It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(interviewer) ...what you’re relaying is, ‘Why is it that some of these most well known people throughout these traditions of Judaism & Christianity & the Islamic faiths all have the same stories, essentially have the same roots of the same names … if they aren’t shepherds instead of powerful people of the day …why can’t we find them as biblical characters throughout history. Let’s talk about Abraham.
(Ralph Ellis) There you come to one of the nubs of the whole story. They were called, in the bible as we know, ‘shepherds’. Why were they called, ‘shepherds’? Well, the reason, I believe, is they were the Shepherd Kings …and, there was a line of pharaohs in Egypt, the Hyksos, who were known as the Shepherd Kings – & that is where the term, ‘shepherd’, comes from.
So, Abraham was not a shepherd …he had 318 army officers running an army of 30,000 people. So, he was a Shepherd King. And, we know who the Shepherd Kings were. They were the Hyksos. They were the people who controlled lower Egypt – & that is the northern half of Egypt).
Egypt was quite traditionally divided between north & south on a number of occasions. It wasn’t always united. So you had a southern pharaoh, & a northern pharaoh. During the Hyksos period, again, you had two pharaohs.
We had this line of Shepherd Kings in the north …and, this is where I think the story comes from. This is a presumption that goes back a long way …if you read Josephus & his history.
Josephus is around the 1st Century A.D. & he wrote a history of the Israelites. He actually said, the Israelites were the Hyksos pharaohs of lower Egypt. No one really took up on his assertion, there. It seems to have been forgotten.
However, if we take what he said as being true, everything in the bible suddenly starts to make more sense.
(interviewer) & could it have been conveniently forgotten for political reasons?
(Ralph Ellis) I think so. I’ve thought long & hard about why this should have been done. But, I think the change happened somewhere during the Babylonian exile. Obviously, Israel had been destroyed …the people had been scattered, they were now in exile in Babylon. I think they were looking for a scapegoat. There is a section in the bible that accuses Egypt as being the root of all evil.
I think, at that point, there was a separation between the original Egyptian history & what became the normal, biblical history saying it all occurred mostly in Judea.
They needed someone to blame, effectively. So, they adopted this sort of ‘victim’ status in order to keep the people together & forge this new, effective religion. That became the Judaism that we know, today.
Effectively, it was the true history of something that was completely different. So we have to look back through the text, & re-interpret the text, trying to see the original Egyptian historical evidence.
Because, the bible as we see it has somehow become divorced totally from history. So here we have a book that is a complete history of these people, & yet nothing … none of these events, none of these people, nothing within the bible can be found within the historical record …which is very strange.
It’s as though the bible happened on a different planet. But, it didn’t. We know where it happened, roughly. And, these people were important …whether it was Abraham, whether it was King David or King Solomon who were supposed to be the most ralph influential monarchs in that area, in Nydera. & yet, they can’t be found in the historical record.
So the question is, why?
Let’s look at the ----- monarchy, for instance – that’s King David & King Solomon. As I said, they were hugely influential, very wealthy. Monarchs came from all over the region to pay them tribute. & yet, they are missing in the historical record.
They’ve done a lot of archeology in Judea, in Jerusalem. & the conclusion of Finkelstein, who’s one of the eminent archeologists of that area, is that Jerusalem was no more than a village during this era. And, of course, he’s found no evidence of King David or King Solomon.
That is a problem. Because, here we have this story of these kings, & … they are not there. So you’ve only got two options, really. Either, as some people maintain, it’s all mythology & this book was completely made up. Or, we’re looking in the wrong location.
There are two problems, here. The Israelites have taken back Israel, & they’ve sent out their archeologists into the field, & they’ve said, ‘We now have the opportunity. Now, go & look for the evidence.’ And, they can’t find it.
That is a big problem for Judaism.
Anyway, they can not find these King David & King Solomon in the historical record. The alternative, the obvious alternative, was to look elsewhere for these monarchs. Maybe they were looking in the wrong location.
Maybe the history is there; but, they are looking in the wrong location. They’re looking in Jerusalem. Perhaps their main city, their capital city, was not based in Jerusalem. Maybe it was elsewhere.
I started looking. Having already looked at the Hyksos pharaohs of Egypt, having already realized it was quite possible that the early Israelites were the Hyksos, & a critical piece of that evidence was the Exodus.
We all know the Exodus from the biblical story. And, we’ve all been through standard education for Christianity, maybe Sunday school, etc. But, never is it told to us that there was an identical Exodus out Egypt by the Hyksos pharaohs.
There was a civil war. So the kings, who were known as ‘Shepherds’, who were circumcised, who had ear rings, who wore curly side-locks of hair (a standard Egyptian custom) …they had this civil war with the southern Egyptians.
At the same time, there were storms, darkness, & possibly plagues. & they were kicked out of Egypt. They started from Pyramathes in the north of Egypt & about half a million people went on an Exodus to Jerusalem.
This is not biblical history. This is real history. It comes from the texts from Egypt. It comes from many of the other texts.
This Exodus account, from history, is almost identical to the biblical exodus. They only thing it differed in, is the date …which is about 300 years before the accepted era for the biblical Exodus.
However, we have an identical situation.
And so, it seems likely to me, that the early Israelites were linked very strongly with the northern Egyptian Hyksos line.
If we want to look at later Israelite history, then perhaps that is also related to the Egyptian Hyksos line.
(interviewer) Let’s go back to the Exodus & Moses & his role …and who Moses was according to what you have been discovering. You found something entirely different.
(Ralph Ellis) Yes. It does get a little bit complicated, because it’s clear from the historical record, that there were two Exodus, not one. ‘Maneso’ being an Egyptian historian of that era, & was closer to this era than were are.
[The Egyptian historian, Maneso, says there were two Exodus. There was the big Exodus that we were just talking about & which was the Hyksos Exodus account of Egypt.
And then, he talks about a smaller Exodus of named priests & lepers …80,000 of them.
Now these 80,000 named priests have been exiled into middle Egypt on the east bank of the Nile, to a stone quarry. By thinking this, we can see a history of the founding of Amarda, which was the new city of Pharoah Aknanton (the rebel pharaoh).
So his new city would have been a quarry. Because they had to construct it from nothing. [The Egyptian historian] Maneeso then goes on to say that these people were eventually pushed out of this area on the east bank of the Nile & they went to Alvarez …which is up in the Nile Delta. Which is Pyramathes, of course, the same town.
And, so within this, I think we can see a story about the abandonment Aknamarda …because we Aknanton went to Amarda & about 12 years later, his whole empire collapsed.
We don’t know what happened to him, his royal family, Nefertitti, Kia (his other wife) all of the main players are not present.
People say they died in Amarda, but there’s no evidence for it. But, Maneso seems to be clearly stating that they actually went on another Exodus, a smaller Exodus, up to Ameran.
Now, the strange thing is, the brother of Aknanton, was called Moses. We seem to have the two brothers. In the bible, they’re called Aaron & Moses.
In history, they were called Aknan & Tufos. Here is where I think we bring in the story about Moses & his part in the Exodus.
And what’s happened in the bible, of course …is they’ve taken these two Exodus events & they’ve combined them into one story. But, I think it was two Exodus. Basically, these Exodus went up to the North, because essentially, the named priests & lepers were kicked out of Alvarez’s valley.
(interviewer) Who do you think these named priests & 80,000 lepers, were?
(Ralph Ellis) Well, Aknanton, as we know, was the rebel pharaoh. He was the pharaoh who tried to institute monotheism within Egypt. So, he was destroying the old gods & instituting his new god, ‘Theoto’.
And of course, the biblical god is sometimes called ‘Theoto’ the ‘auto’ Atom.
From the Theban priesthood perspective, this would’ve been heretical. Aknaneton would’ve been called named priest & a leper. Not a real leper, but an ‘outcast’, a ‘theological leper’ …because his new sect was so different, so confrontational that it was destroying all the old traditions, all the old guard.
He would be called the named priest, theologically.
(interviewer) So it was a group of religious rebels, essentially, effectively led by him.
(Ralph Ellis) Yes, we know that from history. & from the biblical perspective, we have the same story. Moses was doing exactly the same thing. He was the monotheist, he was in Egypt, he was also of the Royal family, of course …he was known as ‘the Prince of Egypt’. & if you read Josephus, Moses was an army commander. He was the chief army commander within Egypt & led the battle against the Ethiopians.
[Moses] was an important character within Egyptian authority … connected to a clash within the establishment within Egypt.
(interviewer) Going back to the root explanations of the simple, pastoral life. Jesus had said, ‘This knowledge is not for all. This knowledge that we pass among ourselves, the initiates, is for the few. The other knowledge is passed to the people, the lay person’.
(Ralph Ellis) They always spoke in parables. Because, the church of Jesus was based on initiation. There were many levels within his church. The disciples, & even within the disciples, there were many levels. So we had variant initiations into the church of Jesus.
The laity knew nothing, & they just had the outer layer of the parables, the pastoral.
(interviewer) Which is essentially what we have, today.
(Ralph Ellis) I’m thinking more of a Masonic type of initiation. Looking at the elite knowledge, I think they did have some very interesting knowledge, but also the true history … which the laity did not. There again, we have this differentiation.
(interviewer) It keeps people very simple in their union. ‘Us’ against ‘them’.
(Ralph Ellis) Yes. It says very clearly, there was a quote from Jesus, ‘This is not a subject to be given to the common people. This is just for you, the disciple.’ Even amongst the disciples, he says, ‘Why can’t you understand?”
(interviewer) If you go back into Egyptology, this is sprinkled throughout the bible …there was a much greater understanding of the human condition as we relate to the cosmos, all of these ancient knowledges which are just now coming back to life prominently, & had showed up in the bible …
(Ralph Ellis) A lot of the bible doesn’t make sense. When you can look at the text from the right perspective, it actually begins to make sense … all this talk about cows & sheep was all astrology.
Most people will say that the zodiac does not go back that far …it’s Greek & doesn’t go back. But, it seems quite clear from the writings of Josephus that it did. Because it plainly states that the loaves on the alter, the 12 loaves, represented the 12 constellations. The buttons on the priests’ tunics represented the constellations & the 7 planets. The menorah represented the 7 planets. Josephus is talking here about the era of Moses, again, & Joseph …which must be about 1600-1500 B.C.
Josephus is sayingknowledge of the Zodiac goes back at least that far.
(interviewer) This is only one example of how the bible & other texts, the Torah, the Old Testament …and would you say the Koran as well, can be read on these dual levels. But are embedded with the same characters?
(Ralph Ellis) A typical one is Jesus. Jesus was born as ‘the Lamb of God’ …but, he became ‘the Fisher of Men’. Why? Because in the procession of the equinox, it rotates around into the different houses of the constellations. At the turn of the 1st Century, of course, we changed from Aries to Pisces. So, Jesus was born as a lamb & became a fisherman.
So again, we see these covert history …most of it was destroyed. & that’s another reason why it became covered up. It wasn’t simply that this was an initiation into the Church …but we also ended up with two churches during the time of Jesus.
We have the Church of Jesus & James …but Paul went off & did his own. Then, there was a split, & Saul, i.e. Saint Paul …when off & did his own thing.
Now, Saul had been the enemy of Jesus. So they were very cautious about this guy. They didn’t trust him. So Saul had never really been initiated into the full meaning of the Church of Jesus & James.
So, when he went off & started his own church, he didn’t know all the secrets.
(interviewer) & this is where a lot of the Christian doctrine came from, right?
(Ralph Ellis) Yes. Christianity had nothing to do with the church of Jesus. It is the church of Paul.
So we have this confrontation between the church of James & the church of Paul.
Now, the church of Jesus & James was Jewish; you had to be circumcised, you had to follow the Mosaic law, etc. …all of the normal things your found within Judaism …more of a way of life that a straight religion.
Saul, on the other hand, went off & he wanted to found a popular-ist church. So, he went off & said, ‘I’m not only going to preach to the Jews, but I’ll preach to the gentiles as well’. There are more gentiles than Jews & I want to be a successful church. So, he went off & started preaching to gentiles. And, he scrapped most of Mosaic law, just had the Ten Commandments.
Then, we had this big discussion about circumcision, of course. You had to be circumcised to be in the Church of Jesus. And, Saul went off & started accepting people who weren’t circumcised. He actually said, ‘If circumcision means that much to the Jews, why don’t they just cut their penis off & be done with it?’ That’s in Galatians.
So we can see that there’s big separation between the original church of Jesus & the church of Saul. & it was the church of Saul, that became dominant.
It was much more commercial. It was like TV evangelists you see on American television. He was half-there for the money, & he became the dominant church in that region. The church of Jesus & James sunk into obscurity.
(interviewer) In essence, the text that happened in the New Testament essentially rooted in the King James version, is this all rooted back to the church of Saul?
(Ralph Ellis) Yes, all of it. Now he did pick out some areas from the church of Jesus & James, but most of what he picked out had nothing to do with the original church.
This is why we see this big difference. So, within the church of Saul – which became Christianity – we don’t see any references to the Zodiac. Astrology became banned. Astrology became banned.
We don’t see the role of women because Saul was the original misogynist.
(interviewer) & that’s reflected in the bible.
(Ralph Ellis) …that women must be seen & not heard. …whereas we do know from the few texts we do have about the church of Jesus & James, Mary Magdalene was both his Athenian(sp) disciple. & hence we have this slightly new discussion, about whether Mary Magdalene was in the last supper scene.
(interviewer) We’re going to get into the whole lineage of Jesus.
(Ralph Ellis) Let’s go back to the building of the Temple of Jerusalem. So, that’s going back to the 19th Monarchy Era of David & King Solomon.
As we were saying before, David & Solomon can’t be found in the historical records. Where were they?
Having spoken so much about Egypt, let’s look at them from the Egyptian perspective. Actually, we’re not going to find those names within the historical records. Because otherwise, they would have been found, already. People would’ve known about them.
So, what we’re looking for is a couple of attributes that are central to the United Monarchy story. And, that is King David …who was primarily known for the city & the star … the City of David & the Star of David.
These are two important shibboleths of his reign. What we’re looking for is something similar within the Egyptian record. If we look in exactly the same era as King David, we find a pharaoh from lower Egypt (again, the Hyksos pharaohs) who was known for the city & the star …and his name was Paseblockcalhainent(sp?) – or ‘Susanfilly’(sp?) in the Greek version. & his name has the City glyph & the Star glyph. That was my starting point.
(interviewer) …when you look at Star of David at the Star Tetrahedron embedded all throughout Egyptology, it’s the same star.
(Ralph Ellis) They had two stars in Egypt. Most of them were the pentagon star, 5-sided stars. The Star of David is two pyramids.
(interviewer) …the Star tetrahedron, which is in a lot of the mysticism in Egypt.
(Ralph Ellis) It’s simply two pyramids superimposed on each other. That’s important, because that’s where ---- came from, it came from Giza. But, here we have a monarch w/the same attributes as King David.
I started looking at this monarchy & seeing if anything else compared. What I’m saying, is that King David was this pharaoh, called ‘Susang’.
But, if he was, then everything else around him within the United Monarchy, ancestors, descendents, courtiers … everything should be the same. You might think that’s impossible, that everything from the court of King David could be the same as the court of this particular pharaoh …but, it’s not.
It’s exactly the same. They both have the same ancestors, the same servants, the same daughter, the same army commander, the same architect.
Where was the capital city? ...the original names for Jerusalem was, ‘Zoan’ & ‘Chivas’. Those were the original names of Jerusalem. It’s from ‘Zoan’ that we get, ‘Zion’.
The city of Tannis in Egypt was called, ‘Zoan’. Zoan, Zion. It’s up in the northeast delta. It was also called, ‘Chevet’. Chevet, Chivas. Tannis had the same names as are used for Jerusalem.
So this proposal becomes even more radical. What I’m saying here, is not only was this monarch actually a lower Egyptian monarch …but, the city was actually located, the capital city, was located in the northeast delta at that time.
It’s a big, radical change. But, in some senses it is not. All I’m saying, is it wasn’t there, it was here. All we’re doing is changing the location. & suddenly, everything within the bible at that point in time of the United Monarchies, starts to make sense.
They had lots of mentions of ‘going down into Egypt’, which would seem to separate the biblical story from Egypt. But, within the ancient Egyptian texts, they had the same terminology.
Even within Josephus, they had the same terminology. They’d go from the Nile delta, down into Egypt. So, Egypt in that era, was a reference to Upper Egypt – Thebes. It didn’t really refer to the entire region that we know as Egypt, today.
These stories about people going down into Egypt still make sense, even if you locate Jerusalem in Tannis.
They can’t find anything that can show the Temple of Solomon was actually there.
We have a big gap in the archeology, they can’t find David & Solomon’s palace, they can’t find his temple, they can’t find any major city within Jerusalem at that time. This is the Jerusalem in Israel.
Because it was a village in that era.
But, if you come back into Tannis, this was a major metropolis & it had not just one temple, it had several temples. It had the most marvelous architecture, these giant pillars. Granite pillars made in the shape of palm trees, beautifully carved …fantastic pieces of workmanship.
And, the temple there had the same name as the temple in Jerusalem.
...I think we will find the Temple of Jerusalem was actually at Tannis
It means they’re looking in the wrong place for the Higment. The original Higment was Zarack, not Zion, in the Nile delta … because the Israelites ‘were’ the lower Egyptians, the Hyksos … Egyptians from lower Egypt.
It’s contentious, but makes more sense than throwing out the bible. If you think about it, here we’ve got the entire history of this region, whether it be Egypt or Israel …that goes back at least to 2,000 B.C.
the Bible has religious baggage attached to it, the Egyptologists & even the archeologists from Israel, won’t really touch it. It’s almost taboo for them because it’s religious. But it’s not …it’s a historical text, & it’s a historical text that has come straight out of ancient history.
They try to deflect this, by saying, ‘Oh, these were just poor shepherds. It was a big oral tradition, & therefore a lot of the history would be garbled.’
But it wasn’t garbled. These were pharaohs. They would have scribes. They would NOT have been an oral history. This was a written history that came from Abraham – who I say was Herod, NOT Abram. & from Jacob, who I say was Pharaoh Jacob.
there was a Pharoah in northern Egypt that was called Jacob …Pharoah Jacobot, Yakabot.
So, in this new guise, the bible is no longer an oral history of a few Bedouins floating around with half a dozen starving sheep. We now have the Bible of being the daybook within Egypt, within the royal court.
And they probably do the same now, but I don’t know.
But the royal court in Egypt used to keep a daybook, a diary. & this was a diary of the Royal Court. The trivia & the main events … everything that was going in within the Royal Court was recorded in the daybook
So essentially what I’m saying, is the Bible is a daybook of the Hyksos Pharaohs.
(interviewer) Which gives it a whole new level of importance.
(Ralph Ellis) Absolutely. & it also means it is not an oral history, it was a written history. They would have had the scribes. So it could well be an exact history of what happened in Meant(sp?) that year.
So, instead of being mythology, it is 100% historical fact …if, you can understand what it was saying. So, these things we were talking about before. We were talking about sheep & bulls … we’re actually talking about Apas (Tauris) bull worship & Sheep Aries worship.
The cult, hence the Shepherd Kings. This is why they were called the Shepherd Kings, because Aries was the dominate constellation for that time.
(interviewer) Even the word Hyksos itself, has two meanings.
(Ralph Ellis) A lot of people will say it doesn’t mean, ‘Shepherd King’. But, clearly, Josephus said, ‘It does mean Shepherd King’. The giveaway there, is that it’s spelt with the Shepherd’s crook. So we see it has a connection with shepherd.
In actual fact, the word is, ‘Hyksos-k’sute’ …Egyptologists will say that it means, ‘the kings of the foreign lands’ – but, it doesn’t. The literal translation of ‘Hyksos-k’sute’, is ‘the Kings of the mountains’.
But I’ve retranslated that, because that doesn’t make much sense. That’s why they say , ‘foreign’ , because there are no mountains in Egypt. This particular glyph is used in many things that are purely Egyptian – so, it doesn’t mean, ‘foreign’.
So, what does ‘k’sute’, mean? What is this, ‘mountain’. And, of course, the big sacred mountains of Egypt goes back to King Solomon & the Star of David. The sacred mountains of Egypt were the pyramids.
So they were they ‘Hyksos-k’sute’, or, ‘the Kings of the Pyramids’. Kings of Giza, the people who ruled over the most sacred monument within Egypt. The Giza pyramids were not tombs. The ancient, megalithic pyramids had nothing to do being tombs. They were cathedrals, perhaps.
) As we know, the pyramids are all based on mathematical formulas. They are representations of the belt of Orion.
So, ‘the Kings of the Mountain’, the ‘Hyksos-k’sute’ were the kings of the pyramids. These were the people who looked after the sacred mountains of Egypt. Since we’re talking about his, we might as well talk about the sacred mountain of the Israelites.
Because there, we have another conundrum. We have these Israelites wandering around the Sinai Peninsula & having a sacred mountain which was some craggy rock, in the middle of the Sinai Peninsula.
Balderdash. Rubbish. Doesn’t make any sense.
The Israelites were the Hyksos Egyptians of lower Egypt. & so, their sacred mountain was the great pyramid of Giza.
So, Mount Sinai is the Great Pyramid.
So it starts to make sense. Here were the Israelites, sitting in Egypt. Because we know the Israelites went to Egypt, even as the bible says, with Joseph going down into Egypt, & Moses being in Egypt.
So, they were in Egypt for anything between 200 & 400 years. & yet, nowhere in the Bible, does it mention the Pyramids of Giza.
These were the most magnificent monuments in ancient times. In an era when most people lived in mud huts, you’ve got this monument that’s 150 meters high. & these people lived in Egypt for at least 200 or 400 years …and never mention the Pyramids. It’s just not possible.
They did mention the pyramids. But, they called them Mt. Sinai & Mt. Horace(?). And, if you look at the descriptions of Mount Sinai – especially if you include the descriptions from Josephus …all of those descriptions match The Great Pyramid of Giza.
They say, it was the highest mountain. The Great Pyramid was the highest. It was sharp, difficult to climb. It was the biggest mountain, but it was also small enough that you could cordon it off … because, you weren’t allowed to touch the mountain.
You could put a cordon around the bottom of it & stop people from touching it.
So, it had to be quite small.
It had a cave inside it. A lot of people will say that Moses went to the top of Mount Sinai …he didn’t. He went inside Mt. Sinai. The Koran is quite emphatic about this, that initiates went down inside the mountain holding on a rope. There was a cave inside, just like there is in the Great Pyramid.
At the base of the pyramid …'Mt. Sinai', was a pavement … a basalt pavement that looks like the night sky, polished, gleaming like the night sky.
Where would you find that, in the Sinai peninsula? We can’t.
But, on the eastern face of the Great Pyramid, we have the huge, black basalt pavement …which would've been polished and shown like the night sky.
So, Mount Sinai is the Great Pyramid of Giza.
We were talking about the similarities of Egyptian history and the Old Testament and the plight of the Israelites …and, how a lot of the names of buildings and family structures overlay each other.
‘Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs’, was my first book. I said at the end of this book, that Jesus had to be from the Egyptian bloodline.
But, I didn’t know where you could place him on the Egyptian royal bloodline. I didn’t know from what era he sprang, or from which part of the Royal line.
I knew that Jesus was royal. There are many parts of the Bible that hint at Jesus being royal.
(interviewer) He wasn’t a lowly carpenter?
(Ralph Ellis) The ‘carpenter’ business came from ‘Setaphendra’ …which was one of the titles of the Pharaohs of Egypt. ‘Setaphendra Ra’ means, "The Gods’ carpenter".
Jesus was 'king of the Jews'. So, we knew he was royal. Christ, he was the Christ. ‘Christ’ means, ‘king’. That’s what it means. It means, ‘king’.
If you do a comparison between the Bible, and Josephus and his works – it’s clear that Jesus was also called, ‘the Egyptian false prophet’.
(interviewer) Although, in the Bible, it would be interpreted more as a position of royalty in a position as ‘God’s Son’ and ‘the King of Men’. So, you’re saying, it’s quite literal.
(Ralph Ellis) Yes. Jesus was literally a ‘Royal’.
But, we have another problem ... at his birth it is said that he was visited by the Magi. Now, the Magi were the priesthood of Persia, or, Parthia. They were not only the priesthood, they were also the “king-makers” of Parthia.
When Jesus was born, and I’m taking him to be born in A.D. 4, or A.D. 6, at the time of the taxation event. ...What were the Persian king-makers doing at Jesus’ birth, looking at Jesus as a potential monarch?
What I was looking for, was a monarch, a prince who was of the Egyptian royal line of the Persian royal line, that somehow was exiled in Judea in circumstances of semi-poverty.
Could we find a royal family that was exiled into Judea at this time? The king and queen of Persia were exiled to Syrio-Judea just to the east of the river, Jordan …in A.D. 4.
Here we have a royal family, out of Persia, exiled to Judea, living in a state of poverty, in Syrio-Judea. This is real history. People know about this, but it’s very easy for historians to ‘sideline’ sections of history. It’s not the part of history you will actually come across if review history at universities …it’s forgotten history.
I started looking further into the history of this particular royal family ... it seems to me that this lady, who is a queen who was exiled, is the daughter of Cleopatra VII … the ‘lost’ daughter.
We know Cleopatra had several children, and this lady was given to the Persia King, Frates IV …as a diplomatic gift. In the texts it says that she was a prostitute … but, that is not the sort of person you give as a diplomatic gift.
This was Augustus Caesar, of Rome. He was having a great deal of problems of Persia. Persia was the biggest kingdom on his eastern border. He’d had a lot of problems. They’d lost two major battles against the Persians.
He wanted to give a spectacular gift to Frantes in order to end hostilities. And, he gives Frantes a prostitute? …I don’t think so.
So, who was this lady that he gave? For many reasons, she just has to be the lost daughter of Cleopatra VII.
So now, we have all of the elements that I was looking for …this queen was not only queen of Persia married to Frantes IV, but she was also of the Egyptian royal line. She was the daughter of Cleopatra.
And, they reigned for a number of years. So, she became chief-wife … she didn’t just become the wife of this king, she became chief-wife. And, her son became the prince of Persia.
Again, it would be too strange for this prostitute to become chief-wife of all of Persia.
She fell foul of the regime. And they were kicked out of Persia. So, off they went with 200 courtiers and 600 cavalry …mounted archers. So, she had her own body guard of 600 archers. And, they were exiled into Judea.
As I said before, we come back to the fact that we were looking for a royal prince, born in some degree of poverty, in Syrio-Judea …and, here we have this royal family in exactly the same circumstance.
Now, this lady, this queen, was called, ‘Thea-Ruza-Irania'. The area she settled in just to the East of the River Jordan became the kingdom of Irania. She set up a new city-state, called Irania, named after herself. So it was known as the kingdom of Irania … and it’s still called that now, it’s called, ‘the Horan’ – which comes from the same name.
But if we translate that into English, of course, the Kingdom of Irania becomes, ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’.
I start thinking, the early part of the New Testament was real history. And that is where I believe Jesus was descended from … so, he was a prince. A very well-connected prince.
We’re not just looking for a ‘nobody’.
A suppose a few people who come from lowly backgrounds do rise up through the system …but, here we’re looking for a prince who made his mark during this era in this area. And this is the sort of prince we’re talking about … he would have been descended from the royal line of Egypt, from Julius Caesar –from the royal line of Persia, and, also from the royal line of north Africa, Maratania(?).
[Ellis] Some evidence is circumstantial, because there are elements missing …we can only look at the links that link them together. There is no definitive text that states, ‘this woman was the daughter of Cleopatra'.
However, we do know that Cleopatra was pregnant when she fled from Rome. What we don’t have, is a text of where this child went to. And then, we have this strange women who pops up 20 years later.
So, some of the links are circumstantial, but when you look at this lady, what she looks like, who she was, what her name was …all of those link straight back into the life of Cleopatra and to Egypt.
Especially her contemptuous marriage, which even Jesus talks about. And this is one of the links.
One of the reasons why I'm convinced this has to do with Jesus, is because he talks of this contentious marriage, it’s one of his parables that he talks about. This was such a strange, unusual event, that it would seem inconceivable that he would mention this strange marriage if it was not something to do with his family.
Here we come to the reason why he could not be included in the biblical text. Because, okay … we have this prince, very influential, very well connected. So, why don’t they admit that. Why can’t they say, ‘this is our hero’, in big print.
There are two main reasons. Firstly, it wasn’t his church …as we said before in our previous interview. Christianity was the church of Saul … it had nothing to do with the church of Jesus.
Saul wanted this tale about a lowly carpenter … which didn’t really fit in with the story of Jesus being a prince. But, perhaps more importantly, Saul also wanted to be head of the church … and after him, obviously, Saint Peter.
Now, how could he be the head of the church and all the popes, later on, be the head of the church, if we had a royal bloodline that was still living?
Surely they, would have been the head of the church. The popes, of course, of the Catholic church, are effectively priest-kings. They are kings in the church.
Well, how can they be a priest-king of the church, if we have a really blood-line prince, still living in that era.
[interviewer] So he had to be knocked off of his throne to a lower status.
Saul’s story is about an ideal family of the 1st Century A.D.
Unfortunately, the reign of Thea-Ruza-Irania was not quite so idyllic. Thea-Ruza-Irania herself, killed her husband … and she then married her son.
This is one of the reasons I say she was of the Egyptian royal line, because [incest] was a normal practice for the Egyptian royal line ... [incest] was standard then … during the Ptolemaic royal lines, the most important thing for the royal family
… incest wouldn’t have been a normal thing for all Egyptians – we’re talking about the royal family.
If we go back into Egypt, we find that sibling marriage [incest] was very common. We look at Akananon, for instance …Akananon married two of his daughters, maybe three.
It’s possible that Nefertiti was his sister, or half-sister.
If you come down into the Ptolemaic era, that’s the era of the Greek pharaohs of Egypt, of course. All of the Greek pharaohs of Egypt married a sibling of some nature. Cleopatra herself married two of her brothers.
And so, this was perfectly normal for the royal family, to retain the bloodlines. And that is why I say, ‘Thea-Ruza-Irania was of the Egyptian royal line, because she was keeping the same sanguinity laws as they did in Egypt, which places her strongly within the Egyptian royal line.
Now, we know this wasn’t a Persian custom, because that is the reason they kicked her out of the country.
... incest was not a Persian custom. It was Egyptian among the 'royals' [not the general population]. That is the reason she was kicked out of the country.
This has a big bearing on Saul.
[interviewer] Saul is casting Egyptians as the root of all evil.
...So, we have our prince, & we have all the reasons for the New Testament story …why this prince wasn’t important …why he became a leader …& if we go back into the works of Josephus, again …he says, at this very time, a fourth sect of Judaism was set up.
The 3 main sects, Sadducees, Pharisees, & Essenes– but there was a 4th sect. I think Jesus was of this 4th sect. Because the 4th sect was closely related to the area I’m talking about along the eastern River Jordan…called, ‘Bethlea’, or ‘Bethlehem’. That’s probably where we get the Biblical Bethlehem, from.
This particular 4th sect maintains its own army, just as Thea-Ruza-Irania had her own army.
And just as Jesus had his own army, as well. I think he was of this 4th sect of Judaism, & it’s probably from this 4th sect that the Essenes were later branched off from. & the main concern of this 4th sect, was, taxation.
Because, Thea-Ruza-Irania, when she set up his city-state, was given the land free. The reason that was done was because she, with her independent army, could act as a mercenary army for Herod-us.
[interviewer] You’re talking about the one who would be known as, ‘Mary’, in the Bible?
[Ellis] It might have been Jesus’ grandmother. I think there was probably another generation. I think Mary, herself, was Thea-Ruza-Irania’s daughter. & the daughter of Thea-Ruza-Irania, was known as, Julias-Irania.
That is the generation I think, of Jesus. Thea-Ruza-Irania would have been Jesus’ mother.
We know that Jesus had a lot of problems with taxation ...turning over the tables, etc. One of the main accusations against him, was he consorted with Publicans & Jews.
Publicans are seen very badly, so we should translate it. ... the word means, ‘tax collector’. So one main accusation against Jesus he was consorting w/tax collectors.
We know one main problem that Jesus was having, was over-taxation. & these people, along the Easter River Jordan, had this tax-free status. & that tax-free status was causing friction. & many wanted to end it. And, of course, they didn’t want to end it, because that’s how they [raised revenue to] maintain their own private army.
Jesus had his own army. That might sound peculiar, but to find out these historical details about Jesus, we need to find further texts, because the Bible doesn’t give the full story.
There are other texts about Jesus ... totally ignored ...within the books of Josephus.
To clarify, we need to know who Josephus, was. Josephus was the army commander in charge of Galilee. He later became the primary historian of this era.
He wrote his own Old Testament, & he wrote his own New Testament, effectively.
So we have the complete history of Judea from Josephus. But, who was he. Or, rather, perhaps I should turn this around … who was Saul?
Here we have Saul, the founder of Christianity. He was the most important person in the last 2,000 years … & we’ve lost him. How do you lose all these important people from the historical record?
I didn’t believe it could be true, that we could lose so many people. I started to look for Saul within the historical record. & I suddenly found there 24 points of commonality between the life of Saul & the life of Josephus. I came to the conclusion that Saul was Josephus. Cause they had the same goals, & had everything in common. They both wrote New Testament histories of that era.
1. Both of them were Pharisees.
2. Both were hellenistic Jews.
3. Both are known for their literary works, & both produced their works with upper-class Koine greek.
4. Josephus tells that he knows many ancient dramas. In acts, there's an episode that narrates Paul's conversion, & the saying "hard to kick against the goad" which has its origin in a drama (written by Jospehus himself?), is used.
5. Paul (paulos) means "small". Josephus mentions Mathhias Curtus as his forefather. Curtus means "small".
6. Paul was in his famous shipwreck when he was on his way to Rome. Josephus also mentions that he was shipwrecked when on his way to Rome.
7. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 64CE
8. Paul spent 2 years in inprisonment in Caesarea when waiting for his trip to Rome. Josephus was inprisoned for 2 years during the Jewish war in 67-69CE & he was apparently kept in Caesarea. He too ended up in Rome.
9. Paul disappears into desert for three years after the Damascus incident. Josephus mentions that he had been in the desert with a hermit named Banus for a period of three years when he was young.
10. After the Jewish war, Josephus became a traitor in the eyes of the Jews, & he lived in Rome, apparently for reasons of safety, & wrote his apologies. Paul became a traitor & a 'renegade of the law' in the eyes of the Jews, & there were many attempts to kill him.
Saul tried to join the Church of Jesus & then was kicked out & went off on his own. He had this flash of inspiration on the road to Damascus …because Saul was persecuting the Church of Jesus & James.
It doesn’t mention, ‘how’, within the Bible. How was he persecuting, sending them to prison? Who was he? Under what jurisdiction did he serve? These things are not mentioned. But, Saul tried to join the Church of Jesus, & then split off & went his own way.
And, then we look at Josephus, & he did exactly the same.
Josephus was the army commander in command of Galilee. His main opponent that he was chasing around Galilee, was, Jesus.
Conventional historians will say, ‘That’s a different Jesus’.
No, it’s the same Jesus. Because this Jesus was Jesus of Camarlo, who owned his own army. & so, he was the rebel leader of 600 fishermen. Who in this era was the rebel leader of 600 fishermen?
We can only be talking about the Biblical Jesus. & so, Josephus does exactly the same as Saul. He was the chief of police in that era. He was persecuting this particular Jesus & his band of rebel fishermen. He then sort of tried to join them. & then, of course, after some disputes with the Romans, & after the siege of Japal, he went off on his own. & he changed sides again. Just as Paul did. So again, he changed sides twice.
This is one amongst many reasons why I think they are the same. The important thing is, it then gives us a new insight into the life of Jesus, because the whole of Josephus is discussion about this era, whilst his battles with this person called, ‘Jesus’.
And, this gives us a completely new set of texts that detail the live of the Biblical Jesus. And, it seems that this particular Jesus was quite important. He was the governor of Tiberius. And, he owned a castle. And, he also was the leader of 600 soldiers.
Again, here, we start linking back into the 4th sect & linking to Thea-Ruza-Irania, who also had her own, independent army – exactly the same as this Jesus.
And so, it seems likely that Jesus had his own armed forces. Now, you might say, ‘Well, that’s completely impossible … that’s just not present within the Bible’ …but, it is, it’s in the Bible, as well. You just have to look for the text.
We come back to Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “I come not to bring peace to the world, I come to bring a sword.”
We have event on the Mount of Olives … which is a curious affair because we have Jesus & his disciples on the Mount of Olives at night, & they’re surprised by the Roman guard.
Just before this happens, Luke 22:36 …Jesus tells his disciples to go out & buy swords: ‘Sell your purse & your wallet & go & buy swords.’ The disciples come back with swords, & Jesus says: “That’s enough.”
Here we've a different sort of Jesus as to what we’re expecting …not a Jesus preached from the pulpit, & we don’t get these verses from the pulpit.
This is a revolutionary Jesus. & of course, this is what, ‘Jesus the Galilean’, means. We say, ‘Jesus of Galilee’, mean? Galilee means, ‘a circle’, a revolution, a revolutionary.
Here, we've an event on the Mount of Olives, at night …where they’re surprised by the Roman guard, not by just one or two Romans ... [but] by a sirot(?) 600 fully armed Centurians.
This is the advantage having Josephus & his text, because …Josephus writes exactly the same account. The only difference is that Josephus says, ‘There were 30,000 armed people on the Mount of Olives. & the intent was to take Jerusalem by force. ...the leader ... was the 'Egyptian false prophet', Jesus.
It’s clear from these different texts, we’re talking about a rebel leader, a man of influence, a man with a great number of followers who was interested in the secular politics of that era.
We've a rebel leader going to take Jerusalem by force, foiled by the Roman guard, and [the rebels] are scattered. That’s the end of the bid to take Jerusalem.
Here we've a completely different perspective on a New Testament event.
[interviewer] So we go now into Jesus’ life as a husband and a father. Dare we go into this area.
[Ellis] The main thing that’s come up recently, is the Da Vinci Code, and, was Jesus married? The Da Vinci Code has put this into the public perspective. But, it’s been around for years, as to whether he was married to Mary Magdalene or not.
It seems quite clear that he was married. They made a big fuss about Da Vinci and his last supper scene, of course. And, said, ‘this is a woman on the right-hand side’. A lot of people will stand up and say, ‘no, no, no, it’s not possible’. Especially people from religion will say, ‘It’s not possible’.
So here we have these secrets that have been with-held from the laity. Clearly held, even within the Catholic Church. They know that Mary Magdalene was an important part, the most important disciple within the disciples.
I go into a great detail into who she was, what she was, how her history links back all the way back to the Macatamers of the United Monarchy.
They were these important women who played out important roles within the theology. They were known as, ‘God’s wife’. You will find a lot of the reasoning behind what Mary Magdalene was doing in the title of, ‘God’s wife’.
It comes back from Egypt, again. In Egypt, God needed a consort. And the original God, Artum, did not have a consort. There was no goddess equivalent. And so, he needed a consort. So the position of, ‘God’s wife’, was invented.
So we have this mortal wife of the god. This tradition has gone all the way through Egyptian eras, all the way through the United Monarchy, into the 1st Century. And, I have no doubt that Mary Magdalene was, the ‘God’s wife’, of that era.
The names match up in that era. So she was Mary Magdalene – ‘Magdalene’ means ‘tower’. The original tower this referred to, was probably the pyramids. Mary was the equivalent of Isis.
If we look at the Madonna and child imagery from the New Testament, it is pure Egyptian. So Mary was a manifestation of Isis.
So, the crucifixion … was Jesus crucified? Well, possibly. But I don’t think he was crucified in A.D. 30, because all of these events that we’ve been talking about, the links with Josephus, the being persecuted within Galilee, and so on …all of that happened in about A.D. 60-65.
[interviewer] And when would Mary have come into the picture if Jesus married her and had children with her?
[Ellis] They could have married and had children at any time, we’re probably talking about A.D. 20-25-30. They could have had older children by this time. All of these events we’ve been talking about, didn’t occur in A.D. 30. All of these events happened in about A.D. 65.
Jesus would have been much older at this point. He would have been around 60 years old. And Josephus would have been much younger, around 30.
So, the crucifixion, if it happened, did not happen in A.D. 30. But of course as we go down the years and come to A.D. 65-70, then we enter the most traumatic era in Judaic history – the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.
Part of the reason for the story about the Mount of Olives, why there would’ve been 30,000 soldiers on the Mount of Olives was because there was a civil war going on. What I’m saying, of course, is that Jesus was one of those elements within that civil war.
And, this is a real civil war, from history. But, this civil war started to involve the Romans, because effectively, this was supposed to be Roman territory.
The last thing the Romans wanted was this major dispute going on, on their eastern borders …because, they were afraid of Persia.
So Disspacium, the army commander, was sent to restore order in the area. So, he went all around Galilee and destroyed the cities there. Then, of course, they marched on Jerusalem, itself.
So then we have this major event, the siege of Jerusalem. At the end of the siege of Jerusalem, the Jews lose. Jerusalem is destroyed, the people are either killed during the assault or taken of as slaves or scattered in another huge exodus.
All of the Jewish population are thrown out of Israel, and hence all these problems we have today with the Zionists wanting to go back into Israel. All of this occurred because the Roman army dispersed all of the Jews out of Israel.
But, at the last moment, Josephus (Saul-Josephus) was a major component in this war. He was not working for the Romans, he had given up on the Jews, and working for Jesus. He was not working for Disspacium as propaganda minister...
Effectively, he was a traitor as far as the Jews were concerned …he was working for the wrong side. But, when Jerusalem fell, he was in a perfect position to write a history of the events in Nazera(?).
Not only that, he was given some special thank-you presents by the State and he passed them on to the world. He was given land in Judea, he was given all of the scrolls from the Temple of Jerusalem. This is where I depend to much on his text …not only his New Testament texts, but his Old Testament texts, as well. Because he had the original Torah from the Temple of Jerusalem. So his Torah, his own testament is far more ancient and far more authoritative than any Torah we have extant, today.
This is why I tend to rely on his text very much. Last favor of Titus, because when he entered Jerusalem, there were three of his previous acquaintances – remember, he’s on the wrong side, he’s on the Roman side – so, these acquaintances would’ve been the rebels in Jerusalem.
So, he saw three acquaintances on crosses being crucified. The Romans had crucified them. He asked a special favor, for them to be taken down. And, they were taken down. And, only one survived.
So, here we have a story about three people being on a cross, who were associates, or previous friends of Josephus … only one of them survived.
The person who takes them down from the cross, was called, Josephus. Here, I think we probably see a linking to Biblical history. Because the person who took Jesus down from the cross was called Chester(?)
It seems to be an incredibly similar story, I think it is a direct link. But, we’re looking at a different era. This didn’t happen in A.D. 30-33, this business with Jesus’ resurrection in A.D. 30-33, was a simple, Masonic 33rd degree raising … the same as any mason would go through today, where they symbolically die, and are raised from the dead.
So, these events were not from this era, they were from A.D. 70, the destruction of Jerusalem … a major event which is strangely absent from the New Testament. Very strangely, absent.
If you want to look at the true story of the New Testament, you have to go to a book called, ‘The Jewish Wall’, written by Josephus. It follows the same sort of chronology, the same people, the same events … but it’s taken from a secular viewpoint instead of a religious viewpoint.
So these two books were written: one was a religious book of this era; the other is a secular book of this era.
One was written for his new church, the Church of Saul. The other was written for the Romans … because the Romans wanted a history of this era. So he wrote two books. One was secular. One was religious. And they went to different people.
…so, the one person of the three that survived, may have been Jesus. But, remember, this Jesus from this era would have been 65 years old. He already had children. We don’t need him to survive in order to maintain the bloodline. We know that he had children … at least we can be as sure as we can.
There’s an interesting confrontation between Saul and someone called, ‘Jesus’, in his travels. He has this violent argument. Why did he have an argument with this guy? His name was, ‘Jesus’.
The last thing Saul wanted on his travels around the Mediterranean, was someone called, ‘Jesus, or a son of Jesus’, saying that what you’re saying is rubbish. And, this is effectively what this guy was saying.
That’s why Saul had an argument with this particular Jesus, or son of Jesus. I’m pretty sure that Jesus did have sons and daughters. Some of them would have escaped either prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.
They would have gone off maybe to the south of France, we have all these stories of Mary Magdalene, there.
King Abraham, by Ralph Ellis
It is explained by clergy the whole of Western world was suddenly transfixed by the philosophy of a family of nomadic sheep-herders wandering around the Negev desert, a family who had held their traditions through thousands of years - at a time when most individuals were illiterate.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian says of Abraham:
Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt at the time, descended on this land w/an immense army & seized Sarah the Princess, mother of our nation. & what did our forefather Abraham do? Did he avenge the insult by force of arms? Yet he had three hundred & eighteen officers under him, w/unlimited manpower at his disposal
Three hundred & eighteen officers, not men, under his command, it was obviously quite a sizable army that Abraham had at his disposal - possibly running into the tens of thousands.
…The patriarchs in the Bible are known as being shepherds … Joseph's family is asked by pharaoh:
What is your occupation? & they said ... Thy servants are shepherds, both we, & also our fathers.
… a whole dynasty of pharaohs were known as shepherds! These were the pharaohs who, in the historical record, had 'invaded' northern Egypt during the 14th to 16th dynasties & these peoples were known as the Hyksos, a term which translates as 'Shepherd King'
…the Bible mentions a family line of Shepherds of which it says the kings will come out of you & likewise the historical record tells us that some of the pharaohs of northern Egypt were called Shepherd Kings.
We’ve real history provided for us by archaeologists & then there is the theological history of the Bible, Koran & Torah - yet it seems at times the two records are mutually exclusive.
Nothing in the theological record really ties in w/the historical one.
… why should an Egyptian pharaoh wish to be known as a shepherd? The answer lay in the Egyptian records & their fascination w/astrology … a stellar reference, these kings were being compared to the constellation of Aries.
… w/the sheep becoming the constellation of Aries (or their followers) & the cattle as Taurus (and their followers), everything fitted into place.
… w/the millennia & each era has a ruling constellation, the current one is Pisces. Back in the 13th 14th dynasty, they were on the cusp of a change in the constellations, between Taurus & Aries.
The era of Taurus lasted until about 1800 BC, when Aries came into ascendance, this date is not only very close to both the era of the first Hyksos pharaohs & the arrival of Abraham in the Bible, but … the constellations caused a social rift between the Apis Bull worshippers in Thebes (the Taureans) & the Hyksos Shepherd pharaohs in the north (the Arians). The country was divided, there was civil war - just as the historical records indicate.
…the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho indicates (as does the Bible) that there were two exoduses from Egypt - one a major migration & the other a smaller exodus of priests.
After the first exodus, the patriarch Joseph (he w/the coat of many colours, i.e., a priests stole) goes back to Egypt & rises to become the most powerful man in Egypt, save from the pharaoh himself.
Joseph asks his family to join him in Egypt, but he has a warning for them.
(Paraphrased) You are shepherds as you know, & your duty is to feed the cattle... & it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call you, & shall say what is your occupation. You must say in return that your trade has been cattle from our youth even until now, both we & also our fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt, for we shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians. Genesis 46:32
… Replacing the altered words w/their original astrological counterparts:
(Paraphrased) You are Hyksos/Arians as you know, & your duty is to convert the followers of Taurus ... & it shall come to pass that pharaoh will call you, & shall say what is your religion. You must say in return that your religion has been Taurean from our youth even until now, both we & also our fathers. Otherwise you will not be allowed to stay in the land of Egypt, for we Hyksos/Arians are an abomination to the Egyptians.
… the Egyptians thought the “shepherds” were an abomination … not a reference to profession, but to a religion & an entire nation - the Hyksos.
Egypt had just been through civil war w/these peoples, a war between southern & northern Egypt which resulted in the Exodus of the Hyksos peoples & the destruction of much of the northern delta lands.
Of course the 'shepherds' were an abomination to the (southern) Egyptians - they were the Hyksos Shepherds.
Forget the picture postcard images of simple nomadic farmers - enter the tortuous dynastic alliances & political machinations of the most powerful people in the world - the pharaohs of Egypt.
Joseph was, by the admission of the Bible, the vizier to the pharaoh, the second most powerful man in the world.
Fig 1 The cartouche for Yacobaam
The Torah & Old Testament were never intended to be simple tales of Asiatic tribes & sheep herders. The true story is a complete history of the ruling family of Egypt, the 'Royal Bloodline'.
Each of the names in the table below has only required small changes to the pharaonic names, each made using the standard techniques that all Egyptologists use, to reform themselves into their Biblical equivalents. This is not 'cheating', for Egyptologists do not know themselves how these names are supposed to be pronounced.
After a long list of biblical pharaohs we finally come to another pharaoh, the one mentioned by the historian Josephus at the beginning of the article - Necho.
Looking down the historical record for an equivalent pharaoh reveals that the closest match is Nehesy, a fifteenth dynasty pharaoh.
…Egyptologists are uncertain of the exact pronunciation here so the name Nehesy could also be seen as being pronounced as Nehosy, each is a valid transliteration. It is also significant that the name of Abraham's wife was Sarah, which is quite possibly a derivation of this same pharaoh's throne name, which was Aasehra.
perhaps Necho & Nehesy were simply different renditions of the 'first name' of this pharaoh.
Looking at the Bible we find a possible third translation of this name, that of Nachor, the grand-father of Abraham. Have we found another Biblical pharaoh? The Biblical Nachor & Josephus' pharaoh called Necho seem close…
…compare the family histories, comparing sons & grandsons … the throne-name of the pharaoh Nehesy is Aasahra & equates w/the Biblical Thara; it looks as if the Bible has simply dropped the initial 'A' in the name.
The fact that there was an original 'A' attached to this Biblical name is confirmed by the same stories that occur in the Koran, where the same individual (the father of Abraham) is called Azar.
The Koran seems to have lost the 'a' at the end of the name, lost the suffix of this name instead of prefix. but if we conjoin the two patriarchal names of Azar & Thara, we derive Aathara or Azara.
it would appear the pharaonic name of Aasahra has been preserved in these religious texts.
What we now have is the father & grandfather of Abraham joined into one individual in the Egyptian historical record, where he is listed under the two names of the pharaoh Nehesy.
If we quite legitimately change the second vowel in the name Nehesy to an 'o', we derive:
The historical Pharaoh: Nehosy (Aasahra)
The Biblical Patriarch: Nachor (Azarah)
…The Biblical Nachor (Azarah) fathered Abraham himself. Yet if we look at the historical record, the son of Nehesy (Aasarah) is this pharaoh called Sheshi…
…[is] this line of Biblical pharaohs is a historical reality. … the throne name of the pharaoh Sheshi is Mayebre or Mamayebra. This name not only sounds like Abraham, w/the 'M' displaced to the end, it is quite possibly another very simple & possibly deliberate mistranslation of it. The cartouche of Mamayebra looks like this:
[see url] Fig 2. Cartouche of Mayebra
Mam-aye-bra ~ Ay-bra-ham.
What better way to hide the name of a pharaoh, than simply moving the first syllable to the end of the name. So … the truth lay hidden for thousands of years - Abraham was a pharaoh of Egypt.
The Bible seems to admit this possibility, even if theologians will not; of Abraham it says:
For a father of many nations I have made thee. & I shall make thee exceedingly fruitful ... & kings shall come out of thee.
… the Biblical patriarchs were indeed powerful people, they were pharaohs of Egypt.
no shred of archeological evidence for existence of Moses or bible’s main Hebrew characters – from Abraham to Jacob, to King David, to King Solomon... There is evidence for existence of Egyptian pharaohs who these biblical characters are based on.
[based on Ellis:]
Evidence shows ancestral patriarch of Hebrew Jews is Amenemhet I & his biblical name is Abraham. Since pharaoh Amenemhet worshipped god Amen, are Amen and biblical god same god?
Yakubher is Aramean name for Jacob, Egyptology experts interpret this as evidence biblical Jacob & Hyksos king Yakubher were the same
Moses closely matches Thutmosis III, even names Moses & Thutmosis almost identical.
King David reigned for 50 years, Egyptian history reveals Pharaoh Psusennes also ruled Canaan for 50 years at same time as biblical king David – both battled same enemy called, sea people, or Philistines.
Pharaoh Siamun & King Solomon reigned at same time & fought same enemies in Canaan, called Matani, Hittites and Philistines.
(Jacob: 1758 – 1611 BC, King Yakubher reign: 1655 – 1646 BC)
(King David reign: 1012 – 962 BC, Psusennes reign: 1039-991 BC)
(Moses: 1527 – 1407 BC, Thutmose third reign: 1479 - 1425 BC)
(Abraham: 2055 – 1880 BC, Amenemhet first reign: 1991 – 1962 BC)
(King Solomon reign: 970 – 931 BC, Siamun reign: 978 – 959 BC)
'Tombs of King David, King Solomon & Queen of Sheba Discovered', by Ralph Ellis
primary problem for Judaeo-Christian theologians is King David & King Solomon, celebrated kings of Judaic history, can't be found in historical record.
How could a wealthy & influential empire disappear from archaeological record? physical evidence, or rather lack of it, is troubling.
two historic sarcophagi had lain, mis-identified, in museum for 60 years ... I discovered at back of a small room, solid silver coffins of two most celebrated monarchs in ancient history lay in total darkness.
early Biblical patriarchs [history] showed them to be Hyksos pharaohs of Egypt. Biblical Exodus of ‘lowly’ shepherds out of Egypt was actually historical exodus of Hyksos Shepherd Kings out of Egypt.
[my] book, 'Tempest & Exodus', showing Biblical Exodus had been inscribed upon an ancient Egyptian stele of Ahmose I.
what of later & famous Israelite monarchs ... King David & King Solomon? ... missing from archaeological record of Judaea; could they have Egyptian ancestry & heritage?
table lists known pharaohs of 21st dynasty & compares names w/equivalent Biblical ancestors of King David:
Biblical Leaders--------Historical Pharaohs
top line represents Biblical pronunciation (B), lower line is historical equivalent (H):
H-----------Esses- -ram (Ramesses X),
H-----------Ram- -esses (Ramesses XI),
B-----------Ammin- -nad -dab,
H-----------Amen- -Nes -ba -neb -djed,
B-----------... Nah- -shon,
H-----------Amenem -Ne -shu,
H-----------Bas- -Uas- -orkon,
there are some equivalent names in historical chronology of Egypt & Biblical chronology of United Monarchy – two royal lines mimic each other.
But ... pharaonic king-list ends up w/a pharaoh called Psusennes, whereas Biblical chronology results in King David.
look at characters’ attributes as well. two main claims to fame for King David: familiar now & 3,000 years ago during reign of this famous king – ‘Star of David’, & ‘City of David’.
if a member of Egyptian royal family can be found strongly associated w/both star & city, we may resolveidentity of historical King David.
an Egyptian pharaoh of 21st dynasty whose name in hieroglyphic spelling encompassed both star & city glyphs, was called, 'Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit'.
see url in previous post - Fig 1. Cartouche of Pasebakhaen-nuit (Psusennes or David)
similarity between these two monarchs is striking, possibility exists [they] [were] related to each other or, [were] same individual. [&] common Greek name for this pharaoh was, 'Psusennes' – same pharaoh who appears in Egyptian king-list next to Biblical King David.
If these two kings have similar attributes, their names seem different ... how did Biblical scribes confuse a complicated Egyptian name like Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit (Psusennes) w/the Judaic name, David?
...name David is a shortened nickname, based on star glyph. common pronunciation for glyph, is, 'seba', from, Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit. seba is not only word in Egyptian used to describe a star ...the scribes [for] Judaic translation of this name, [used], 'djuat'.
Hebrew form of ‘David’ is pronounced Daveed ... not difficult to see how this name was derived from Egyptian original of djuat or djuait.
Hebrew translation, given in text books, is not necessarily original pronunciation of this royal name. name of King David is only given by three consonants of Daleth, Waw & Daleth, which actually give us name DVD or DUD dwd, & this is recognised as short form of name, David.
Since true vowels aren't written in Hebrew text, they have to be inserted between consonants to produce a name like DaVaD or DaUaD. if true pronunciation of name is unknown then insertion of vowels is based on guesswork, & if initial vowel were deleted, resulting name for King David would be DVaD or DUaD.
Rectifying error in pronunciation would mean real Hebrew name for King David, was Duad; whereas Egyptian word for this star was pronounced, 'djuat'.
‘t’ & ‘d’ consonants are almost interchangeable in Egyptian alphabet, words djuat & djuad could be considered direct equivalents. Only now can truth of matter be clearly seen, Judaean King known as David [Duad] was most probably Egyptian pharaoh called Psusennes (Pa-djuat-kha-en-nuit).
name of a daughter of this same pharaoh, was known as Maakare Mu-Tamhat.
King David had a daughter [w/a] similar name; called Maakhah Tamar rmt hkem. only appreciable difference between names of these two royal princesses is that Judaean lady has dropped ‘Mu’ from her second name – in Hebrew texts, Egyptian name Maakare Mu-Tamhat has become Maakare Tamhat, or Maakhah Tamar.
(see url from last post) fig 2 Maakare mu-Tamhat or Maakah Tamar
trace origins of legendary Queen of Sheba.
Theologians will point towards Ethiopia, while historians will instead indicate that she came from Saba, an ancient city-state that was situated in modern-day Yemen.
both of these locations are wrong, & it was 1st century historian Josephus who had a better grasp of history of this era, when he stated that Queen of Sheba came instead from Egypt.
This fact was noted in Biblical texts, but scribes were obtuse in not actually naming this famous (Egyptian) queen in this particular verse:
"And Solomon made a marriage alliance w/Pharaoh king of Egypt, & took Pharaoh’s daughter, & brought her into city of David. (1Ki 3:1)"
it is clear an Egyptian princess did visit & marry King Solomon, Bible tries to keep this verse separate from section that details ‘additional’ visit to King Solomon by Queen of Sheba. (1Ki 10:1-13)
But, 'Kebra Nagast', Ethiopian Bible, gives away Judaic Bible’s long-lost secret. Kebra Nagast says this ‘pharaoh’s daughter’ was Queen of Sheba. 2nd, text name[s] this princess, as Maakshare – a name read as Maakare, as ‘kh’ & ‘sh’ transpositions between Egyptian & Hebrew languages are numerous.
comparison between 3 different textual sources suggests Queen of Sheba was an Egypto-Judaean princess called Maakare Mu-Tamhat in Egyptian language, & Maakhah Tamar in Hebrew.
how did Egypto-Judaean princess become known as Queen of Sheba? ...convoluted consanguinity rules applied, & resulting marriage between Princess Maakhah Tamar & her father, King David [Psusennes].
Egyptian name for Pharaoh Psusennes [King David] was Pa-djuat-khaennuit. It was from star glyph in this name, which can be pronounced as djuat, that this king’s nickname of Duad or David was derived. Since djuat was a star that was closely associated w/this particular pharaoh, common phrase for this glyph became ‘Star of Duad’ or ‘Star of David’.
princess, called Maakhah Tamar was now married to King David [Psusennes], she’d have the same associations, ‘Queen of King Duad’ or ‘Queen of King David’.
common pronounciation of this pharaoh’s name in manuals is, 'Pa-seba-khaennuit' ...star glyph is translated as, 'seba' (sheba), or, ‘star’.
King David could have been known as King Sheba. title given to Maakhah Tamar, daughter-wife of King David – instead of being ‘Queen of King David’, would [be] ‘Queen of King Sheba’, or, ‘Queen of Sheba’.
Biblical texts show Maakhah Tamar had another title, 'Bathsheba'. ... bath tb meaning ‘daughter’ & sheba ebv meaning ‘Sheba’. ...name of Maakhah Tamar before she married; since she was King David’s daughter she'd be called, ‘Daughter of Sheba’ (Bath Sheba). only after she married her father she became ‘Queen of Sheba’ (Malkah Sheba).
...John Rabe, a German businessman and Nazi organizer in China Mr. Rabe (pronounced RAH-bay), [was] the top representative in China for the Siemans manufacturing concern ...
The best-documented example of Wall Street intervention in revolution the operation of New York syndicate in the Chinese revolution of 1912, which led by Sun Yat-sen. Although the final gains of the syndicate remain unclear, the intention and role of the New York financing group fully documented down to amounts of money, information on affiliated Chinese secret societies, and shipping lists of armaments to be purchased.
The New York bankers syndicate for the Sun Yat-sen revolution included Charles B. Hill, an attorney with the law firm of Hunt, Hill & Betts. In 1912 the firm located at 165 Broadway, New York, but in 1917 it moved to 120 Broadway (see chapter eight for the significance of this address).
Charles B. Hill director of several Westinghouse subsidiaries, including Bryant Electric, Perkins Electric Switch, and Westinghouse Lamp — all affiliated with Westinghouse Electric whose New York office also located at 120 Broadway. (Charles R. Crane, organizer of Westinghouse subsidiaries in Russia, had known role in the first and second phases of the Bolshevik Revolution (see page 26).
The work of the 1910 Hill syndicate in China recorded in the Laurence Boothe Papers at the Hoover Institution. These papers contain over 110 related items, including letters of Sun Yat-sen to and from his American backers. In return for financial support, Sun Yat-sen promised the Hill syndicate railroad, banking, and commercial concessions in the new revolutionary China.
Syndicate Bank Provides Loans to SVA NEC
SHANGHAI, Dec 19, 2003 (SinoCast via COMTEX) -- A syndicate organized by Chinese banks provides a syndicated loan of JPY 64.6 billion to Shanghai SVA NEC Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd. (SSNLCD) for the TFT-LCD (Thin-Film Technology - Liquid Crystal Display) project.
The agreement was signed by the two sides on December 14. The syndicate bank is composed of Industrial and Commercial Bank ofChina Shanghai Branch, Bank of China Shanghai Branch, China Construction Bank Shanghai
Like Russia, China wants a reduction of the U.S. military presence in Central Asia. Both powers have sought to use the— as a vehicle to pressure the U.S. to withdraw its military forces from the region. However, this cooperation represents a short-term, tactical marriage of convenience rather than a budding new strategic alliance. In the long run, Russia and China are likely to be rivals for power and influence in Central Asia.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization — a regional grouping that includes Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
The communist revolution in China also backed by Wall Street. In 1946, The American Government imposed an arms embargo on the Nationalist Government when it on the verge of defeating the communists.
Congress voted to send millions of dollars of arms to the Chinese government but the aid deliberately delayed for months. When it did arrive, the rifles didn't have any bolts in them & useless.(17)
Google Video Link
In the 95 years since Mesopotamian oil was struck in Masjid Soleiman ... Britian has been at war with, or occupying Iraq.
www.gasandoil.com... Iran explores new gas field in Masjid Soleiman
18-04-08 A new gas field was explored in the oil-rich Masjid Soleiman region, southwest of Iran, the deputy director of the National Iranian Oil Company for exploration affairs stated. Speaking on the sidelines of the 13th Oil, Gas, and Petrochemicals Exhibition in Tehran, Mahmoud Mohaddes added the gas field is in Kuh Asmari and holds some 985 bn cf of which 729 bn cf can be extracted. The output of the gas field is fed to the Razi Petrochemical Complex.
By digging three wells in the field, 150 mm cf of sour gas can be extracted per day, he noted.
Originally posted by kreese
It's sad how many people don't know about what really happened, How many ultra-rich Americans supported the Nazi party.
If everyone in the world knew what the average ATSer knows, there would be an immediate uprise.
star and flag
(5-of-15) theme: drive east to capture Baku oil fields (which Chevron succeeded in doing mid-90s by genocide in eastern Europe & toppling soviet regime)… an effort to march thru Russia & India to wipe out (colonialize) China.
Afghanistan war(s), Pakistan war(s) about capturing & controlling heroin industry
The material on Afghanistan that follows represents preliminary drafts of three chapters of the unpublished volume on Afghanistan in the Federal Research Division's Area Handbook/Country Studies Series. This volume was one of several books in the process of research and writing when funding for the Series was eliminated ... Had it been published, the book would have superceded Afghanistan: A Country Study, fifth edition.
Chapter 1, Historical Setting, completed in 1995 by Craig Baxter, provides an historical overview of Afghanistan from the Pre-Islamic period through the period of Soviet intervention in the country, which ended in February 1989.
Chapter 2, The Society and Its Environment, completed in 1997 by Nancy Hatch Dupree and Thomas E. Gouttierre, describes the Afghan natural and social environment, and includes, among other subjects, discussion of ethnic groups, religion, education, health, and the country's refugee problem.
Chapter 4: Government and Politics, written by Richard S. Newell in 1997, provides additional historical background and analyzes the development of the Taliban regime and opposition to it.
AFGHANISTAN'S HISTORY, internal political development, foreign relations, and very existence as an independent state have largely been determined by itsOver the centuries, waves of migrating peoples passed through the region--described as a "roundabout of the ancient world," by historian Arnold Toynbee
geographic location at the crossroads of Central, West, and South Asia.
In modern times, as well as in antiquity, vast armies of the world passed through Afghanistan, temporarily establishing local control and often dominating Iran and northern India.
Although it was the scene of great empires and flourishing trade for over two millennia, Afghanistan did not become a truly independent nation until the twentieth century.
In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan lay between the expanding might of the Russian and British empires. ..."like a goat between these lions [Britain and Tsarist Russia] or a grain of wheat between two strong millstones of the grinding mill, [could] stand in the midway of the stones without being ground to dust?" Constrained by the competing dictates of powerful British and Russian empires,
Alexander and Greek Rule, 330-ca. 150 B.C.
It took Alexander only three years (from about 330-327 B.C.) to subdue the area that is now Afghanistan and the adjacent regions of the former Soviet Union. Moving eastward from the area of Herat, the Macedonian leader encountered fierce resistance from local rulers of what had been Iranian satraps. Although his expedition through Afghanistan was brief, he left behind a Hellenic cultural influence that lasted several centuries.
In 1838 Auckland, Ranjit Singh, and Shuja signed an agreement stating that Shuja would regain control of Kabul and Qandahar with the help of the British and Sikhs; he would accept Sikh rule of the former Afghan provinces already controlled by Ranjit Singh, and that Herat would remain independent. In practice, the plan replaced Dost Mohammad with a British figurehead whose autonomy would be as limited as that of other Indian princes.
It soon became apparent to the British that Sikh participation--advancing toward Kabul through the Khyber Pass while Shuja and the British advanced through Qandahar--would not be forthcoming. Auckland's plan in the spring of 1838 was for the Sikhs--with British support--to place Shuja on the Afghan throne. By summer's end, however, the plan had changed; now the British alone would impose the pliant Shuja.
The First Anglo-Afghan War
To justify his plan, Auckland issued the Simla Manifesto in October 1838, setting forth the necessary reasons for British intervention in Afghanistan. The manifesto stated that in order to insure the welfare of India, the British must have a trustworthy ally on India's western frontier.
The Russians advanced steadily southward toward Afghanistan in the three decades after the First Anglo-Afghan War. In 1842 the Russian border was on the other side of the Aral Sea from Afghanistan, but five short years later the tsar's outposts had moved to the lower reaches of the Amu Darya. By 1865 Tashkent had been formally annexed, as was Samarkand three years later. A peace treaty in 1868 with Amir Muzaffar al-Din, the ruler of Bukhara, virtually stripped him of his independence. Russian control now extended as far as the northern bank of the Amu Darya.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War
After months of chaos in Kabul, Mohammad Akbar secured local control and in April 1843 his father, Dost Mohammad, returned to the throne in Afghanistan. During the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49), his last effort to take Peshawar failed.
In the years immediately following the First Anglo-Afghan War, and especially after the 1857 uprising against the British (known as the Sepoy Rebellion) in India, Liberal Party governments in London took a political view of Afghanistan as a buffer state.
After tension between Russia and Britain in Europe ended with the June 1878 Congress of Berlin, Russia turned its attention to Central Asia. That same summer, Russia sent an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul. Sher Ali tried, but failed, to keep them out. Russian envoys arrived in Kabul on July 22, 1878 and on August 14, the British demanded that Sher Ali accept their mission.
With British forces occupying much of the country, Sher Ali's son and successor, Yaqub, signed the Treaty of Gandamak in May 1879 to prevent a British invasion of the rest of the country. According to this agreement and in return for an annual subsidy and vague assurances of assistance in case of foreign aggression, Yaqub relinquished control of Afghan foreign affairs to the British. British representatives were installed in Kabul and other locations, British control was extended to the Khyber and Michni passes, and the Afghanistan ceded various frontier areas to Britain.
ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, "THE IRON AMIR," 1880-1901
Consolidation of the Modern State
As far as British interests were concerned, Abdur Rahman answered their prayers: a forceful, intelligent leader capable of welding his divided people into a state; and he was willing to accept limitations to his power imposed by British control of his country's foreign affairs and the British buffer state policy.
He achieved this consolidation of Afghanistan in three ways. He suppressed various rebellions and followed up his victories with harsh punishment, execution, and deportation. He broke the stronghold of Pashtun tribes by forcibly transplanting them. He transplanted his most powerful Pashtun enemies, the Ghilzai, and other tribes from southern and south-central Afghanistan to areas north of the Hindu Kush with predominantly non-Pashtun populations. Finally, he created a system of provincial governorates different from old tribal boundaries. Provincial governors had a great deal of power in local matters, and an army was placed at their disposal to enforce tax collection and suppress dissent.
Third Anglo-Afghan War and Independence
Amanullah's ten years of reign initiated a period of dramatic change in Afghanistan in both foreign and domestic politics. Starting in May 1919 when he won complete independence in the month-long Third Anglo-Afghan War with Britain, Amanullah altered foreign policy in his new relations with external powers and transformed domestic politics with his social, political, and economic reforms...his reign ended abruptly...
In May 1921, the Afghans and the Soviets signed a Treaty of Friendship, Afghanistan's first international agreement since gaining full independence in 1919. The Soviets provided Amanullah with aid in the form of cash, technology, and military equipment.
[note: I'll later research who the financiers were]British unease increased when Amanullah maintained contacts with Indian nationalists & gave them asylum in Kabul, & also when he sought to stir up unrest among the Pashtun tribes across the border. The British responded by ... imposing restrictions on the transit of goods through India.
May 1921, Afghans & Soviets signed a Treaty of Friendship, Afghanistan's first international agreement since gaining full independence in 1919. Soviets provided Amanullah with aid in cash, technology, & military equipment.
Anglo-Afghan relations soured over British fear of an Afghan-Soviet friendship, especially with the introduction of a few Soviet planes into Afghanistan.
Reform, Popular Reaction, & Forced Abdication
Amanullah's domestic reforms ... could not match his achievement of complete, lasting independence. Mahmoud Beg Tarzi, Amanullah's father-in-law, encouraged the monarch's interest in social & political reform but urged it be gradually built upon a strong army & central government, as in Turkey ...Amanullah was unwilling to put off implementing his changes.
Amanullah's reforms touched on many areas of Afghan life. In 1921 he established an air force, albeit with only a few Soviet planes & pilots; Afghan personnel later received training in France, Italy, & Turkey. Although he came to power with army support, Amanullah alienated many army personnel by reducing both their pay & size of the forces & by altering recruiting patterns to prevent tribal leaders from controlling who joined the service.
...Amanullah's minister of war, General Muhammad Nadir Khan, a member of the Musahiban branch of the royal family, opposed these changes, preferring instead to recognize tribal sensitivities. The king rejected Nadir Khan's advice & an anti-Turkish faction took root in the army; in 1924 Nadir Khan left the government to become ambassador to France.
If fully enacted, Amanullah's reforms would have transformed Afghanistan ...[but] died with his abdication: transforming social & educational reforms included: adopting the solar calendar, requiring Western dress in parts of Kabul & elsewhere, discouraging veiling & seclusion of women, abolishing slavery & forced labor, introducing secular education (for girls as well as boys); adult education classes & educating nomads. His economic reforms included restructuring, reorganizing, & rationalizing the entire tax structure, anti-smuggling & anti-corruption campaigns, a livestock census for taxation purposes, the first budget (in 1922), implementing the metric system (which did not take hold), establishing the Bank-i-Melli (National Bank) in 1928, & introducing the afghani as the new unit of currency in 1923.
The political & judicial reforms Amanuallah proposed ...included creation of Afghanistan's first constitution (in 1923), guarantee of civil rights (first by decree & later constitutionally), national registration & identity cards for citizenry, establishment of a legislative assembly, a court system to enforce new secular penal, civil, & commercial codes, prohibition of blood money, & abolition of subsidies & privileges for tribal chiefs & the royal family.
Conventional wisdom holds the tribal revolt that overthrew Amanullah grew out of opposition to his reform program, although those people most affected by his reforms were urban dwellers not universally opposed to his policies, rather than the tribes. Nevertheless, the king had managed to alienate religious leaders & army members.
The unraveling began, however, when Shinwari Pashtun tribesmen revolted in Jalalabad in November 1928. When tribal forces advanced on the capital, many of the king's troops deserted. Amanullah faced another threat as well: in addition to the Pashtun tribes, forces led by a Tajik tribesman were moving toward Kabul from the north. In January 1929, Amanullah abdicated the throne to his oldest brother, Inayatullah, who ruled for only three days before escaping into exile in India. Amanullah's efforts to recover power by leading a small, ill-equipped force toward Kabul failed. The deposed king crossed the border into India & went into exile in Italy. He died in Zurich in 1960.
TAJIK RULE, JANUARY-OCTOBER 1929
The man who seized Kabul from Amanullah is described by historians as a Tajik bandit. A native of Kala Khan, a village thirty kilometers north of Kabul, the new Afghan ruler dubbed himself Habibullah Khan, but others called him Bacha-i Saqqao (Son of the Water Carrier). His attack on Kabul was shrewdly timed to follow the Shinwari rebellion & the defection of much of the army. Habibullah was probably the first Tajik to rule this region since before the Greeks arrived (although some historians believe the Ghorids of the twelfth century to have been Tajiks).
Little is written of Habibullah Khan's nine-month reign, but historians agree he could not have held onto power very long. The powerful Pashtun tribes, including the Ghilzai, who had supported him against Amanullah, chafed under rule by a non-Pashtun. When Amanullah's attempt to regain his throne failed, those next in line were the Musahiban brothers, who were also Muhammadzai Barakzai & whose great-grandfather was an older brother of Dost Mohammad.
The five prominent Musahiban brothers included Nadir Khan, the eldest, who had been Amanullah's former minister of war. They were permitted to cross through the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to enter Afghanistan & take up arms. Once on the other side, they were not allowed back & forth across the border to use British territory as a sanctuary, nor allowed to gather together a tribal army on the British side of the Durand Line. However, the Musahiban brothers & the tribes ignored these restrictions.
After several attempts, Nadir & his brothers raised a sufficiently large force--mostly from the British side of the Durand Line--to take Kabul on October 10, 1929. Six days later, Nadir Shah, the eldest of the Musahiban brothers, was proclaimed monarch. Habibullah fled Kabul, was captured in Kohistan, executed on November 3, 1929.
MUHAMMAD NADIR SHAH, 1929-33
The new ruler abolished Amanullah's reforms, but despite efforts to rebuild an army just engaged in suppressing a rebellion, the forces remained weak while religious & tribal leaders grew strong. In 1930, there were uprisings by the Shinwari Pushtuns [and] another Tajik leader. The same year, a Soviet force crossed the border in pursuit of an Uzbek leader harassing the Soviets from his sanctuary in Afghanistan. He was driven back to Soviet side by Afghan army in April 1930; by end of 1931 most uprisings had been subdued.
Nadir Shah named a ten-member cabinet, consisting mostly of members of his family, & in September 1930 called into session a loya jirgah of 286 which confirmed his accession to the throne. In 1931, the king promulgated a new constitution.
Despite its appearance as a constitutional monarchy, the document officially instituted a royal oligarchy, & popular participation was merely an illusion.
Although Nadir Shah placated religious factions w/a constitutional emphasis on orthodox denominational principles, he also took steps to modernize Afghanistan in material ways, although far less obtrusively than his cousin Amanullah. He improved road construction, especially Great North Road through the Hindu Kush, & methods of communication. He forged commercial links w/same foreign powers that Amanullah had established diplomatic relations with in 1920s, &
under leadership of several prominent entrepreneurs, he initiated a banking system & long-range economic planning.
Although his efforts to improve army didn't bear fruit immediately, by time of his death in 1933 Nadir Shah created a 40,000-strong force from almost no national army at all.
Nadir Shah's brief four year reign ended violently, but accomplished a feat his great-great-uncle, Dost Mohammad, would have been proud: he reunited a fragmented Afghanistan. Nadir Shah was assassinated in 1933 by a young man whose family had been feuding w/the king...
MOHAMMAD ZAHIR SHAH, 1933-73
Zahir Shah, Nadir Shan's son & successor, became Afghanistan's final king. For his first thirty years on the throne, he accepted tutelage of powerful advisers in the royal family, his uncles, his cousin, Mohammad Daoud Khan ... in the last decade of sovereignty Zahir Shah rule[d] ... unencumbered.
Zahir Shah & His Uncles, 1933-53
Three of the four Musahiban brothers survived Nadir Shah's death, & went on to exercise decisive influence over decision making during Zahir Shah's first twenty years of reign. The eldest, Muhammad Hashim, had been prime minister under the previous king, retained that post until replaced by youngest brother, Shah Mahmud in 1946.
Hashim put into effect the policies already orchestrated by his brothers. Internal objectives of the new Afghan government focused on strengthening the army & shoring up the economy, including transport & communications. Both goals required foreign assistance.
Preferring not to involve Soviet Union or Britain, Hashim turned to Germany. By 1935 German experts & businessmen had set up factories & hydroelectric projects at invitation of the Afghan government. Smaller amounts of aid were also forthcoming from Japan & Italy.
Afghanistan joined League of Nations in 1934, same year United States officially recognized Afghanistan. Conclusion of Treaty of Saadabad w/Iran, Iraq, & Turkey in 1937 reinforced Afghanistan's regional ties to neighboring Islamic States.
After the outbreak of World War II, the king proclaimed Afghan neutrality on August 17, 1940,
but the Allies were unhappy with the presence of a large group of German nondiplomatic personnel. In October British and Soviet governments demanded that Afghanistan expel all nondiplomatic personnel from the Axis nations.
Although the Afghan government considered this demand insulting and illegitimate, it appeared to heed the example of Iran; Britain and the Soviet Union occupied Iran in August 1941 after the government ignored a similar demand. Afghanistan ordered nondiplomatic personnel from all belligerents to leave, and a loyal jirgah called by the king supported his policy of absolute neutrality.
As the war progressed, it provided larger markets for Afghan agricultural produce (especially in India).
Shortly before the end of the war, Shah Mahmud replaced his older brother as prime minister, ushering in a period of great change in both internal and external policies. Among other things,
he presided over the inauguration of the Helmand Valley Project, a cooperative irrigation venture drawing Afghanistan into a closer relationship with the United States, which financed much of the work.
He also oversaw the opening of relations with the newly created state of Pakistan, which inherited the Pashtuns from the formerly British-ruled side of the Durand Line.
The Pashtuns (or Pakhtuns) sought an independent or semi-independent statehood, that would include the Pashto (or Pakhtu) speakers within Pakistan. This issue would have a resounding impact on Afghan politics, as would Shah Mahmud's political liberalization of the country.
The Pashtunistan Issue
Amir Abdur Rahman had bitterly resented the Durand Line and none of his successors relinquished the notion of Pashtun unity
even as they cooperated with the British government on other matters.
Eventually, the line dividing the Pashtun people became extremely contentious to the governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Although the issue became most vexing during partition, British policy in the area before 1947 also aggravated the Pashtunistan problem.
In 1901 the British had created a new administrative area, the North-West Frontier Province, which they detached from the Punjab. This new province was divided into Settled Districts and Tribal Agencies, with the latter ruled by a British political agent who reported directly to Delhi.
In 1934 Britain extended self-government to the North-West Frontier Province. By this time, the Indian National Congress (Congress Party), which many Muslims saw as a predominately Hindu organization, had expanded its political activities to include the province.
The links between the political leaders of the North-West Frontier Province and the Hindu leaders of Congress were such that a majority in the North-West Frontier Province assembly originally voted to go with India in the partition, a decision which probably would have been rejected by the voting majority in the province.
In July 1947, the British held a referendum in the Settled Districts of the province offering the population the choice of either joining an independent India or a now-inevitable Pakistan. An estimated 56 percent of the eligible voters participated and over 90 percent elected to join Pakistan. A loya jirgah was held in the Tribal Agencies. Offered a choice between joining India or Pakistan, the tribes declared their preference for the latter.
Although both Afghanistan and Pakistan made conciliatory gestures, the matter remained unresolved. In one of the government's attempts to suppress tribal uprisings in 1949, a Pakistani air force plane bombed a village just across the frontier.
In response, the Afghan government called a loya jirgah, which promptly declared that it recognized "neither the imaginary Durand nor any similar line" and that all agreements--from the 1893 Durand agreement onward--pertaining to the issue were void. Irregular forces led by a local Pashtun leader crossed the border in 1950 and 1951 to back Afghan claims. Pakistan's government refused to accept the Afghan assertion that it had no control over these men, and both nations' ambassadors were withdrawn, but were exchanged again a few months later.
The issue of an international boundary through Pashtun areas was of great importance to policymakers in Kabul. Pakistan halted vital transshipments of petroleum to Afghanistan for about three months in 1950, presumably in retaliation for Afghan tribal attacks across the border. At this time, Afghan government interest shifted to offers of aid from the Soviet Union and in July 1950 it signed a major agreement with the Soviet Union.
Early Links with the Soviet Union
Pakistan's petroleum cutoff over the Pashtunistan issue and the resulting trade agreement between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union were major watersheds in bilateral relations.
The agreement was much more than a barter arrangement exchanging Soviet oil, textiles, and manufactured goods for Afghan wool and cotton;
the Soviets offered construction aid to erect petroleum storage facilities, to explore oil and gas reserves in northern Afghanistan, and permission for free transportation of goods across Soviet territory.
This new relationship was attractive not only because it made it difficult for Pakistan to disrupt the Afghan economy by blockading or slowing down transshipped goods but also because it provided a balance to United States aid in the Helmand Valley [irrigation] Project. After 1950 Soviet-Afghan trade increased sharply as Soviet technicians were welcomed and a trade office was opened.