Page 280

9 The Nonagon, the number 9, or the Ennead was known to many of the ancients as Perfection and Concord, and as being unbounded.The latter quality was attributed to it from certain peculiarities manifested by the figure 9 when treated mathematically If 9 is multiplied by itself, or any single figure, the two figures in the product when added together always equal 9. For example:
9 x 3 = 27 = 2+7 = 9; 9 x9 = 81 = 8+1 = 9; 9 x5 = 45 = 4+5 = 9; and so on. Similarly, if the numbers from 1 to 9 inclusive are added together, totalling 45, the result of adding 4 to 5 = 9; if 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81 are added the sum is 405 or 4 +0 + 5 = 9.
Again, if any row of figures is taken, their order reversed, and the smaller number subtracted from the larger, the sum of the numerals in the answer will always be 9. For example:-

and 2+3+0+8+1+8+6+8 = 36 = 8+6 = 9.
There are numerous other examples portraying this peculiar property of 9, but those given above will be sufficient to demonstrate why the ancients considered the Ennead to be unbounded. It is called Concord because it unites into one all the other primary numbers, and Perfection because nine months is the pre-natal life of a child.
In ancient Rome the market days were called novendinae, for they were held every ninth day; we remember that Lars Porsena "By the nine gods he swore"; the Hydra, a monster of mythology, had nine heads; the Styx was supposed to encircle the infernal regions nine times; the fallen angels in "Paradise Lost" fell for nine days; the Jews held the belief that Jehovah came down to the earth nine times; initiation into many secret societies of the East consisted of nine degrees; and magicians of former times would draw a magic circle nine feet in diameter and therein raise departed spirits."
 

RAMESSES
 Although something of a deliberately debilitated scribe, the scribe after serious deliberating , writ, Ramesses.

8	R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
	18	1	13	5	19	19	5	19		+	=	99	9+9	=	18	ADD
	1+8		1+3		1+9	1+9		1 + 9								TO
	9		4		10	10		10								REDUCE
					1+0	1+0		1+0								REDUCE
					1	1		1		+	=	3				TO
		1		5			5			+	=	11	1+1	=		DEDUCE
	9	1	4	5	1	1	5	1		+	=	27	2+7	=	9	NINE	9

8	R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
	18	1	13	5	19	19	5	19		+	=	99	9+9	=	18
	9	1	4	5	1	1	5	1		+	=	27	2+7	=	9	NINE	9

8	R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
					19	19		19		+	=	57	5+7	=	12
	R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
	18	1	13	5	19	19	5	19		+	=	99	9+9	=	18
	1+8		1+3		1+9	1+9		1+ 9
	9		4		10	10		10
					1+0	1+0		1+0
					1	1		1		+	=	3
		1		5			5			+	=	11	1+1	=
	9	1	4	5	1	1	5	1		+	=	27	2+7	=	9	NINE	9

10	P	I		R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
		9												=				9
								19	19		19		+	=	57	5+7	=	12
	P	I		R	A	M	E	S	S	E	S
	16	9		18	1	13	5	19	19	5	19		+	=	124	1+2+4	=	7
	1+6			1+8		1+3		1+9	1+9		1+ 9
	7			9		4		10	10		10		+	=	50	5+0	=	5
								1+0	1+0		1+0
								1	1		1		+	=	3			3
					1		5			5			+	=	11	1+1	=
	7	9		9	1	4	5	1	1	5	1		+	=	43	4+3	=	7	SEVEN	7

 
 

 

GENESIS OF THE GRAIL KINGS
Laurence Gardner 1998

Page176

"The book of Genesis (47: I1) states that, in Egypt, the Israelites were settled in the land of Ramesses, while Exodus (1: 11) claims that they actually built the city of Ramesses (Pi-Ramesses)..."
" These incongruous biblical statements have puzzled historians since Victorian times and it has long been recognized that the comments relating to Ramesses were anachronisms. They arose because the Old

/ Page 177 /

Testament compilers referred to the Egyptian delta settlement by the name known to them in the sixth century BC - and that part of the Nile delta was called the 'land of Ramesses' until the fourth century AD.18 Though perhaps anachronistic, the Bible references are not necessarily altogether incorrect, for the exodus appears to have happened in pro-tracted waves from the time of Moses and it seems that many Israelites remained in Egypt following the departure of the main body.19
Regardless of this, some scholars have lately redefined the period of Israelite settlement in Egypt so that its last days coincide with the reign ofRamesses II, giving the revised date of 1300 BC for the Mosaic exodus of the Bible.2O There is an amount of logic in this, because it is clear that Ussher's 1491 BC date was far too early for the historical Moses - but it is, none the less, guesswork.
A rather more accurate guide to the timing of the Israelite departure from Egypt was established only in 1997 when cereals from the archaeological layer at Jericho before its fall were carbon-dated to be about 3311 years 01d.21 This dates them to around 1315 BC, which means that Joshua's Israelite army which destroyed the city had still not arrived at that time. This means that by 1360 BC the Israelites were still in Egypt and had not yet removed to Sinai with Moses.
Additionally, the science journal Nature22 has identified the volcanic ash from the eruption of Mount Santorini in the Mediterranean with the biblical 'plague of darkness' in Egypt (Exodus 10:22-23), thereby wholly dissociating the event from the Exodus time-frame. The effect in Egypt of this volcanic disaster and its accompanying earthquake (geologically dated to 1624 BC) is related in the Ipuwer Papyrus acquired by the Museum of Leiden in 1828. This multi-page nineteenth- dynasty document, copied from an earlier source, tells of a series of devastating events in Egypt, in keeping with the plagues of Exodus, and it states that the fire and ash which consumed the land 'fell from the skies'23 some 300 years before the time of Moses.
Moving back to the time of Abraham, we know from the book of Jubilees24 that Abraham's great-great-grandfather, Reu (Raguel), was married to Ora, the daughter of the Sumerian king Ur-nammu of Or. It was he who built the last great ziggurat of Ur and founded the third Chaldean dynasty, reigning c.2l13-2096 BC.25 The subsequent fall of Ur took place in 1960 BC, at which time Abraham moved northwards from Ur to Haran, along with his father, Terah, and family. Then, following the death of Terah, Abraham migrated into Canaan with his wife Sarai (Sarah) and his nephew Lot (Genesis 11 :32, 12:5)..."

Page 180

"Within this sequence we find a very good example of the Old Testament's inherent confusion over dates and personal ages. Genesis
(11 :26) explains that Terah was aged seventy when his son Abraham was born; a few verses later (Genesis 11 :32) it is related that Terah lived on
to the age of 205. This would make Abraham 135 at his father's death. But then, after another four verses (Genesis 12:4), we are informed that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran after
the death of Terah!
Plainly, in matters of chronology, the contemporary records are far more reliable than -the Bible, and from these it can be deduced that the J
';
biblical accounts of the early Hebrews in Haran, Canaan and Egypt j (from the time of Abraham to the time of Moses) are set within the 600 years from 1960 BC to 1360 BC, with the exodus to Sinai coming soon after the latter date. 1
Abraham's grandson Jacob was renamed 'Israel' at the Beth-el !
covenant (Genesis 32:28, 35: 10), and his descendants became known as 'Israelites' or 'Children of Israel'. Then, in the adulthood of his sons, Jacob-Israel took his complete family (by his two wives, Rachel and Leah, and by their handmaidens, Bilhah and Zilpah), including all his grandchildren, into Egypt in about 1760 BC. By that time, it is related that his son Joseph (who had previously been sold into Egypt by his jealous brothers) had become vizier (viceroy) to the pharaoh.
The duration of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt is confirmed in the, Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament which states (Exodus 12:40): 'The:
time that the Israelites spent in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years'. In the King James Authorized Bible, the book of Exodus (12:40) simi- larly states: 'Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years'}6 If this calculation is roughly 1 correct, then the departure of the Israelites with Moses would have occurred around 430 years after 1760 BC, which places the exodus at about 1330 BC.

The main genealogical problems presented by the Old Testament's seem- ingly comprehensive family lists appear from the outset of the Egyptian sojourn. Prior to the time of Abraham, the descent of the noble patriar-chal family was recorded through the ages in Mesopotamia and these records were available to the Genesis compilers in Babylon. But, from

/ Page 179 /

the moment of Abraham's migration to Canaan and the nomadic existence of his offspring, there is very little evidence of the generations until the time of King David and his successors.
The various Bible listings from Abraham to David (which are amal- gamated in the book of 1 Chronicles) identify thirteen generations with an above-average generation standard of about seventy-two years. With the exception of the story of Joseph, the Bible is remarkably silent regarding the 430-year period which embraced the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt. The book of Genesis concludes with the death of Joseph and his embalming and burial in Egypt, whereupon the book of Exodus begins with a short account of procreational disputes between the Egyptians and Israelites, and then leaps forward through the centuries to the birth of Moses. This becomes quite disconcerting when it is realized that the Joseph and Moses stories are portrayed as if they are linked together with hardly any time between (Exodus 1). And it is positively disturbing to read in the chapters of the book of Numbers that when Moses led the Israelites across the Red Sea to Sinai, the said seventy family members of Joseph's father Jacob-Israel (Genesis 46:27) had somehow multiplied to about 2 million people, including an army of 603,550 male warriors aged over twenty!27
It is explained in Genesis (41:39-46) that, at the age of thirty, Joseph became the 'ruler over all the land of Egypt' and was dubbed Zaphnath- paaneah. This is said by the Israeli Bible scholar Moshe Weinfeld to mean something akin to 'God speaks - he lives',28 but in ancient Egypt such a title would not, of course, have referred to the God or the Hebrews. A closer translation comes from the German linguist Georg Steindorff who relates that the name means 'The god speaks - may he live'.
Were it not for the separate Egyptian records of Joseph the vizier, and of his genealogical link with Moses in the fourteenth century BC, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish him from Joseph the son of Jacob-Israel in the eighteenth century BC. The Bible (through a strategic switch of time-frames, from Genesis to Exodus) implies that these two Josephs were one and the same - and this is managed by dispensing, between books, with 400 years ofhistory,29 just as is the case between the Old and New Testaments.
What further emerges is the possibility that the whole story of young Joseph's dispute with his brothers, and the legendary coat of many colours, was contrived by biblical scribes in order to link one chrono- logical period with the other. Historically, Joseph the vizier was an

/ Page 180 /

Egyptian governor shortly before the days of Moses - but despite all popular tradition, he was not one and the same with Joseph the son of Jacob, who lived four centuries earlier.
The books of Exodus (13:19) and Joshua (24:32) each relate to the 'bones' of Joseph, claiming that the Israelites took them out of Egypt for burial at Shechem. But this is inconsistent with Genesis (50:26), which states that the body of Joseph the vizier was embalmed (that is to say, mummified) in Egypt. This form of physical preservation was specifically reserved for those of the highest orders, and there would have been no resultant bones to transport. If any bones were removed by the Israelites, these might have been the bones of the original Joseph, but they could not possibly have been those of Joseph the vizier, whose body has now been unearthed in Egypt.
So what do we know about Jacob's son, the original Joseph? We are told that Joseph was born late in Jacob's life and that he was disliked by his many brothers because he was his father's favourite and had been given a coat of many colours (Genesis 37:3). Actually, this is a corrupted English translation from the Hebrew which denoted simply an 'ornamented tunic',3O and made no reference whatever to colours. An ornamented tunic (the ketonet pasim) is later referred to in the book of 2 Samuel (13: 18) and is again wrongly stated to be 'of divers colours' in English translations. In the original text, it was strictly 'a robe with sleeves'.3) On this later occasion, the robe is worn by Tamar, the daughter of King David, and the text explains that the ketonet pasim (apparently a unisex garment) was indicative of both princely station and
virginity. 32
In the Anchor Bible, it is explained that the story of Joseph's being sold into Egypt by his brothers (Genesis 37) is, by way of linguistic analysis, the composite work of two separate authors.33 Sometimes Joseph's father is referred to as Jacob, and on other occasions as Israel. Within the context of the overlaid stories, we first have Reuben suggesting to Judah and the others that Joseph should not be slain, and then Judah makes the same plea to Reuben and the others. Whenever the paternal name 'Jacob' is used, Reuben is portrayed as Joseph's protector; whenever their father is called 'Israel', Judah is the protective brother.
There are, in consideration, numerous anomalies which make the story of young Joseph quite chaotic. Initially, the brothers throw Joseph into a pit with intent to kill him (Genesis 37:24). But then, through a change of heart, they sell him to a passing caravan of Ishmaelites (37:27). Afterwards, some Midianite traders arrive on the scene,
~
/ Page 181 /

whereupon the brothers pull Joseph, once again, from the pit and sell him to the Midianites who take him to Egypt (37:28). Then, after Joseph appears to have been sold twice, Reuben looks into the pit (37:29-30) and is surprised to find him gone!
Although unsatisfactorily constructed, t.he purpose of this narrative was to ensure that Joseph made his way to Egypt independently of his father and the rest of the family, who were said to have followed some while after. By this means, Joseph was removed from the family scene in order to become strategically identified with the later Joseph who became Governor of Egypt.
Once in Egypt, at the age of seventeen, Joseph was apparently sold to a high chamberlain (sar hatabahim) named Potiphar (Genesis 39:1), who is not mentioned by name thereafter. However, the introduction of the man's name at that early stage was conveniently suited to identifying this Joseph with his later namesake, who, at the age of thirty-three, married Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah,34 a priest of Ra (Genesis 41:45). Although the names Potiphar and Poti-pherah appear mutually supportive, the characters were distinct, one being a courtier and the other a priest.35
Finally, and to support the point concerning the contrived account of the early Joseph, we have the added story of his attempted seduction by Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:7-18). When Joseph refused to submit, the woman ripped his garment from him and presented it to her husband, claiming that she had narrowly escaped being assaulted by Joseph. Until a few decades ago, there appeared nothing untoward about this discrete little tale - but then Egyptologists translated a hieroglyphic document called the Orbiney Papyrus from nineteenth-dynasty Egypt (c .1250 BC). In this document they discovered the story's original prototype within the romantic lore of old Egypt36 - and it had nothing whatever to do with Joseph."