The sequel to Jesus: Last of the Pharoahs is more reasonable than the former. Mostly, because Ralph Ellis concentrates on one period of time only and takes more time to reason about this single issue. It is about the volcano's eruption on (Greek) Thera/Santorini playing catalyst for the religious strife within ancient Egypt, leading to the Hyksos' exodus(es). Prominently featured is the identification of Biblical Mt. Sinai with the Great Pyramid of Giza. Which functions both, as the template for the portable ark of the covenant of the Jews and circling procession like around today's Kabaa (to be precise, a different pyramid is suggested for the latter tradition). All of which sounds..., well... more than a bit unusual. The reasoning of the author merits attention, however, maybe only to be found out later that it was important for the way to "the truth" than actually representing the last word on everything touched.
I read the 2nd revised edition of 2006 (of the original book of 2000) and I advise to read the respective latest edition, as the author revises his books frequently. As such, some of my and others' criticism may get revised in later editions.
The major problem with Ralph Ellis' books is that they predominantly depent on linguistics as the basis for his hypotheses. On the one hand, this methodology offers largely untapped opportunities for revelations from the perspective of the current lack of historical knowledge about those Imes (times). On the other hand, these hypotheses should get confirmed by other means, which this book does a little bit more than other works of the author, yet still not sufficiently. For a simple reason: Linguistics offer a potential minefield for folk etymologies. Additionally, Ralph Ellis is very liberal in averring connections and changing words to fit each other. He will be right at times, but hardly all the way. He also likes to find proof for this theories, never to be wrong in the end. That is very suspicious in itself, smacking of constructivism, for the odds are slim that a scientist is right about his initial assumptions all the time. Even though I have to say, this book currently reads as mostly comprehendable.
Mostly means not all the time. One example for his falling for an folk etymology is his reproduction of the historic legend that the croissant is derived from Hungarian bakers thwarting a conquering attempt of the Budapest besieging Turks, celebrating themselves with a food product in the form of the Islamic crescent. This goes back to a supposed event of 1686. Unfortunately for this legend, this wasn't known before 1948, when Alfred Gottschalk wrote that in a book. Which was totally fabricated. As can be seen by the fact that 10 years previously he wrote the same story in another book ("Larousse gastronomique"), but this time placing the events in Austrian Vienna three years previously. In reality, the croissant, which is supposed to be derived from the crescent, hasn't been heard of in France before the 19th century. And in Austria the template for croissants has been known many centuries before any Turk army appeared on the horizon. Ironically maybe connected to even earlier monastery bakers celebrating Easter with this product looking like horns of an animal, as the original Austrian/German name suggests - which would have been interesting for Ralph Ellis to find/construct some other connection to ancient Egypt. But I do not necessarily want to encourage him any further... This paragraph by no means debunks the entire book, as Ellis' hypotheses do not depent the croissant. It is just that anything whatsoever I know about which Ralph Ellis writes about in his books, he gets wrong without further question. Which makes me wonder about the things he writes, nobody else knows anything about. In other words: I think most in this book sounds plausible, but everything should be checked independently. Even Ellis himself corrects his previous books. For example, in Thoth: Architect of the Universe he locates Atlantis in the Atlantic. In this book, he corrects himself in locating Atlantis among the Greek islands. And in later books, such as in Cleopatra to Christ (Jesus was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra) / Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots (Ireland and Scotland were founded by an Egyptian Queen) [Two Books in One] he suddenly turns his most prominent theory over that the Hyksos were Egyptians without any migratory background. Simply because new theories of his collide with his former ones. Simply, because, again, he likes to prove his theories by finding the corresponding/constructed evidence. He should revise all of his books more frequently, I may offer... The positive aspect of this is that he himself is showing that prolonged reasoning and research leads to ever new insights and even not quite correct theories are necessary for progress.
By the way: Atlantis???
His reasoning about Sodom and Gomorrha doesn't grow stronger in this book than in the prequel. This time he wants to derive "Sodom" from fornication. Whatever, but here's the message: The original theology of that story is not about any sexual matters whatsoever, it's about greed and not sharing a bit of one's accumulated wealth, going so far as to maltreat any potential one in need.
The bottom line is: This book is worth reading, just don't ingrain anything in it as incontrovertible. The sequel in this series is Solomon, Falcon of Sheba: The Tombs of King David, King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba Discovered (original title).