[deleted]
The theory sounds true
Hardly any statement about Ralph Ellis work can be further from truth. It would be more suitable for r/badhistory, but here we go.
Jesus was the King of Kings in the Bible
No, he wasn't. In the Gospels he was referred as the King of the Jews, and even that is not really important- Pilate accuses Jesus of political crimes and Jesus just shrugs the question of "if you say so" (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3). The King of Kings is applied to the Jesus only in the Epistle of Tymothy, were it is most likely a direct lift from the title Old Testament applied to the God.
and the proposed Jesus character was a Syriac King in modern day Edessa
The title of the King of Kings have a long history in the Middle East history, but it was used by major power players- like Assyrian and Persian rulers for example. Adiabene was a small Persian client state, that at the time played a role of the buffer between the Parthian and Roman empires.
spoke Aramaic / Syriac, the language of Kings
Not the Jewish kings. Aramaic was a major language in the region during the Jesus days, but it become such due to Achaemenids. Another major lingua franca was Greek Koine, imposed by Alexander's successors. Reasonable guess can be made that Izates also knew to some extent Middle Persian (language of this overlords), maybe Armenian (important neighbor) and maybe even some Latin (albeit not really important for him as even Roman elite used Koine as a first language). And nothing of this have anything to do with Jesus and the Jews.
Ralph Ellis seems to forget that it took time for a Christianity to evolve from the sect of Judaism in to universalist religion. No one cared how much Jesus was fit for the role of non-Jewish ruler. And in Synoptic Gospels, Jesus himself does not really interested to be the King of the Jews. That leads as to
Izates was Parthian Royalty
Hence he cannot be Jesus. Conversion of the Adiabenian rulers to Judaizm (something we know only from Joseph Flavius and the Talmudic tradition), while celebrated (probably) by the pious, that hardly made them an religious authority. Even Herod was reminded of his Idumean descent and his family converted generations ago. Jesus himself was taunted for being from another part of the country ("Can anything good come out of Nazareth"). Izates was a foreigner.
And another small detail- the kingship issue appears in the Gospels, only because messiah must come from the House of David. Authors of the Gospels spend a lot of effort to make a provincial rabbi to fit this requirement, because no other royal house will do.
Parth meaning (earth / ruler of the earth in ancient Sanskrit) which is the Etymology for Parsa or Persian.
That's not what word Etymology means. Also name Persia (Parsa) predates Parthia (Parthava). They however a very likely to be cognates.
This may point to the Indo Aryan origins of the ruling class in Mesopotamia
How exactly?
Aside that Indo Aryans (or Indo Europeans (IE) using less antiquated terminology) are language family. And yes, Persians (Achaemenid as well as Parthians) were IE speaking people, just like Greeks, who came to rule region in 3th century BC, so a good portion of regional nobility had IE-speaking ancestry.
It is well known that the Mittani were Indo Aryan Elite
You mean that Mittanian ruling elite was IE speaking. And even that did not lasted. We only know about IE origins mostly due to names and some terminology, as Mittanians swiftly changed in to non-IE language known as Hurrian. How they came here is a good question, but given our very limited knowledge about ethno-linguistic situation of the Ancient Middle East, its unlikely to be answered soon. also they have nothing to do with Jews generally and Jeshua ben Joseph specifically.
It is this group of Elite Horse Riding Shepherd Kings that later appear in Egypt as the Hyksos Pharaoh
No, they have not. What we know about 15th dynasty (as well as 14th) shows them to be (at least as far as ruling class is concerned) a predominately Semitic. Not IE. Also chronology is wrong again. The earliest Mitanni rulers appears in around 1500-1550 BCE. That would be about the same time then 15th dynasty was overthrown.
The Theory says that Izates took a liking for Judaism and was a recent convert and therefore implying zealotry. The theory goes on to state that while Rome was suppressing Judeah, Izates supplied weapons and manpower to instigate the first Jewish revolt and that Izates was captured.
There is confusion of the two historical characters here: Izidates, dead by the time of the revolt, and his brother Monobaz, who was the Jewish supporter.
Where I disagree with him is when he creates an improbably fantasy that Izates was not killed but was taken as political prisoner and exiled to the farthest part of the Roman Empire, i.e UK.This is think is highly unlikely, I think he was crucified.
Some of the relatives of the Izates and Monobaz were taken as hostages according to Joseph Flavius:
On the same day it was that the sons and brethren of Izates the king, together with many others of the eminent men of the populace, got together there; and besought Cæsar to give them his right hand for their security. Upon which, though he were very angry at all that were now remaining, yet did he not lay aside his old moderation; but received these men. At that time indeed he kept them all in custody: but still bound the king’s sons, and kinsmen; and led them with him to Rome, in order to make them hostages for their country’s fidelity to the Romans.
However, Izates surely was not among the prisoners because he was dead. Monobaz also was neither killed nor crucified, because he did not directly participate in the rebellion, hence he was not captured and he was not a subject of Roman Empire to do so afterwards.
I can only say once again- this is so much more fitting in r/badhistory than here.