Was King Tut "Jesus"? An Excerpt From Michael Bradley's Attack On America

The biblical Hebrews were absolutely unique among Caucasus invaders in their refusal to adopt goddesses from the older Mediterranean-to- India civilization. Most of the Caucasus invaders did so to a greater or lesser degree. The characteristic symptom that these Mesopotamian, Persian and Greco-Roman empires were still at least somewhat psychosexually balanced and transitional is that, except for the Hebrews, they still preserved a place for vital and powerful goddesses in their religions. It is true, however, that in some of these cultures many of the goddesses had been demoted to be mere "wives" of the major thunder-and-lightning sky gods.

In Europe, the Greco-Roman or "Hellenistic" polytheistic and pagan civilization was the last muted whisper of a much older "Ice Age" Western culture that had existed, in at least some basic respects, since the so-called "Upper Paleolithic" about 20,000 BC.

Only in Egypt did the Great Goddess, called Isis in this area, manage to retain her position as the major deity until 31 BC just before the start of the orthodox so-called "Christian Era". The son and husband of Isis, under many names, was the messiah originally worshipped in a very recognizable Christian form since about 6000 BC in the predynastic Nile delta.

Messiah was originally an Egyptian word, not a Hebrew word or concept, and actual recognizable Christianity had been worshipped since 1400 BC along the Nile. It became the official state religion of Egypt under the Greek Ptolomies about 320 BC. Many people may eventually come to practice "true Christianity" again. Egyptian Messiah elsewhere on this site may interest some readers.

As for the biblical Hebrews themselves, those stubbornly male-dominant descendants of very ancient Caucasus invaders of Palestine, they embarked upon one of the greatest self-delusions in intellectual history.

And, determined to believe firmly in it, they were able to pull off deceptions that fooled at least two foreign powers: possibly Ancient Egypt in circa 1375 BC and certainly Persia (circa 530 BC) and the
United States (AD 1947) and one strong foreign religious influence -- Christianity. These manipulations still cause wars and headlines.

This history is much too complicated and convoluted to cover fully in a "brief" essay-overview like this. Details are provided in Majestic 5 and Egyptian Messiah elsewhere on this Site. But a sketchy outline, at least, is absolutely necessary and it is offered here.

Modern archaeology in the "Holy Land" between 1910 and the present has not turned up any definitely identifiable Hebrew artifacts that are older than about 850 BC. But be warned that just the right artifacts, of just the right pre-850 BC age, are very likely to be conveniently "discovered" as the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict intensifies.

It is evident that the Hebrews in Palestine had always remained a minor part of the "Middle Eastern" population that found a niche only around Jerusalem among the dominant Philistines. Our modern word "Palestine" derives from Philistine. And the Philistines gradually became known as the Phoenicians who dominated the region up until the very well-known historical time of the Persian conquests and the subsequent victory of Alexander the Great.

One of the characteristics of the Neanderthal mindset is a hunger for "identity in the dimension of time" and this comes from the "war of physical and glacial adaptations" referred to earlier. This Neanderthal hunger for identity in the dimension of time is the basic argument of The Iceman Inheritance.

Biblical Hebrews saw a chance to enhance and exaggerate their importance and their identity when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon attacked Jerusalem in 597 BC and again in 587 BC. He carried much of Jerusalem's population off to captivity in Babylon.

Possibly in order to encourage and reinforce the threatened cultural cohesion and identity of their captive people, Hebrew scribes, priests and tribal historians ("rabbis") concocted a glorious past history for them. As the Old Testament would have it...

Briefly, after the Exodus from Egypt under Moses (circa 1350 BC), the Children of Israel spent "forty years" in the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula. They subsisted on the oily food called "manna from heaven" supplied by the Lord. This miracle of manna was absolutely necessary to the mythic Old Testament "history". Everyone in Palestine knew that there was not enough food or water in the moonscape of the Sinai Peninsula for a horde of the traditional size to have survived for even one year, never mind the biblical forty.

Because of his past sins, Moses himself, although the greatest leader of the Chosen People, was not permitted to enter the Promised Land and "no man" knows where his tomb is. The popular Hebrew folk tradition and accepted fact that Moses had never led the Israelites into the "Promised Land" of Palestine had to be dealt with...somehow. A punishment by the Lord for his past sins seemed the best "explanation".

The successor of Moses, called Joshua ben Nun, conquered the "Promised Land" of Palestine, then occupied by the Canaanites, Philistines and other tribes. There is a very deep psychological story behind this "Joshua ben Nun" (i.e. Jesus, son of the Fish), but we cannot go into everything in a "brief" psychobiological over-view of Western history as this essay purports to be. The land taken by this "Joshua" was apportioned between the 12 tribes of Israel (circa 1300 BC). But there was continual opposition from the former inhabitants, especially from the Philistines.

This initial conquest was followed by about four hundred years of leadership by judges and popular tribal leaders, during which time the Mosaic Laws were gradually adopted by at least most of the Israelites. At the end of this period, the Israelites asked their most prominent prophet or leader, Samuel, to establish a kingship. The first Israelite king, Saul, displeased the Lord by not committing genocide thoroughly enough against some Amalekites and was deposed.

The second king of the Hebrews, a great king named David, consolidated Joshua's conquest against mainly the Philistines and established a great "empire" from the Nile to the Euphrates (David was traditionally crowned in 1063 BC). David's son, Solomon, ruled this empire during a long lifetime (circa 950 BC) before, on his death, the single empire broke up into two strong kingdoms.

The northern kingdom called "Israel" had its capital in Samaria. The southern kingdom of "Judah" had its capital in Jerusalem.

According to this "history", Assyria attacked the northern kingdom of Israel in 722-721 BC, utterly defeated it and carried all of its people off to some unknown fate. These are the ten "Lost Tribes" of Israel.

Then, a little more than a century later, Nebudchadnezzar of Babylonia attacked the southern kingdom of Judah and carried off the population of Jerusalem into the "Babylonian Captivity". But Babylon, in its turn, was conquered about seventy years afterwards by Cyrus the Great of Persia. He freed the Israelites and allowed them to return to their beloved Jerusalem and the Promised Land.

Now, it cannot be said too strongly that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any of this concocted history in Palestine.

Most of this so-called "history" takes place before 850 BC and the time of the very first carbon-dated Hebrew artifacts in Palestine. And also and just as important as archaeology, this Hebrew "history" does not agree with any of the other chronicles and histories of any of the neighbouring peoples around Palestine. But these other cultural records do agree with archaeology in the general region of Palestine.

There was no conquest of Palestine by Joshua. No empire of David and Solomon in Palestine. No two strong kingdoms of Israel and Judah in Palestine.

Although Assyria did attack Palestine in 722-721 BC and it was certainly a traumatic event in Palestine, there is no prior archaeological evidence of these "Lost Tribes" and no archaeological evidence of Hebrew occupation of Samaria and the area around it.

The disappearance of what must have been the majority of the supposed "Hebrew" population in Palestine did handily and conveniently explain, however, what had happened to the necessarily large population of David and Solomon's empire. This empire had supposedly existed just two centuries before Assyria's assault on Palestine. But as every Hebrew knew very well, there was no large remnant population of Hebrews or Israelites in Palestine circa 520 BC when Cyrus the Great "restored" them to rule of the "Holy Land".

These "Ten Lost Tribes" were an absolutely necessary corollary myth to support the primary myth of an ancient Israelite empire in Palestine.

It was a time when few people were literate, and the Israelite captives in Babylon had been torn from their roots and tribal continuity anyway, and so they believed this "history" when their priests recited it.

But more to the point, someone else believed it.

Cyrus the Great of Persia attacked and defeated Babylon in 538 BC. The biblical hero Daniel had been the cupbearer to one of the defeated Babylonian co-kings, Belshazzar...and he became cupbearer to the conqueror Cyrus too. He became more than a cupbearer, he became something of a friend and advisor to Cyrus because Cyrus knew little or nothing about the various peoples that Babylon had subjugated during its long career of conquest. This local knowledge was important for the ongoing rule of Persia's new lands.

In brief, Daniel convinced Cyrus the Great that this concocted Hebrew history was true. And he convinced Cyrus to "restore" the Hebrews to the control of Palestine. This Cyrus did between 538 BC and 518 BC, and he sent elements of the Persian army to back-up and support the Hebrew occupation and rule of Palestine.

As the Bible tells us, the native Palestinians did not like the situation any more then than they did some 2,450-odd years later in AD 1947 when the Jews pulled off the same ploy for the second time with the creation of the modern state of Israel.

The truly significant difference was that in 1947-1948 modern Israel was to be populated by Ashkenazi "Jews" and not even by biblical Jews. The only military and tactical difference was the minor point that in 1947-1948 the Americans substituted for Persians. But the Americans acted with the same gung-ho military activity as the Persians had done and with the same lack of basic research and verification.

It is very obvious, though, that the so-called "Holocaust" of the Nazi era and World War II played an important part in creating American and even world sympathy for those Central European "Jews" who survived. This sympathy permitted North American "Jews", using Hollywood movies publicly and much money privately, to lobby for and promote the creation of modern Israel as a place where the "always-victimized 'Jews' " could be safe.

Precisely because this so-called "Holocaust" played so crucial a role in the establishment of modern Israel, the following history may prove to be extremely enlightening for some readers. Perhaps we should take another long and very objective look at claims for this so-called "Holocaust" ...and, while we are doing so, it would be nice to define it.

Because so much of Western geopolitics is still based on the "history" of the Old Testament incorporating as its basic theme a traditional Jewish homeland in the "Promised Land" of Palestine, it might be worth at least a very brief look at the story told by archaeology, linguistics and other traditions. What actually happened?

The first thing to admit is that there is not enough publicly-released data to construct an alternative history that can be supported by objective scientific evidence. For example, one of Israel's most prominent archaeologists, Dr. Ze'ev Herzog of Tell Aviv University, does not even think that the Israelites ever resided in Egypt and left in the so-called "Exodus". There is no known Egyptian or other account recording the specifically Israelite residence in Egypt, their bondage there and their supposed Exodus. There are no known and identifiable "Hebrew" artifacts of the proper "bondage-and-Exodus" historical period in Egypt.

Herzog thinks that the nomadic Hebrews just trickled into Palestine from the general direction of Sumeria and kept a low profile as minor herdsmen among the resident Canaanites and later Philistines. There was no period of residence and "bondage" in Egypt, no "Exodus" from Egypt, no Israelite conquest of Canaan, no Israelite empire of David and Solomon and no successor kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For Jewish-Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog, it is all pure myth.

Nonetheless, their Egyptian residence, bondage and Exodus is such a strong motif and focus to Hebrew history that many researchers have believed that there must be at least a kernel of truth to it. Scraps of evidence from various sciences have now begun to suggest, not prove, an outline of real Israelite history that can accommodate the "Exodus".

It was, yet again, Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922 and study of the artifacts all during the late 1920s and mid-1930s that gave the first clue to the actual nature of the Exodus story.

By the late 1930s, enough was known about Tutankhamun and his close relatives to make a shrewd guess as to who "Moses" had really been and what the "Exodus" had truly represented. None other than Sigmund Freud first suggested the following general reconstruction in Moses and Monotheism (1939). This is possibly because Sigmund Freud knew Howard Carter personally and may have been told certain things that were not made public in Carter's famous book, The Tomb of Tutankhamun (3 vols: 1933).

Carter's discoveries in the tomb of Tutankhamun became something of an "international incident" during the 1920s and 1930s when the famous "curse of the mummy" gained public notoriety. This curse was shown to have been real, all right, in September 2002 with the publication in Great Britain of The Exodus Conspiracy based on dramatic revelations in Howard Carter's private letters.

Carter had found papyrus records in Tutankhamun's tomb that disclosed the real story of Moses and the Exodus. This was a secret that Howard Carter kept during his lifetime at the request of British Government officials.

Although the exact contents or present location of these papyrus records are still not known, archaeological and linguistic discoveries since 1922 have made it increasingly clear what the Exodus was all about. It seems that the deaths caused by this supposed "curse of the mummy" had a purely earthly and mundane origin in Zionist assassins trying to preserve a Jewish and Zionist claim to part of "Palestine". The 1920s and 1930s were a critical time in the development of modern Israel.

Just five years before the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb, the British Government had committed itself, in a 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild, to the so-called "Balfour Declaration" establishing the principle of British support for a "traditonal Jewish homeland in Palestine".

All during the time that Tutankhamun's treasures were being studied and the "curse of the mummy" was claiming its 1920s and 1930s victims from among those who knew Carter personally, Zionists were busy settling in Palestine. Nothing could be allowed to prevent or disrupt this initial Jewish settlement of what later became modern Israel. Because of the immense public interest in "King Tut" and the "curse of the mummy", Howard Carter's papyrus records from the tomb of Tutankhamun could possibly have done just that.

For those who are a bit puzzled as to why modern Britain has so staunchly supported President George Bush in his Middle East policies, the answer is not only Britain's desperate need for Iraqi oil.
The fact is that Britain first made modern Israel possible. The U.S. did not "invent" Israel, as Britain's Balfour Declaration did, but only supported Zionists with UN endorsement of modern Israel and with more resources than Britain could supply after World War II. The "curse of the mummy" still haunts Britain's policy in the Middle East.

It is, perhaps, no accident that the wife of Howard Carter's sponsor, Lord Carnarvon, was the illegitimate daughter of the same Lord Rothschild to whom the Balfour Declaration was addressed. Lord Carnarvon, the very first victim of the so-called "mummy's curse", had already written to the British Museum about these papyrus records found in the tomb of Tutankhamun when he was suddenly taken ill because of an "insect bite". When he seemed to be recovering, his loving wife came out from England to "nurse" him back to health. He died less than a week after she arrived in Cairo.

Here is a very brief version of the apparently real story of the Exodus.

It is thought that Tutankhamun's supposed father and (much more certainly) predecessor was the heretical Pharaoh Akenaten who believed in just the One God, "Aten". Most books on Egyptian history written by conventional Egyptologists have presented Akenaten as being a purely Egyptian product. But from the late 1930s, and much more especially since Ahmed Osman's work in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been increasing reason to doubt this view. It seems that the One God "Aten" was known and worshipped in biblical Goshen even before Akenaten was born.

The biblical "Land of Goshen" boasted a number of fairly large lakes. These were marshes left in the lowlands of northeastern Egypt by the "Ice Age" rainy periods, or "pluvials", that substituted for snow in warmer Egypt. The Nile may also have fed these marshes after the end of the "Ice Age" by saturating the lowlands of the Nile Delta, especially the more pronounced depressions. The present Suez Canal makes use of these same depression and marshes.

We will remember that this "Land of Goshen" was the very place where the Old Testament says that the Israelites settled when they relocated into Egypt to escape famine. The major town of Goshen was called Avaris. It is also known that the Hyksos or "Shepherd Kings", when they invaded Egypt, made their capital at Avaris. This town and fortress was on the shores of one of the lakes. Ancient Egyptian records show that a barge on one of the lakes of Goshen near Avaris was named Aten Gleams during the reign of Amenhotep III, Akenaten's father, about twenty years before Akenaten was born.

The "Lord Aten", the One God, may therefore have been a genuine Hebrew conception that came into Goshen in the vicinity of Avaris with the Hyksos-led invasion of Caucasus people. The reason why an Egyptian pharaoh, the famous or infamous Akenaten, came to worship Aten leads us to yet another complication.

It seems that Amenhotep III first married his sister, a little girl called Sitamun, and a supposed Isis-descendant, in the approved Ancient Egyptian manner in order to ascend to the throne. Sitamun may have been only three years old at the time. But he then fell heavily in love with Tiye, a girl from Goshen who was either Hebrew or half-Hebrew. Amenhotep III married Tiye and, against all previous Egyptian custom, made her his "Great Royal Wife" -- meaning that she would be the mother of his heir.

Indeed, it was none other than Amenhotep III who presented Tiye with a pleasure barge named Aten Gleams mentioned above. This means that Amenhotep III must have known that Tiye and her Hebrew relatives in Goshen were generally considered to be worshippers of "Aten". Amenhotep III enlarged the existing lake in order to give Aten Gleams more scope for short cruises and, from the timing of things, Ahmed Osman thinks that Akenaten was very probably conceived on the barge in Year 6 of Amenhotep III's reign. Tiye is thought to have been about 14-16 years old at the time. Queen Tiye is now thought to have been the mother of the heretic pharaoh Akenaten who introduced the worship of Aten to all of Egypt.

But Amenhotep III wasn't blind to the potential implications of what he had done. Any son born of his union with Tiye could not be, by definition, a son of an Isis-descendant as Ancient Egyptian custom had demanded from "time immemorial" (i.e. about 6000 BC). He therefore apparently ordered that any son of himself and Tiye was to be killed at birth. This was to preserve the Egyptian customs of royal succession. And here we have the outlines of the biblical Old Testament account of the birth of Moses.

I think that we can also see here the outlines of a Hebrew "honey trap", as modern intelligence agencies would call it. That is to say, a sexual machination to insinuate the Goshen Hebrews into the Egyptian power structure by using Tiye as bait. It is interesting that most other biblical heroines did precisely the same thing. They sacrificed themselves sexually in order to ensure a Hebrew victory or to enhance Hebrew geopolitical power (the same thing, really). And that is about the only Neanderthal political use for women.

Akenaten survived and when he "duly" took the throne through Tiye's machinations, he attempted to impose belief in his Aten upon all Egyptians and forbade any worship of Egypt's many other ancient gods and goddesses. This was a most unpopular move, and particularly with the typically conservative and traditional army upon which Akenaten depended. Within a few years, no one really knows how many, Akenaten was forced to abdicate and it seems more than possible that he was also forced into exile.

This was pieced together by Egyptologists between 1910 and 1930 from scraps of records. Akenaten had been erased from all official Egyptian historical sources and monuments. It was punishable by death, during decades after his abdication, even to mention his name.

The London-based Islamic Egyptologist, Ahmed Osman, cites evidence in several books that Akenaten was forced from the biblical "Goshen", where his followers were concentrated, into the nearby northwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula. This was not then considered to be a part of Egypt proper and was thus a place of technical exile.

Even Akenaten naturally had some followers, and these people went into exile with him so that they could continue to worship Aten. This seems to have been the "Exodus" and "Moses" seems to have been either Akenaten himself (Ahmed Osman) or a high priest of Aten (Sigmund Freud).

Akenaten's putative "son" and (much more certainly) successor was a young man of 19 or 20 years old when he assumed the Egyptian throne. We observed earlier that Tutankhamun exhibited some marked Negro physical characteristics. These Black traits could hardly have come from Akenaten.

Although Akenaten's lips show a marked eversion, this feature wasn't very likely to have been a heritage from Negro genes but from a Caucasian pathology. Akenaten possessed a very strange physique, the subject of much conjecture. The Scottish Egyptologist, Cyril Aldred, wrote that Akenaten suffered from Frolich's Syndrome while others have thought that he may also have suffered from Marfan's Syndrome.

Tutankhmun's somewhat Black African appearance cannot be attributed to Akenaten's known wife, either. She was Nefertiti, and her purely Caucasoid type of exquisite beauty is displayed for all to see in the famous bust of her that is possibly the treasure of the Berlin Museum.

Although originally named "Tutankhaten", both his advisors and the army considered it much more politic for him to adopt the name Tutankhamun in honour of Egypt's traditional and national major god of the times. Tutankhamun's brief reign was one of tolerance and reconciliation. He allowed worship of the old gods and goddesses, he restored their temples and he financially re-enfranchised their priests and priestesses...although he himself apparently worshipped Aten until the end of his very brief life.

This gives us even more reason to suspect that Tutankhamun was probably not the biological offspring of Akenaten and Nefertiti. After the blasphemous heresy of Akenaten (from the Egyptian point of view), the entire thrust of the realm's powerful counsellors and advisors must have been a "a return to decent traditional Egyptian values", as a modern politician might have put it.

This "Egyptian way of life" was last represented by Amenhotep III's proper marriage to his little sister, Sitamun. Amenhotep III ruled for forty-two years and, during this time, Sitamun naturally grew up as "a wife" of the Pharaoh, if not the Great Royal Wife. There's nothing improbable about the notion that Tutankhamun was actually the son of Amenhotep III and Sitamun. But there is nothing to prove it, either. We know nothing of Sitamun's racial characteristics, but she is likely to have been a typical representative of the "Mediterranean Race" with rather more Negro admixture.

However, there may have been plenty of female Isis-descendants among royal daughters and Amenhotep III had his choice of them as wives or concubines. But it seems that Tutankhamun must have been to son of Sitamun or one of these other royal princesses. It is very doubtful that Akenaten could have been his biological father and even more unlikely that Nefertiti was his mother. It is almost unthinkable that he could have ascended the throne as a known true son of Akenaten.

There is some slight evidence that Tutankhamun went into the Sinai in order to try to effect a reconciliation with Akenaten. But Akenaten considered him to be an apostate and a traitor. There is at least some evidence in both Hebrew and Egyptian sources that Tutankhamun was killed "on a tree" by the Jewish Chief Priest of "the Lord Aten" at the time, one "Pinhas" ("Panhesy" in Egyptian, a high official under the deposed Akenaten). The method of "Ancient Hebrew" execution was to hang the victim on a tree and break his bones with the blows of metal or hardwood rods.

This torture-death may have been of early Hebrew or Hyksos invention, but it was later replaced by stoning offenders to death. This resulted in some long bone fractures, but the victim usually died from fatal head injuries.

Tutankhamun's mummy shows that many of his arm and leg bones were broken and that he was virtually dismembered at the elbows and knees. He'd been killed by the "ancient" method.

At least, this name "Pinhas" is preserved in Hebrew sources (Talmud) as a hero who executed "Jesus", described as a false prophet who was leading Israel astray. This same Pinhas or Panhesy , on the other hand, seems also to be the "Wicked Priest" who killed the "Teacher of Righteousness" according to the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.

The real life of Tutankhamun seems to have become the traditional template for the most famous messiah, Jesus -- or so Ahmed Osman has argued in seveeral books, citing unnerving evidence for some Judeo-Christian scholars. The basic story was much later distorted by St. Paul for religious and political reasons (see below). Significantly, prophesies about the Messiah's "second coming" sometimes emphasized that this next time "not a bone of him shall be broken". This would seem to substantiate the fact that Jesus was indeed executed by the "Ancient Hebrew" method and not by later stoning. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly when the older method of execution was replaced by stoning and we can therefore not double check the time of Jesus's death by this knowledge.

The Egyptian chariot commander recovered the mutilated body of Tutankhamun and, in retribution for the "Israelite" torture and murder of him, attacked the Hebrew horde. He drove a military wedge between them and Palestine and also forced them deeper into the Sinai Peninsula. This is described biblically as a "plague" that took 35,000 Israelite lives shortly after the "Exodus".

The surviving "Israelites" of the refugee horde were forced to flee even deeper into the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula, away from Palestine, but they couldn't stay there because there is no adequate source of food and water for a large number of people with livestock. There is linguistic evidence that the Israelites crossed the modern Gulf of Aqaba near its head and continued down the eastern, or Arabian, coast of the Red Sea to the region of modern day Yemen.

They may have been harried for some of the distance, but probably not much further than the Gulf of Aqaba, by Egyptian chariotry. This is the famous biblical crossing of the "Red Sea". They may still have been led by "Moses" (Akenaten or Pinhas/Panhesy), but Moses may also have been among the 35,000 Israelite casualties inflicted by the Egyptian chariot commander. In any event, later Hebrew tradition lost track of him.

It is about this time in the Old Testament narrative that "Joshua ben Nun" is introduced as the chosen successor of Moses. When he actually took over from Moses is impossible to say, especially since this "Joshua" could not have actually existed as portrayed in the Old Testament. The names Joshua and Jesus (Ye'shua) are precisely the same in Hebrew. Indeed, in the present Greek version of the Old Testament, there is no "Joshua" -- straightforward "Jesus" conquered the Holy Land for the Children of Israel.

Sigmund Freud was the first to realize the momentous historical implications of these names, while Ahmed Osman has diligently researched the actual evidence that supports an amazing revelation. If Moses was Akenaten, then who was Akenaten's known successor?

He was none other than Tutankhamun, the pharaoh who was interred with the Christian vestments, trappings and artistic motifs on his tomb walls that so amazed Howard Carter. Freud the psychiatrist realized that, as a sort of psychological guilt compensation, the Hebrews turned their real murder victim into their mythic champion, "Joshua", the conqueror of the Promised Land.

But that also must mean that the Messianic name of "Jesus" was applied to Tutankhamun around 1350 BC! Otherwise, Joshua would not have been named Joshua. And this is more than just possible because the words Ye'shua, Iesus, Essa (the Aramaic name for Jesus, used in the Koran) and Issa (the modern Arabic name for Jesus) all mean roughly the "issue (or son) of Isis". The modern English word issue actually does come, via Latin, from this more ancient etymology. Now we know why Joshua ben Nun was named "son of the Fish" and why the earliest Christian symbol was a fish.

The full document can be found at http://michaelbradley.info/esau/esau-chapter3.html