up in today's Yemen, and the Italian peninsula. As Sabines, the latter would later transition further northward into Sabaudia (where there is a Sion in Sabaudia's Haute Savoy). These Savoys are the current royals of Italy (having completed a time-out for their involvement with Mussolini's Fascists) and have a noble House of Savoy branch in England, where they gave birth to the Congregationalist denomination (whose ministers were frequently leaders of the Skull and Bones Society of Yale).

If two names equal one person, could it be we are seeing reassigned originals taking on a new persona?
I have argued for such duality for such as the pharaohs Seti I and Horemheb, that they were real 'Exodus' leaders (when they were 18th Dynasty generals before later becoming 19th Dynasty pharaohs). As discussed in the Sabbah brothers' Secrets of the Exodus the tomb murals of Seti I depict scenes that one might indeed take from the Exodus.

Remember that phrase, "How come we never see you with so and so?". And how much easier to pull such a ruse off before television and photographs.
This is important, because as Ellis has demonstrated in his prior books, David and Solomon were actually Tanitic pharaohs - at the precise time accorded for David and Solomon in the Bible.

I wouldn't persist in complaining about this, except that Ahmed Osman and Charles Pope have both "demonstrated" that David and Solomon were "actually" the Theban 18th dynasty pharaohs Thutmose III and Amenhotep III, respectively.




If you look through Pope's list of parallels, I think they're at least as strong as what Ellis came up with for David=Psusennes II and Solomon=Siamun. Although Pope and Osman's formulation opens up a chronological can of worms, putting David & Solomon before Moses in temporal sequence. (Osman and Pope endorse the Akhenaten=Moses theory.)
This seems to me to be a generally similar problem with that of the fictional Jesus of Nazareth becoming the avatar for the full range of imperial Caesars, the gospel character having typological elements cribbed from numerous prior real individuals. As well, it seems obvious that various narrative details of the Solomonic Queen of Sheba were cribbed from those of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III's predecessor.
This seems to me to be a generally similar problem with that of the fictional Jesus of Nazareth becoming the avatar for the full range of imperial Caesars, the gospel character having typological elements cribbed from numerous prior real individuals.

Would you agree, then, that being a fictional avatar of a full range of historical Pharaohs, is not the same thing as "actually" being one of those Pharaohs?
I only said "generally similar". :)

In these specific instances, given the match in lineal names, these parallel Judaic and Egyptians characters may indeed be (mostly) the same real-life persons. All 'good' Shepherds BTW.

I also think that here we can also see the analytical value of Ellis' Two Exodus approach. The first being the mass expulsion of the common Semitic peoples ('operative' shepherds), who were in Egypt because of famine (ignoring what may have really been going on within the royal courts -- of the ('speculative') Shepherd Kings), and the second being purposely conflated with the much later expulsion of the court of Akhenaton, both serving to roughly bookend the 18th Dynasty.

It was Amenhotep III who set the Egyptian religio-political dialectic into motion with his open expression of contempt for the powerful cult and priesthood of Amun and his claim to being a deity. We can only conjecture (Collusion not Conspiracy ;)) what the purpose of his state visit to Mycenae was about, but we know from our Western Cultural record that these people (and Helen) were at very center of the Trojan War - that demarcated the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, leaving only Egypt standing. Like Nero figuratively playing his Sabine fiddle while Rome burns, Akhenaton ignored the pleas of his Canaanite vassals to assist them against such as the Apiru. With the latter, we have seen the letters written by them to Amarna.

Ordinarily, a pharaoh would be very intent on protecting his vassals from competing empires, but here maybe Akhenaton was indeed 'omniscient', because soon Hatti and such would be gone.

If we use 'modern' history as an example, we see that WWI was necessary to create the social predicates to enable Hitler's apocalyptic movement, and the poisonous fruits are feeding into today's redux promising even wider spread results. As such, WWI and WWII allowed for the testing and tweaking of shepherding techniques as well as pre-positioning the chessboard. As such, perhaps we should read Thutmoses III and Amenhotep's precipitating actions in the same or similar ways?
Regarding the identity of Josephus, Jerry and Joe's podcast on Abelard Reuchlin considers the possibility that one Arrius Calpernious Piso is Josephus and from the Antonine line. Given the lack of free speech and creative expression in Rome, someone of sufficient clout would of course be the author or, more likely, the overseer of the committee to frame history to advantage. I wonder, then, if the concept of singular authorship is also a feint to imply great individuals shape history (and record it) rather than admit all of history, so recorded, is a committee decision. This concept of individual authorship would allow the individual imagination to entertain fanciful notions of singular greatness where, to be honest, none will ever be allowed to exist, at least to a wider public. Myths of this sort would keep people from organizing their thoughts and , god forbid, organizing their neighbors in an attempt to create a useful counter culture.
(A while ago, a Scottish fellow was making the rounds explaining somewhat incoherently that Mozart was a fraud but promoted as a singular genius to intimidate outside talent from attempting to compete, thus allowing the patronizing courts to control the culture with selective promotion. I actually buy this idea as one need only look at how synthetic talent today imprints young minds, manipulating their emotions and staying with them through adulthood during spasms of nostalgia for a lost youth)
Certainly the Piso's should be considered as at least part of the construction.

As to your conjecture, the Christian gospels, at least, are considered by most to have had separate hands, so we would only be discussing those few, like us, that consider such as the gospels being interwound with Josephus. I think that it makes sense that an imperial team would have been employed, much as some suggest for Shakespeare's corpus.

Maybe the possible reduction to the entities of Josephus and Saul/Paul was designed to further disguise the true team authorship? This gives people fewer historical threads to trace back and start to tear the story apart easier.

Here's yet another possibility besides Piso, one of the (later) Pollio's:

Now is come the last age of the Cumaean prophecy: the great cycle of periods is born anew. Now returns the Maid [Virgo in the Latin -rs] , returns the reign of Saturn: now from high heaven a new generation comes down. Yet do thou at that boy's birth, in whom the iron race shall begin to cease, and the golden to arise over all the world, holy Lucina, be gracious; now thine own Apollo reigns. And in thy consulate, in thine, O Pollio, shall this glorious age enter, and the great months begin their march: under thy rule what traces of our guilt yet remain, vanishing shall free earth for ever from alarm. He shall grow in the life of gods, and shall see gods and heroes mingled, and himself be seen by them, and shall rule the world that his fathers' virtues have set at peace.
Nevertheless there shall linger some few traces of ancient wrong, to bid ships tempt the sea and towns be girt with walls and the earth cloven in furrows. Then shall a second Tiphys be, and a second Argo to sail with chosen heroes: new wars too shall arise, and again a mighty Achilles be sent to Troy. Thereafter, when now strengthening age hath wrought thee into man, the very voyager shall cease out of the sea, nor the sailing pine exchange her merchandise: all lands shall bear all things, the ground shall not suffer the mattock, nor the vine the pruning-hook; now likewise the strong ploughman shall loose his bulls from the yoke. Neither shall wool learn to counterfeit changing hues, but the ram in the meadow himself shall dye his fleece now with soft glowing sea-purple, now with yellow saffron; native scarlet shall clothe the lambs at their pasturage. Run even thus, O ages, said the harmonious Fates to their spindles, by the steadfast ordinance of doom. Draw nigh to thy high honours (even now will the time be come) O dear offspring of gods, mighty germ of Jove! ...

While it seems clear to me that Virgil is indeed writing about Octavian Augustus Caesar, some conjecture that he was writing about one of the contemporaneous Pollio's sons for some odd reason.

Pollio - Paul?

In any case, I just noted the reference to a second Argo and a revisiting of Troy. The siege of Jerusalem. All in a context of precessional ages.

I actually buy this idea as one need only look at how synthetic talent today imprints young minds, manipulating their emotions and staying with them through adulthood during spasms of nostalgia for a lost youth)
Well, this seems to be the case with Culture in general right? This imprinting is primal, how ducks and geese do it, even educated fleas do it.
Last edited:
Part 14:

Chapter 14 of King Jesus is interestingly about Ellis' notion that the Arthurian corpus is a cryptic retelling of the real story of Jesus, by some specific people that I have been focused separately on for some time, the Normans. This last is significant in terms of my interest in their role in the Norman Conquest beginning in 1066 CE, precisely 1,000 years after the start of the Jewish War. And then that the Normans (and Templars) would soon find themselves rummaging around the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. The Templars are well known by buffs to have revered John the Baptist over Jesus, and, of course, Ellis has discussed the reason why in the book.

(I think it's also helpful to keep in mind, like the later Templars and Knights of Hospitaler/Malta, etc., that JoB is the head of a type of secret society, and that even the gospels record such as Jesus (the 'Nazarene') being adherents. As well as Simon Magus and the disciples. These then function much like the Freemasons of recent centuries.)

Ellis begins by examining the so-called Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian legends, a collection of 6 disjointed 'romance legends' about various aspects that were later assembled with others into what popularly became what most of us came to know about Arthur and Camelot. As such, one of the curious aspects that come to light is the character of Joseph of Arimathea, making an appearance in England (4 or 5) centuries after the Biblical events. One of the works even makes links between England and 'Syria', convenient for Ellis' construction.

What to make of this, when just as today, anyone roughly familiar with the Christian narrative, at that time, would know who Joseph of Arimathea was? Complimentary to Ellis' claims here, I say that this stunning anachronism was intended as a (deniable) signal to alert readers that the rest of the text(s) must be properly read through a cryptic lens to determine what is really being related by the author(s). The anachronism is so bizarre that it allows for deniability as it being some sort of artistic whimsy. In these days the exoteric church was rabid about maintaining orthodoxy, and claiming that Biblical characters were roaming around England within chronologically possible times, doing Dogod knows what, was a problem for them.

As Ellis goes on, in some considerable length, we can see his retelling of the real Jesus (of Gamala, Izates, ... ) in the makeup of King Arthur, as well as with Guenevere and others. And that this seems to fit in well with Ellis' theory of the purpose of the building complex at the Dewa Fortress, aka Camelot. Even the name Camelot referring to Egypt and 'the Egyptian' of the NT and Josephus. With the latter, Ellis discusses Joseph of Arimathea as being Joseph(us) of Arimathea. And of course, one has to resolve that Josephus is the one that 'saved' the man on the cross, as Joseph of Arimathea was responsible for taking the gospel Jesus down from the cross (with curious permission from the authorities).

Given the incestuous and byzantine elite begettings that Ellis describes, all consistent with the royal 'Egyptian' theme, perhaps Josephus was actually Jesus of Gamala's uncle despite being of approximately the same generation.

This also gets us to that famous Arthurian aspect of the sword of Excalibur and the mysterious stone it was embedded in. This gets us to a subsequent discussion (Chapter 16) about the curious Severan ('Syrian') emperors (of Rome), especially Elagabalus and his famous stone. As such, Ellis believes it likely that this stone, at some point, made its way to the second incarnation of the Vesica Piscis structure at the Dewa Fortress. What came after that is anyone's guess, possibly it becoming the famous Stone of Destiny, or Stone of Scone of Scotland. In any case, Ellis goes into a discussion of various accounts of such 'oracle' stones, such as the Ben-Ben Stone of Heliopolis, and showing how the various historical accounts might indeed be talking about the same magnetic meteoritic artifact. This stone (or stone) is curiously like the statement accorded to the gospel Jesus where he states to Peter, that he will be the 'stone' that the Church will be built atop.

And so we were left with an exoteric church formed from the corpus and efforts of Paul/Josephus, and an esoteric 'church' of elites based upon the efforts of the likes of JoB and Jesus. As is accorded for Peter, he has one foot in each room, which is really telling us that the real 'players' well understand the dual existence of the inner and outer churches. The common man is afforded superstitious miracles and restated morals from prior strata of 'pagan' religion, while the elites maintain a monopoly over higher knowledge which they occasionally deploy against the masses as perceived miracles.
Part 15:

Ellis briefly mentions the usual origin story of the Normans as being what, in only a very few generations, became of otherwise rude Vikings that had once been sea raiding the local regions just beyond their Scandinavian homelands. After having taken what became 'Normandy' in today's northwestern France, their king, Rollo, made a deal with the king of France. In the subsequent few generations these pacified 'Vikings' had become fluent speakers of the French tongue, converted to Christianity (expedience or sincere?), had turned Normandy into the crown jewel of European higher education, and sponsored an architectural genre known as 'Romanesque'. This style (and its quality) is so close to the grand original 'Roman' architecture that it is difficult for one otherwise versed in the latter to distinguish between the two, if prior being unfamiliar with the particular structure in question.

Ellis also mentions that this Scandinavian Viking heritage is what's responsible for all the 'red' (including orange) hair associated with the Normans.

As such, this scenario makes little sense to me, and that it seems much more likely that this Scandinavian business is a convenient cover story. Instead, I think what happened here was yet another episode of a frequently employed modus operandi of power cuckolding. This being what appears to have really happened with the Hyksos elites, probably never having been Semitic like the common literal nomadic shepherd folk seeking famine relief in Egypt. As alluded to in the Abraham and Sarah account with fooling pharaoh, they cuckolded their way into the Egyptian royalty, likely leading to the founding of the 18th Dynasty, with Ahmose I claiming to have kicked the Hyksos out of Egypt. He did, just like Trump ironically sending the immigrant 'invaders' packing back to Canaan and such, being a descendant of such 'invaders', albeit of a higher social status and of different blood.

Later, after having metaphorically weeded the Promised Land's 'garden' (ethnic cleansing), they would graft their elites into the midst of the remaining Canaanite tribes, who had prior also undergone the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, their cities and kings have collapsed as a result, leaving a remnant of egalitarian common folk, developing a tradition of ad hoc (and somewhat non-dynastic) kingship, called judges.

Near the end of 'Judges' period a Danite (whose origins were in Egypt via Mycenaean Greece) noble (cum Nazarite) named Samson would metaphorically kill a young lion with his bare hands, leaving the carcass to oddly become home to a hive of honey bees. The lion is the biblically assigned symbol of Judah, and thus we see via this metaphor that Judah, and its original ethnic Identity and supposed leadership role, has been absconded with.
In other words, Identity Theft.

'NZR', from the Egyptian, means 'prince' and thus what is related to such. 'Nazarenes' thus mean followers of the (Egyptian) royal line, now grafted into the Promised Land.

Variations of the same would be followed with such as the foundational ruse of the "Rape of the Sabine Women" allowing the Sabines to take over early Rome from the Tarquin kings. Romulus would ascend to Heaven and become a god, just as would the later Norman great, George Washington. Sabine kingship would be eschewed by the new republic (as did George), power being held by the aristocratic slaveowning senators and the consuls. That is, till Julius Caesar's Civil War and the launching of the imperium. Such as Julius Caesar and his kind would utilize alliance marriages (and subsequent back-breeding) in combination with military conquests to Romify pagan Europe, with the subsequent addition of Christianity making the process even more efficient. (For Christ's sake, Jesus made me do it, not the mere swords of foreigners.)

After various geopolitical machinations, these Sabines would transition north to such as Venice and 'Sabaudia' (now, the Italian Piedmont, the French Burgundy, and the Swiss Haute Savoy). The later Dutch House of Orange originated in Burgundy, and it would later find itself ensconsed on the throne of England, with William and Mary. As well, the House of Savoy would end up in England and as well become the current royal house of today's Italy. And so it would go and goes. Rinse and repeat.

In subsequent efforts Ellis has made the equation with the royal 'Orange' of later days and Ourania from Queen Thea Muse Ourania. From this we find interesting and compelling links to the apocryphal legends of Mary Magdalene and such the the Virgin Mary (as) and the Black Madonna (Isis) in other parts of southern France.

I forgot to add that in addition to such as red hair, typical of Sabine royalty, at least, one can comparatively examine the unique gaunt facial characteristics of typical British (Norman till today except for more recent Jewish paid memberships into the peerage) nobility. That is, to compare these Normans to that of faces we are shown for modern Scandinavians or depictions of Vikings of yore. However, I suppose that possibly a case can be made that such gauntness is a function of the strangely abysmal food that the English elites were programmatically forced to eat (or else starve) in their elite prep schools and universities for generation upon generation.

Additions made on 8/3/19
Last edited:
I'm new here, but I've read most of the articles and books being discussed. It was the Ellis material that drew me in, so I've particularly enjoyed this thread. I'll probably have some thoughts and questions down the line, but now I wanted to ask about another book with an interesting perspective on the Christ question: THE REAL MESSiaH: MARCUS AGRIPPA AND THE GOSPEL OF ST MARK by Stephen Huller. It seems that Agrippa was an important part of the Alexandria scene, along with Philo and Alexander. Have you had chance to read it?
It was quite a few years ago that I read the Huller book. Here's what I wrote about it when it was clearer in my mind.


Stephen Huller in The Real Messiah proposed that the ‘historical Jesus’ was the leader of a rebellion of the Samaritans during the reign of Pontius Pilate. As Josephus told the story of this event, a certain rebel leader inspired “a multitude” of armed Samaritans to gather with the goal of climbing Mt. Gerizzim to see “sacred vessels” placed there by Moses; but Pilate’s police routed the rebellion, and captured and executed the rebel leader (Josephus, Ant 18.4.85-87).
As a rebel “ordered to be slain” by Pontius Pilate in ~37 CE, this character seems to be an excellent candidate for ‘historical Jesus’ according to Ehrman’s criteria: at least, he is a Jew (although presumably a Samaritan) who lives at the right time and place, and who was a popular preacher — although Josephus does not tell us exactly where or how he was executed.
Huller goes on to argue that this Jesus was portrayed by the Herodians as a forerunner to another Messiah who would come as the political savior of the Jews. In order to fulfill that prophecy, Huller argues, the young Marcus Julius Agrippa (that is, Herod Agrippa II, then age 8) went to Alexandria in 38 CE, where he was crowned as the Messiah and King of the Jews. This coronation was said to be engineered behind the scenes by Philo, Marcus’s mother (or grandmother) Mary Salome, and the new Emperor Caligula.
The centerpiece of Huller’s evidence for his theory is an artifact called the “Throne of St. Mark.” Huller argues that this “Throne” could well date to the 1st century CE, as opposed to the dominant view that it is 5th century hagiographic relic. The throne has an inscription in Hebrew stating “Coronation of Marcus the Evangelist” and in Samaritan stating “Year 1”. It is decorated with 50 stars, which Huller argues is another indication (along with “year 1”) that the throne dates to a Samaritan jubilee year, which fell in 38 CE. On the front, the throne has an image of a ram (or lamb?) standing under a bush, which Huller interprets as an image of the ram that was sacrificed by Abraham in place of his son Isaac, after God released Abraham from the obligation to sacrifice his first-born son. Huller thinks this reflects an early Christology, in which the political Messiah on the throne (that is, Marcus Agrippa) received the benefit of the spiritual Messiah’s sacrifice as the Lamb or Ram of God; in other words, the sacrifice of the rebel leader who was executed by Pilate.
This Herodian form of Christianity would have been based on Philo’s view of the amalgamation of Jewish and Platonic philosophy, and it might very well have incorporated an abstracted form of the cult of Julius Caesar’s funeral re-enactment as well; and the ‘Gospel of Mark Anthony’ (if indeed it ever existed) evolved into the ‘Gospel of Marcus Agrippa’. Aside from the “Throne of St. Mark”, Huller offers a wide variety of tantalizingly suggestive evidence from other sources. However, sadly, the quality of his scholarship is (in my view) spotty at best, and one can only hope that his thesis will attract the attention of other scholars to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.
If indeed this primitive Herodian Christianity did exist, the Romans might well have been promoting it not only in the Levant but also throughout the Jewish Diaspora and indeed throughout the entire Hellenized portion of the planet. And if this is the case, there might well have been an “Apostle Paul” who was evangelizing around the Mediterranean and writing epistles to his churches, and if so, this “Paul” with his Roman and Herodian allegiances would have been seen by rebellious Messianic Jews in Jerusalem as a “Spouter of Lies”, just as Eisenman says.
One of the most predominant criticisms of Caesar’s Messiah is the evidence (however meager or controversial it might be) that Christianity existed much earlier than the time of Vespasian. And if any or all of this speculation is correct, then of course (literally speaking) the Flavians didn’t exactly invent Christianity. But they certainly did re-invent it, while obliterating any conclusive evidence that there had been anything earlier.
The fact is that we don’t have any of the source documents (such as “Q” or “proto-Luke” or the “Hebrew Gospel”) that are postulated by redaction criticism; nor do we have the hypothetical original autographs of the (Julian) Gospel of Mark Anthony, nor the (Herodian) Gospel of Marcus Agrippa, nor the pre-Flavian Pauline epistles. If Atwill’s hypothesis is correct, it certainly follows that any and all earlier sources have been heavily redacted if not completely re-written by the Flavians, and this fact needs to be the basis of any further analysis.
Hello, I read "Cleopatra and Christ" years ago, and found it very interesting and fascinating, if not completely believable. However, I must confess, when "King Jesus" came out and I read in the synopsis that "Jesus" was the same as "King Arthur", I gave up on Ralph Ellis. Reading this thread, though, has rekindled my initial interest in "Cleopatra and Christ", and I have dug out my old copy and have it handy to reread for reference, as I am a bit rusty on the details. My first general question would be, how plausible does Postflaviana regard all of these different historical characters as "Jesus", who wound up in Chester with the Romans, Thank You.
Hi Seeker, welcome to the forum.

I understand your action on Ellis, as his findings and their implications can be quite disturbing (or pick your wording) to the contemporary mindset and zeitgeist, whether religious or secular. Ellis also occasionally indulges in a few 'sins' so-to-speak, but in balance, I find the bulk of his positions very plausible. But maybe this is because they dovetail and support our own research and interpretations? But we think our research and interpretations are indeed correct.

In any case, if Ellis is correct, then these historical characters are really just one individual -- that Josephus has chosen to encrypt variously, for the sake of protecting not just the Flavians and himself, but the subsequent corporate [sic] lineage of the Roman Imperium and the subsequent Papacy which superseded the Imperium. So, as I have already mentioned, while Ellis occasionally hints at such, I take a strong position that what Ellis has laid out is a completely 'controlled opposition scenario that the Romans put into play. This is also consistent with all the recent books (Creating Christ for one) that have come out on such as Paul appearing to be acting in a typical undercover military intelligence capacity, ala the last centuries Cointelpro infiltrations (and where such as this radicalized the SDS into the terrorist Weather Underground).

As such we are seeing all this playing out today in the radicalization of white nationalists ... that must be figuratively led over the cliffs of Gadara, one of the central themes discussed in Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah. This latter book definitively proves that the works of Josephus are textually interwound with the canonic gospels. And, as such, why would not Ellis' thesis not also be true if Atwill is correct?

Of course, it is also possible that Josephus (and his imperial writing team) may have included elements of other real individuals into the fictional Jesus of Nazareth. Ellis himself allows that the Nativity account seems more logical to belong in actuality to John the Baptist, the Yahia from Palmyria.
Last edited:
I was alerted to post another message for my "First Trophy" award, so, to comply, and narrow my first question down a bit, regardless of whom "Jesus" was "back home", how provable is it that he wound up in Deva Victrix, whether or not he was the prototypical or actual King Arthur?
I don't think that, without more evidence coming forth, that it is provable. I think that Ellis is of the same mind, that this is only a speculation that follows from the weight of very curious circumstances. For instance, the curious rise of the Severan emperors, of which the first can indeed be linked back to Cleopatra Selene, at least. And then that the Severan Elagabalus seems to have been responsible for rebuilding the structure in the fortress, fully witting of the underlying foundations, yet purposely tweaking the new structure rather than fully taking advantage of the prior and existing foundation, i.e much more work than otherwise necessary. This says that they understood, into a completely different imperial dynasty what the function of the structure was, and tweaked it.

And, a you'll find by reading other posts here, that I am a big fan of the repetitive historicity of what I call the "Hidden Resort" concept to reward the unfolding and morphing imperium's 'naughty boys', after their black ops.
Last edited:
Thank You so much for your perceptive insights, as well as your candor. This is making me think, but I am just taking baby steps with this, and need to reread certain sections of the book and examine other topics that you have mentioned. For now, let me just say that North Africa figures into my musings, and may be an overlooked key to supplement this information, but I need to put together a "big picture" for myself, and then explain it logically, as Mr. Spock would (lol). Live Long and Prosper!
Close, but something else. Ralph Ellis did not dwell upon this in "Cleopatra to Christ", and quite frankly, neither did I at the time I first read it, but something I have been learning in the past month, besides in this thread, is making me think twice about something, and also what you said about the curious rise of the Severan emperors. Were you saying that Cleopatra Selene could be linked back to the first of them, Septimius Severus? Is this because of his wife, Julia Domna, and was not Septimius himself partly North African from his father?
Cleo Selene was a Severan matriarch, she being a daughter of Cleo VII and Mark Antony, the half-sister of Thea Muse Ourania (if Ellis is correct about the latter). And then Septimius Severus descended from Cleo Selene. As Ellis also pointed out, note that Julia Domna has the Julian name, which to such elites was very important and significant.

The marriage of these two was thus kept within the larger family, a practice generally kept in today's Euro-royals.
Last edited: