Three hundred and 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. In this case, the image I have portrayed above is not quite so absurd, at the most it is just an embellishment on what the texts say, for they do not explain from what lands and over what peoples Abraham was such a leader. Yet how many options do we really have, how many nations in this era would have such a powerful army? This simple observation, holds within it the key to the fundamentals of modern theology and these are far removed from the Christmas card images that we are so familiar with. It is somehow explained to us by the clergy that the whole of the Western world were 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 - and all this at a time when most such individuals were illiterate. This is the fantasy!
The truth is rather different and rather more believable - Abraham, pharaoh of Egypt, master of all he surveyed, the most powerful man in the world. Now this would be a real story to set the scribes scribbling, the story of his sons, of his forefathers, of his mighty deeds and works. Like the tales of all kings, each and every schoolchild would be forced to learn by rote the names and accomplishments of the royal family, it would be ingrained into the national psyche. This is the kind of family that can trace their history back through 70 generations, as could Jesus, this is the kind of family that could spawn a billion books. Jesus' nation, the Jews, have always had an overriding fascination with genealogy, but why should this be so? The reason is now clear, with their aristocracy perhaps descended from a line of semi-divine kings and descended from the mighty Egyptian empire, I think we have all the explanations necessary. Royal dynasties to this day have the same fascination for their family history, for the family's entire existence depends solely on proving their legitimacy.
But if the biblical family were pharaohs of Egypt, should we not see them in the historical record? Indeed so, but first of all the precise era to study needs to be decided and the clue to this comes from the Bible. The patriarchs in the Bible are known as being shepherds, as I have just indicated, in fact the Bible is quite specific about this point. Joseph's family are asked by pharaoh:
This point is not just interesting, it is fundamental to understanding what the Bible is trying to tell us. For it just so happens that 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 and these peoples were known as the Hyksos, a term which translates as 'Shepherd King'. Clearly we have a very obvious and very strong link here - in fact it is amazing that so little has been said about this coincidence. There is a great deal of synergy here, the Bible mentions a very special family line of Shepherds of which it says the Òkings will come out of youÓ and likewise the historical record tells us that some of the pharaohs of northern Egypt were called Shepherd Kings. It was a similarity that was just crying out to be investigated and the results of this scrutiny were quite astounding.
To start this process is has to be assumed that the Bible contains a real historical record, yet many people may look at the Bible as something completely alien to the real world. We have the real history provided for us by the archaeologists and then there is the theological history of the Bible, Koran and Torah - yet it seems at times that the two records are mutually exclusive. Nothing in the theological record really ties in with the historical one, it is almost as if the biblical story occurred on another planet! Nothing could be further from the truth, in reality the Bible and the historical record continuously merge into one - if one knows how to interpret what is being said.
The key to this entire conundrum was the term shepherd, for why should an Egyptian pharaoh wish to be known as a shepherd? The answer lay in the Egyptian records and their fascination with astrology, this just had to be a stellar reference, these kings were being compared to the constellation of Aries. With this concept firmly in the back of the mind, the Bible suddenly started to release its long hidden secrets: for there are numerous references to sheep and cattle in the Bible and although the subject matter fitted the quaint pastoral image being plied by the clergy, none of them made any literal sense. But suitably translated, with the sheep becoming the constellation of Aries (or their followers) and the cattle as Taurus (and their followers), everything fitted into place.
As has been alluded to in previous books, the constellations move slowly with the millennia and each era has a ruling constellation, the current one being Pisces. But back in the 13th 14th dynasty, they were on the cusp of a change in the constellations, between Taurus and 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 and the arrival of Abraham in the Bible, but I would also suggest that this change in the constellations caused a social rift between the Apis Bull worshippers in Thebes (the Taureans) and the Hyksos Shepherd pharaohs in the north (the Arians). The country was divided, there was civil war - just as the historical records indicate.
The Bible has direct evidence that shows this to be true and in addition the following quote seems to be a verbatim conversation that has been preserved for some 3,500 years. The scene is set by the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho, who indicates (as does the Bible) that there were actually two exoduses from Egypt - one being a major migration and the other a much smaller exodus of priests. After the first exodus, the patriarch Joseph (he with the coat of many colours, ie a priests stole) goes back to Egypt and 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.
What could Joseph possibly mean by this statement? It is not as if the Egyptians had any prohibitions on the eating of sheep meat, so why was the pharaoh so interested in the occupation of the brothers and why was the lowly but honourable profession of shepherd so despised? The solution is simple, a couple of words have been altered by the scribes to give the conversation an agricultural bias, but in truth they were discussing the most important topic in Egypt - religion. Replacing the words with their original astrological counterparts, the full import of the statement becomes dramatically clear.
Suddenly it becomes dramatically obvious why the Egyptians thought that shepherds were an abomination. This was not a reference to a profession, but to a religion and an entire nation - the Hyksos. Egypt had just been through a bitter and bloody civil war with these peoples, a war between southern and northern Egypt which resulted in the Exodus of the Hyksos peoples and 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!
Suddenly the Bible makes sense, there is valid historical data to be found if we know what to look for. Forget the picture postcard images of simple nomadic farmers - enter the tortuous dynastic alliances and political machinations of the most powerful people in the world in that era - 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. It is not a great extension of this biblical history to say that the other members of this important family were even more powerful, that they sat on the throne itself.
Further evidence that this is the correct interpretation to be placed upon the Old Testament writings is provided by the later works in the New Testament. Jesus, who was descended from the same family as the patriarchs, was born as a Lamb of God. In other words he was a young Shepherd (Hyksos) prince in exile, he was just a lamb for the time being. As Jesus matured to become a Shepherd, another momentous event was happening in the skies above; at just this precise era the constellation of Aries started to wane in the heavens and Pisces came into the ascendance. Accordingly Jesus changed his title according to the age-old tradition, the young shepherd became a Fisher of Men, a king of Pisces. The first of the Grail romance "Fisher Kings" had been crowned.
So if the biblical patriarchs were indeed pharaohs of Egypt, why are they not to be found in the historical record? One of the simplest ways of looking for evidence for this biblical pharaonic family, would be among the all important and diligently recorded family names of the patriarchs.
Unfortunately, however, the very line of kings that we wish to research is the most fragmentary in the historical record, but nevertheless, some progress can be made. As a starting point in this search, take a look at an encyclopaedia of the pharaohs of Egypt and flick through the pages until you reach the sixteenth dynasty, the period that covers the last of the Hyksos pharaohs. The last pharaoh listed is Yacobaam, a name not unrelated to that of the patriarch Jacob. Many deliberations on this similarity are made within the book "Jesus Last of the Pharaohs", including the removal of the 'm' at the end of the name, which is likely to be a 'determinative' glyph. The resulting conclusion has to be that there is a direct connection here.
This is the radical theory that underpins the whole of the book "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs". It is a real story, constantly backed up by the ancient text themselves. The first step towards this transformation is to readjust our perceptions of the past. Throw out the years of established dogma that clouds our normally rational and critical analysis of the world and look at history anew. See the incredible tale of a ruling dynasty that has managed to cling to the greasy pole of history, despite the millennia of misunderstandings and persecutions, a family that is not even recognised by the faithful that worship them to this day. The Torah and Old Testament were never intended to be simple tales of Asiatic tribes and sheep herders. The true story is a complete history of the ruling family of Egypt, the 'Royal Bloodline'. It is a history that can both solve the mysteries of man's dim and distant past and also tell us something of our future destiny.
Working through the Bible looking for pharaohs was an interesting task, but although this may seem to be a bizarre field of study, nevertheless coincidences seemed to fall out of the texts like confetti. 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. Should the name Stephen, for instance, be pronounced Steven or Step-hen? Without a guide it is impossible to know. Now we have our guide, the Torah, Bible and Koran will instruct us as to how these ancient names should be pronounced. Using this simple technique of name comparison, suddenly the texts come alive with historical kings:
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. This link may not seem totally convincing at this stage, but remember that 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.
So perhaps Necho and 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 and Josephus' pharaoh called Necho seem far too close for comfort. To find out for sure we could always compare the family histories involved, comparing the sons and grand-sons for instance. The son of the Biblical Nachor was Thara, whereas the son of the pharaoh Nehesy was Sheshi. Thus far, this is not looking too promising.
But wait just a minute, the throne-name of the pharaoh Nehesy is Aasahra and this seems to equate very nicely with 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, however, seems to have lost the 'a' at the end of the name, it has lost the suffix of this name instead of the prefix. but if we conjoin the two patriarchal names of Azar and Thara, we either derive the name Aathara or Azara. All in all, it would appear that the pharaonic name of Aasahra has been preserved rather well over the years in these religious texts.
What we now have is the father and grand-father of Abraham being joined into just 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 thus derive:
historical Pharaoh: Nehosy (Aasahra)
This is a very satisfying arrangement. However the whole edifice we have just built up, seems to fall down on the count of one glaring error - the son of Nehesy. 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, this is truly unsatisfactory and it seems to undermine all the progress that has been made so far.
Actually this is not so, it was just the result that was needed to finally convince me, and perhaps the reader, that this was not all wishful thinking, that this line of Biblical pharaohs is a historical reality. Why? Because the throne name of the pharaoh Sheshi is none other than Mayebre or Mamayebra. This name not only sounds like Abraham, with the 'M' displaced to the end, it is quite possibly another very simple and possibly deliberate mistranslation of it. The cartouche of Mamayebra looks like this:
What better way to hide the name of a pharaoh, than simply moving the first syllable to the end of the name. So subtle and yet so effective was the ploy, that 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:
The true royal status of Abraham can be seen once more, it is just as the biblical texts tell us, "... and kings shall come out of thee." Now the ma'at, the truth, can be told; the Biblical patriarchs were indeed powerful people, they were pharaohs of Egypt.
This line of Biblical pharaohs is the baton that "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs" takes up and runs with. Here we have the outline for an entirely new history of Egypt and Palestine. The great Exodus can be seen in an entirely new light, with the causes and ramifications of this historic event falling on the shoulders of Egypt herself, it was nothing more or less than an internal dispute - a civil war. Jesus too, sprang from this royal vine, he too was a pharaoh of Egypt, but a pharaoh in exile. Egypt was no longer seen as being their rightful property by the royal dynasty at this time, but the traditions and influences of Egypt were still strong enough that the young Jesus was sent there to receive his education; they were also strong enough for the 'lamb' to pronounce himself a Fisher of Men - the ancient traditions were still being adhered to. We continue to follow the ministry of Jesus and find many references to his royal stature, plus some 'new', very interesting and contemporary historical references that place Jesus in a real historical context. He was described by his detractors in that era as being the 'Egyptian False Prophet', he was also the governor of Tiberias and he later tried to take Jerusalem back from the rebel Jewish factions by force of arms with 600 men from his base on the Mount of Olives, an event that is described in the Bible in dramatically similar phrases.
The book "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs" runs with this theme through thick and thin, for the results of this new theological interpretation can sometimes be both shocking and profound. But this is not an idea born in a vacuum, every step of the way the ancient texts assure us that this was the true history - one just needs to know the key to unlock these long forgotten secrets and the will to embrace them.
Lastly we need to address the ramifications of this research, for they are many. For, to the orthodox believer of the three Judaic religions this whole concept may appear to be a heresy to be mocked and derided, but I hope there are many readers out there with more open minds. The Jewish and Christian hierarchy have delivered a simple creed to us, but it is one that is not fully supported by the texts. They have taught us a tale of simple shepherds, but the texts say again and again, from Abraham to Jesus, that these people were kings. All I have done is to take the texts at their word and built a story on those foundations. To understand this new creed does demand a readjustment to ones religious outlook, but it is not as big an adjustment as one might expect. The trade here, for Christians in particular, is one that dissolves the unique divinity of Jesus but it delivers in return a Christian history that is traceable back to the very start of the historical world, back into pre-dynastic Egypt and beyond. It means that the family of Jesus and their descendants, can trace their history through every Egyptian pharaoh, the longest recorded family history in the world. Personally, I find such concepts both fascinating and tantalising, it detracts nothing from the religious world to think that Jesus was, perhaps, the Last of the Pharaohs.
© 1998, 1999 by R. Ellis
R. Ellis has asserted his rights, in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
Website designed by Artifice Design