JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, BOOKS XVII-XX, Jewish Revolts: Solved

[rakovsky]

Loeb's translation of Book XVII of the Antiquities is here: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl08joseuoft/page/n5
Whiston's translation of Books XVII-XX is here: sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj

(Question 1: Solved) Was (A) Judas the son of Ezekias who revolted, desired "the royal dignity", and looted the palace in Sepphoris, Galilee, in c. 4 BC the same as (B) the rebel leader "Judas the Galiliean", a Gaulonite from Gamala, who started Judaism's "Fourth Philosophy" in c.6 AD?
I think that they are probably the same person because Josephus says that Judas son of Ezekias desired the royal dignity, whereas Rabbi Gamaliel in Acts 5:37 refers to Judas the Galiliean in the context of making comparisons to the apostles' Messianic claims.

(A) Josephus describes Judas son of Hezekiah in Wars II.4,1(56) and Antiquities XVII 10, 5(27), whereas he describes Judas the Galilean in Wars II,8,1(118) and Ant.XVIII,1,1(4).

Here is what Josephus' passage on Judas, son of Ezekias, in Book 2 of Wars of the Jews, which says that in the wake of Herod's death,

At Sepphoris in Galilee and of Judas, son of Ezechias, the brigand-chief who in former days infested the country and was subdued by King Herod, raised a considerable body of followers, broke open the royal arsenals, and, having armed his companions, attacked the other aspirants to power.

He writes more in Book 17, following the death of King Herod (c. 4 BC) when a number of small rebellions started:

5. There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with great dificulty been caught by Herod. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character about Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace [there,] and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with them armed every one of those that were with him, and carried away what money was left there; and he became terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near him; and all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.

(B) Here is the section about Judas the Galilean in Wars of the Jews II, 118:

Under his administration, a Galilaean. named Judas incited his countrymen to revolt, upbraiding them as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their lord. This man was a sophist who founded a sect of his own, having nothing in common with the others.

Thackeray's FOOTNOTE says:

Judas of Galilee (as he is called here and in Gamaliel's speech in Acts v. 37) or of Gamala in Gaulanitis {A. xviii. 4) was the founder of the Zealots, whose fanaticism and violence under Florus, the last of the procurators, hastened the war with Rome. Of the issue of the revolt we learn only from Acts loc. cit. : Judas was killed and his followers dispersed.
There is no sufficient reason tor identifying this fanatic doctor, as Schiirer does, with the brigand Judas, son of Ezechias, who raised an insurrection in Galilee after the death of Herod (BJ. ii. 56).

Josephus writes about Judas of Gamala (AKA "Judas the Galiliean") who revolted in Book 18, Chapter 1, sections 1 and 6 (Whiston's translation is below):

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
...

6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

Here are Loeb's Footnotes on the section above:

In the parallel passage in BJ ii 118, and in Ant. xviii. 23, Josephus refers to Judas as the Founder of the Fourth Philosophy. JS Kennard, 'Judas of Galilee and His Clan', plausibly identifies this Judas with the Judas who seized the opportunity to aspire to sovereignty in Galilee. (BJ ii. 56).
...
It should be noted that the identification of the Fourth Philosophy with the Zealots, which scholars so often assume, is not found in Josephus here or in the account in BJ iv. 121 ff.

JS Kennard, Jr takes the view that the two Galiliean rebel leaders are the same person in his essay, "Judas of Galilee and His Clan," Jew. Quart. Rev. 36 (1945-6), 281-286. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1452114?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
They are described as leading revolts within about 9 years of each other (in c. 4 BC and c. 6 AD, since there is no "Year Zero").

However, E. Paltiel takes the view that these are two separate rebel leaders in the appendix to his essay "War in Judaea" (pp.135-136; www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1981_num_59_1_3318)

(Question 2: Solved) What is Loeb's footnote referring to as "BJ iv. 121 ff."?
In the passage in Book XVIII about Judas the Galilean, Loeb's footnote says:

It should be noted that the identification of the Fourth Philosophy with the Zealots, which scholars so often assume, is not found in Josephus here or in the account in BJ iv. 121 ff.

"BJ IV. 121 ff" must mean the Footnotes to "Wars of the Jews, Book IV, section 121." But when I turn to Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Manuscript section 121 (https://archive.org/details/josephuswithengl03joseuoft/page/36), I don't see any footnotes or mention of Judas the Galilean, nor do I see a discussion on Judaism's sects, so I don't know what the footnote is referring to.
Maybe it's a typo for Book II Section 118, which talks about Judas the Galilean and his sect.

(Question 3: SOLVED) Supposing that the names in Josephus' stories of Paulina and Fulvia might be fictional, why did Josephus decide to name both of their husbands "Saturninus"?
In Book 18 Chapter III, section 1, Josephus narrates how Pilate brought busts of the emperor to set up in Jerusalem, a crowd protested, Pilate invited them to the stadium, told them to stop protesting or he would kill them with hidden soldiers, but they offered themselves up for death, so Pilate relented and sent away the images.
Next, in section 2, Josephus narrates how Pilate took money from the treasury to build an aqueduct to the city, the people protested, so Pilate ordered the soldiers to attack, and they attacked harder than ordered. So the uprising ended after some were slain.
In Section 3, Josephus introduces what is called the "Testimonium" about Jesus. ("About this time there lived Jesus... etc.")
In Section 4, he tells the story of Paulina at the Temple of Isis, which some scholars and I believe is antithetically parallel to the Testimonium.
In section 5, he tells how four Jews tricked Fulvia into giving them money for the temple and then spent it on themselves, after which the Jews were expelled from Rome. I believe that Fulvia's story is antithetically parallel to the Biblical story of Paul raising money for Jerusalem's Church.

In Paulina's story, Decius Mundus fell in love with Paulina, a convert to Anubis' cult, but Paulina was married to Saturninus. So Mundus' female servant Ida paid Anubis' priests to fool Paulina into thinking that Mundus was the god Anubis and into having sex with him.
In Fulvia's story, three Jewish swindlers tricked Fulvia, a convert to Judaism, into making a Temple donation, which they stole.
I see Paulina's name as referring to the apostle Paul, who gathered donations from gentiles for Jerusalem's Church. Ida's name alludes to Judas, as both were involved in payments to or from priests for betrayal. "Decius Mundus" (ie. "Tenth" and "World") refers to tithing, since tithing involved taking a "tenth" of income, and in particular tithing the gentiles or "nations" for Jerusalem's Church as its spiritual "Temple".

My guess is that "Fulvia" alludes to the womb or "vulva", since the letter V is a voiced F. Further, just as Paulina's name alludes to Fulvia's story, Fulvia's name might likewise allude back to Paulina's story. Paulina's story alludes antithetically to the story of the virgin Mary conceiving of the Holy Spirit, since Paulina had sex with a fake deity, Mundus.

In each of the two stories, the female protagonist is married to a "Saturninus":

4... She[Paulina] was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character.

5... Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome...

Loeb's footnotes includes R.S. Roger's suggestion that Paulina and Fulvia could be the same person and that the husband Saturninus could be the same woman's husband.

Oba Ben Yachanon commented on a blog that Saturninus in the passage alludes to Judaism's Deity:

Why was in both tales, the women’s husbands named Saturninus, an obvious connection to the Jewish God, and in both, some sly holy men, tricking them, through their devotion to religion, one an Isis worshipper, the other a Jew, both religions, representing the faiths... Saturninus, which to ancient Romans meant the God of the Jews, which they took as Saturn...

Perhaps the Judaism's Deity would be associated with Saturn because the former rested on the seventh day of the week (Saturday)?

In Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World (pp. 85-86), Sarolta A. Takacs proposes that there was in real life a Paulina Fulvia married to a Saturninis, but she implies that enough details in the story are unrealistic that the story is probably made up:

The major problem however is the fusion of the two women who had different religious interests. Paulina was an adherent of the cult of Isis... Fulvia... can be thought of as a proselyte Jew. .... One is then left to wonder not only about her religious conversion [from Isis worship to Judaism] and persuasion, her judgment of character and naivete, but also the emperor's repeated willingness to intervene on behalf of the twice foolwed Paulina Fulvia and his sweeping punishments to avenge her. Josephus' colorful account... does not rely on the existence of a Paulina Fulvia but on the theme of moral disintegration that was in his opinion equally applicable to the Jewish and Roman state of affairs.

There was a known, famous Roman senator named Saturninus in the late First century (Lucius Antonius Saturninus), but as he was killed in 89 AD, he probably would have been too young to be Paulina's husband about 40 years earlier.

(Question 4: SOLVED) How does Josephus' depiction of John's baptism compare with the christian understanding of Christian baptism? Does Christianity follow this model: The believer repents of their sins, accepts Christ's sacrifice, receives the Holy Spirit and Grace, and then receives "water baptism", which only "seals" those processes?
In Book 18, Josephus describes John the Baptist's baptism this way:

...he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour.

(Question 5: SOLVED) How does refusing to remarry despite the emperor's request show virtue and keeping one's "life free from reproach"?
Josephus gives this explanation for Antonia's reputation of virtue:

Now Antonia was highly esteemed by Tiberias both because, as the wife of his brother Drusus, she was related to him, and because she was a virtuous and chaste woman. For despite her youth she remained steadfast in her widowhood and refused to marry again although the emperor urged her to do so. She thus kept her life free from reproach.

An acquaintance guessed "that either the 'urging' was really some kind of coercion (in which case I suppose that she was being virtuous in resisting a marriage she didn't want) or Josephus is just being a super-prude about widows remarrying."

(Question 6: Solved) How does lack of wine make one thirsty? Doesn't wine and alcohol actually induce thirst?
Josephus writes of Agrippa's thirst:

It was also very hot weather, and they had but little wine to their meal, so that he was very thirsty; he was also in a sort of agony, and took this treatment of him heinously

(Question 7: Solved) How can fortune have "power"? Isn't fortune or destiny in effect the path of history and events from the past into the future? Supposing that the future and past are already set in place, thus creating destiny, then how does destiny have power? It seems to just be the status and state of affairs in the future. The state of affairs would just exist like the ocean exists or rocks exist. It would just be the way that things are, and not itself a "power". Or does this mean that human will, the soul, the state of affairs, and destiny are different "forces" that can act on each other?
Josephus makes this comment about Agrippa and the "power of fortune":

So, upon the emperor's permission, he [Agrippa] came into his own country, and appeared to them all unexpectedly as asking, and thereby demonstrated to the men that saw him the power of fortune, when they compared his former poverty with his present happy affluence; so some called him a happy man, and others could not well believe that things were so much changed with him for the better.

My acquaintance suggested to me that <<"Power of fortune" is just another way of saying "the favor of God(s/the Fates)." They concluded that Agrippa could only have risen from poverty like that if he had divine favor.>>

(Question 8: Solved) If the Senate's math was correct in calulating the date of the loss of the Republic a hundred years before, then is it just a random coincidence or some kind of paranormal synchronicity that Emperor Caligula died and the Senate tried to restore the Republic on the Centennial?
In Book 19, Josephus tells how, on the death of the emperor Gaius Caligula, the Senate tried to take power and return to a Republic as a form of rule. The senator Sentius gave a speech praising the virtues of freedom, and they remarked with amazement that this was happening on the centennial of their earlier loss of liberty:

And this was the purport of Sentius's oration, (9) which was received with pleasure by the senators, and by as many of the equestrian order as were present. And now one Trebellius Maximus rose up hastily, and took off Sentius's finger a ring, which had a stone, with the image of Caius engraven upon it, and which, in his zeal in speaking, and his earnestness in doing what he was about, as it was supposed, he had forgotten to take off himself. This sculpture was broken immediately. But as it was now far in the night, Cherea demanded of the consuls the watchword, who gave him this word, Liberty. These facts were the subjects of admiration to themselves, and almost incredible; for it was a hundred years since the democracy had been laid aside, when this giving the watchword returned to the consuls; for before the city was subject to tyrants, they were the commanders of the soldiers. But when Cherea had received that watchword, he delivered it to those who were on the senate's side, which were four regiments, who esteemed the government without emperors to be preferable to tyranny. So these went away with their tribunes. The people also now departed very joyful, full of hope and of courage, as having recovered their former democracy, and were no longer under an emperor; and Cherea was in very great esteem with them.

WHISTON'S FOOTNOTE
Hence we learn that, in the opinion of Saturninus, the sovereign authority of the consuls and senate had been taken away just a hundred years before the death of Caius, A.D. 41, or in the sixtieth year before the Christian saga, when the first triumvirate began under Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus.

(Question 9: SOLVED) What specifically did Claudius expect the Jews to do in relation to pagan deities?
In Book 19, the new emperor, Claudius, gives an order allowing the Jews to practice their customs. But it adds a part about the Jews permitting pagan religions:

WHISTON's TRANSLATION of Claudius' words:
"It will therefore be fit to permit the Jews, who are in all the world under us, to keep their ancient customs without being hindered so to do. And I do charge them also to use this my kindness to them with moderation, and not to show a contempt of the superstitious observances of other nations, but to keep their own laws only."

LOEB'S TRANSLATION:
"I enjoin upon them also by these presents to avail themselves of this kindness in a more reasonable spirit, and not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples but to keep their own laws."

(Question 10: Solved) Is the Nazirites' (Nazir) order related to Nazareth(Natzrat) or to the "Nazarenes"?
Numbers 6:18 has these instructions: "The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head of hair at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings."

When Agrippa returned to Judea, he performed sacrifices and interacted with the Nazirites:

WHISTON's TRANSLATION:
He [Agrippa] also came to Jerusalem, and offered all the sacrifices that belonged to him, and omitted nothing which the law required; (19) on which account he ordained that many of the Nazarites should have their heads shorn.

LOEB'S TRANSLATION:
...Accordingly, he also arranged for a very considerable number of Nazirites to be shorn.

LOEB'S FOOTNOTE
Lit. Shaven. It is hardly likely... that Agrippa who was scrupulously observant of the Jewish religion should have ordered the Nazirites to violate their vow of not cutting their hair (Num. 6:5). ... It seems best, therefore to assume that Agrippa had shouldered the expenses for the offerings of poor Nazirites. The same expression, le-haleah, to shave, is found several times in the Mishnah, Nazir ii 5 and 6 in the sense of "to bring the offerings of a Nazirite." The phrase is similarly to be interpreted in Acts 21 24.

Paul was performing a Nazirite sacrifice in Jerusalem apparently, according to Acts 21, which says:

21. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. 22. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23. Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. 24. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law. 25. As for the Gentile believers, we have written them our decision that they must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.

Father Childress replied to the question "What is the difference between a Nazarene and a Nazarite?" by writing:

The two words are possibly etymologically related, though (as Karl pointed out) Nazareth and Nazarene comes to us from Hebrew and Aramaic through Greek, whereas a Nazarite is an older Hebrew word. Both are possibly based on the root nasar, which means “set apart” or “consecrated.” But more likely they are unrelated and happen to sound similar, like “hole” and “whole” in English. The town of Nazareth is probably rooted in neser, which can mean to watch or keep; as it’s the name of a city that evolved over thousands of years, the original idea was probably “watch[-tower]” or “sentinel/guard”.

SOURCE: www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Nazarene-and-a-Nazarite

John Maze claimed that the firstborn son of every woman was consecrated as a Nazirite, and that this means that Jesus was a Nazirite:

The fact is in Jesus’s time, the firstborn male of every observant woman was consecrated to God as a Nazirite in order to comply with the Passover covenant. James The Just was such because he was the first born of Joseph’s previous wife. John The Baptist was such because he was the firstborn of Elizabeth etc etc. Once you understand this tradition you realize that Jesus’s Naziritism is a given, and that the underlying reality behind the bodged translation in Matthew 2:23 is most likely Mary and Joseph consecrating Jesus to God as a Nazirite in order to fulfill the law.
www.quora.com/Was-Jesus-a-Nazarite

But I am skeptical of Maze's claim.
In Matthew's Gospel, we read: "And he (Joseph) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2: 23)." The closest verse that I found in the TaNaKh to this one is the verse wherein Samson "shall be a Nazirite"(Judges 13:5-7).

Mercedes Moss writes in his article "Was Jesus A Nazarite? – The Nazareth and Priestly Connections"(March 27, 2012):

* Nazareth was home of the priests
Nazareth... was one of the home cities of the priests. Nazareth
…possessed a synagogue. Neubaurer (La géographie du Talmud, p. 190) quotes, moreover, an elegy on the destruction of Jerusalem, taken from ancient Midrashim now lost, and according to this document, Nazareth was a home for the priests who went by turns to Jerusalem, for service in the Temple (newadvent.org).

Is this significant? Yes. Scriptures indirectly reveal that the Priests were separated to God as Nazarites.

* The priest and his separation as a Nazarite (Compare Numbers 6 with Leviticus 10 & 21)

Moss then goes on to compare numerous similarities between the rules for Nazirites and the rules for the Levitical priests.

Chaim Bentorah’s Word Study for Nazarene claims that there is a pronunciation word play between Nazareth and Nazirite in Matthew's reference to Yeshua being a Nazirite (Mt 2:23):

The Pershitta or Aramaic Bible shows something very curious that you would not pick up on in your Greek New Testament. The Aramaic word for Nazarite is spelled Nun, Tsade, and Resh, where the Hebrew word for Nazarite is spelled Nun, Zayin, and Resh. There appears to be a Semitic play on words here as the Tsade and the Zayin both make a z sound. We distinguish between the two by showing the Tsade as a ts and the Zayin as a z.

The Hebrew verb nazar means to take a vow or to consecrate. Examples of a Nazarite in the Old Testament would be Samuel and Samson. Today in the Assyrian Church the order of the Nazarites is preserved. Such individuals will not cut their hair, marry or use alcohol. Yet, there are many who do not take a Nazarite vow in that culture, yet they will still seek to live a separated life. Such individuals are called a Nazarene as an Aramaic figure of speech.

It is possible the writer of the Gospel meant this as a figure of speech playing on the Hebrew word nazar, that Jesus lived a consecrated life and was called a Nazarene, not only because he came for Nazareth but that he lived a nazar life.

What is very likely is that the writer of Matthew was making a Semitic play on the word ntsr. The ancient Persians used the word ntsr to express the idea of a green plant. The Aramaic word ntsr with the Sade means a branch.

Even the Talmud in Sanhedrin 43a recognizes Isaiah 11:1 as a prophecy of the Messiah and renders the word ntsr as a branch. In other words the writer was making a play on the word and the use of the Sade in Aramaic and the Zayin in Hebrew to express two thoughts. One is that Jesus was the ntsr spoken of in Isaiah 11:1 and that he also came from the town of nzr. That he was also one who was consecrated for a special task.
www.chaimbentorah.com/2015/01/word-study-nazarene-%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A8/

I don't really follow Bentorah's reasoning about how the Aramaic vs Hebrew versions of Nazareth v Nazarite v Nazarene explain Matthew 2:23, however. He could be mistaken. (UPDATE: I think that Bentorah is just speculating that Matthew was making a play on words and using "Nazirite"(consecrated, Nazir) as a play on the name "Nazarene", from Natsrat.)

The Class website sees Nazirite, Nazir, and Nazar as related terms both etymologically and functionally:

The Hebrew word that we translate as [Nazirite] is nazir. Since Hebrew is what is called a root-word language......that is, it takes a word and then by changing the vowel sounds, and sometimes adding or subtracting a consonant, it broadens or narrows the meaning of that word, we'll see several Hebrew word offshoots from nazir, and they are quite interesting in their use in the Bible.
The base root-word, nazir, most literally means "set-apart" or "pruned". So literally translated the person who takes the vow is... called a "set-apart person" or a "pruned away person). Whereas nazir...n-a-z-i-r is a positive term that indicates being specially consecrated for service to God, the [Nazirites] must also nazar......n-a-z-a-r, be separated, from grapes......separated in the negative sense of being prohibited from grapes.

Further there is the Hebrew word nezer ..... n-e-z-e-r, which literally means shoot or branch. It is the term used for the unpruned grapevine. But the term is also used to denote the High Priest's glorious headpiece (the one with the golden band around it), as well as the long hair of the Nazarite. So when reading these passages in Hebrew we see the obvious parallel between the High Priest's head covering (his special hat), and the Nazarite's head covering (his or her long hair). Nezer, Nazir, and Nazar.....you see how these Hebrew words all work together to help us understand the relationships between priests, grapevines, and Nazarites; and of the Nazarites' being consecrated....set-apart....for God.

SEE: www.torahclass.com/old-testament-studies-tc/37-old-testament-studies-numbers/202-lesson-8-numbers-6

(Question 11: Solved) Does it make sense that the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated Agrippa's death with "ointments and libations to Charon", since Charon was a pagan deity?
In Book 19, Josephus says that the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated Agrippa's death by pouring drinks ("libations") to Charon, a spirit of the dead in Greek mythology, despite the fact that Agrippa had renovated Jerusalem's temple:

But when it was known that Agrippa was departed this life, the inhabitants of Caesarea and of Sebaste forgot the kindnesses he had bestowed on them, and acted the part of the bitterest enemies; for they cast such reproaches upon the deceased as are not fit to be spoken of; and so many of them as were then soldiers, which were a great number, went to his house, and hastily carried off the statues (25) of this king's daughters, and all at once carried them into the brothel-houses, and when they had set them on the tops of those houses, they abused them to the utmost of their power, and did such things to them as are too indecent to be related. They also laid themselves down in public places, and celebrated general feastings, with garlands on their heads, and with ointments and libations to Charon, and drinking to one another for joy that the king was expired. Nay, they were not only unmindful of Agrippa, who had extended his liberality to them in abundance, but of his grandfather Herod also, who had himself rebuilt their cities, and had raised them havens and temples at vast expenses.

LOEB'S FOOTNOTE:
"The mythical ferryman of the dead over the river Styx or Acheron in the Lower WOrld."

I am not sure whether the celebrants were Jews, since it says this happened in Caesarea and Sebaste, which I think may have had alot of gentile inhabitants. But Josephus suggests that the celebrants, like the Jews, should have been grateful for Agrippa renovating the region's cities and temple.
I suppose that if Agrippa was a bad ruler, it would make sense that Hellenistic pagans would honor Charon for Agrippa's death. But it's hard to see why Jews would honor the pagan deity for the death of a ruler who had good relations with the Romans, especially if they objected to his favorable relations with Greek and Roman communities and powers.
My guess is that the people were using sarcasm to make fun of the sculptures by displaying them, that the libations to Charon were also sarcastic, and that in fact the revelers didn't truly reverence Charon, just as they didn't truly reverence the sculptures.

(Question 12: Solved) Are the similarities between the Partian Queen Helena's conversion to Judaism and the Roman Queen Helena's conversion to Christianity merely a random coincidence or are they a case of paranormal or supernatural Synchronicity?[/quote]
Earlier in my reading, I had come across references to Helena's pilgrimage as a convert to Jerusalem, and I thought initially that the writer was referring to the Roman empress Helena's Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 4th c. Instead, the writer had been referring to the story of Helena, a Parthian Queen who converted to Judaism in the 1st century AD, and whose son Izates was a king who converted to Judaism later too. Like the Roman Helena, this 1st century Queen Helena made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and donated major resources there for religious reasons. Like Constantine, Queen Helena's son King Izates put off formal conversion for a while. The 1st century Parthian Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgar of Edessa who appears in Christian legends as a king to whom Jesus sent a picture of himself.
Josephus mentions these events in Book 20 in passages like these:

CHAPTER 2
..., moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them.
... And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign...
... But as to Helena, the king's mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates's kingdom were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God's providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go thither; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, (5) he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem.

(Question 13: Solved) It's curious that Josephus repeatedly in Book 20 says that he is going to address certain incidents at a later time in his writings. Maybe Josephus was forced to stop writing prematurely and didn't have a chance to finish?
Josephus says at the end of Chapter 7, Section 3 about King Poleme of Cilicia:

Yet did not this matrimony endure long; but Bernice left Poleme, and, as was said, with impure intentions. So he forsook at once this matrimony, and the Jewish religion; and, at the same time, Mariamne put away Archclaus, and was married to Demetrius, the principal man among the Alexandrian Jews, both for his family and his wealth; and indeed he was then their alabarch. So she named her son whom she had by him Agrippinus. But of all these particulars we shall hereafter treat more exactly.

Loeb's edition notes in the footnotes here and in some other places that we don't have Josephus picking up some such accounts in other writings. (ie. for Chp 7 S. 3, the note says: "There is no such account extant.")

(Question 14: Solved) Did the Romans' and Agrippa's reaction against the killing of James damage or cripple the power of the Sadduccees?
Josephus writes how the procurator Albinus wrote angrily over James' killing and King Agrippa removed Ananus (the son of the Ananus who had interrogated Jesus) from the High Priesthood over it:

...this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Whiston makes an interesting note that the reader does not "meet with any Sadducees later than this high priest in all Josephus."
I also note that this is one of the last chapters in one of the last books in the Antiquities. Otherwise in the end of the Antiquities, Josephus promises to write more about certain named events, yet we don't have writings by him that do. This suggests to me the possibility that the story of James, Jesus, and John the Baptist were one of the purposes of Josephus in telling the story of the Antiquities. They were important figures, it seems, whom Josephus especially wanted to include.

(Question 15: Solved) Who was the High Priest Jesus son of Damnaeus, who replaced Ananus, and what does the name "Damnaeus", or in Greek Damneion, mean? "The Condemned?" If so, what 1st century Levite would be named "The Condemned", especially with such a name in Greek, rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew?
I don't know if this was a fictional character, but he shows up a few places later in real circumstances. For example, in the next chapter, Josephus writes:
"...the high priest, Ananias... increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents".
This passage is apparently referring to both the high priest Ananias, and the newly appointed one, Jesus Ben Damneus, as High Priests, even though Ananias had been replaced as High Priest by the latter.
Josephus talks about Jesus ben Damnaeus again here:

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king [Agrippa] had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

One theory could be that it is referring to a Damnatio Memoriae, and is using "Damnaeus" instead of the person's real name.

[alon]

(Question 1) Was (A) Judas the son of Ezekias who revolted, desired "the royal dignity", and looted the palace in Sepphoris, Galilee, in c. 4 BC the same as (B) the rebel leader "Judas the Galiliean", a Gaulonite from Gamala, who started Judaism's "Fourth Philosophy" in c.6 AD?

Probably. By “desired the royal dignity” I’m guessing he meant the Messiah. That is what all Judaism was looking for at the time. Especially rebels.

(Question 2) What is Loeb's footnote referring to as "BJ iv. 121 ff."?

Not a clue.

(Question 3) Supposing that the names in Josephus' stories of Paulina and Fulvia might be fictional, why did Josephus decide to name both of their husbands "Saturninus"?

Why would you think they are fictional? Jo was a liar, but he wrote for his captors, who would have been familiar with these people.

(Question 4) How does Josephus' depiction of John's baptism compare with the christian understanding of Christian baptism? Does Christianity follow this model: The believer repents of their sins, accepts Christ's sacrifice, receives the Holy Spirit and Grace, and then receives "water baptism", which only "seals" those processes?

Christians do everything from sprinkle to dunk, but not a one of the major denominations does it right. Baptism comes from the Jewish practice of tevilah, which the apostles also did. Tevilah is full body immersion in the waters of a mikvah. It was done many times in a Jewish person’s life, and for many reasons; changing sects or accepting the faith being 2 of them. Do a search here for the word ‘tevilah’ and you’ll find several enlightening posts on it.

[alon]

(Question 5) How does refusing to remarry despite the emperor's request show virtue and keeping one's "life free from reproach"?

Because except for Levirate marriage, in Judaism a man and his brother’s widow cannot marry.

(Question 6) How does lack of wine make one thirsty? Doesn't wine and alcohol actually induce thirst?

Alcohol does induce thirst, but if you are thirsty anyhow it can satisfy. Especially with a meal.

(Question 7) How can fortune have "power"? Isn't fortune or destiny in effect the path of history and events from the past into the future? Supposing that the future and past are already set in place, thus creating destiny, then how does destiny have power? It seems to just be the status and state of affairs in the future. The state of affairs would just exist like the ocean exists or rocks exist. It would just be the way that things are, and not itself a "power". Or does this mean that human will, the soul, the state of affairs, and destiny are different "forces" that can act on each other?

… My acquaintance suggested to me that <<"Power of fortune" is just another way of saying "the favor of God(s/the Fates)." They concluded that Agrippa could only have risen from poverty like that if he had divine favor.>>

Your acquaintance is probably right. I don’t study Josephus works, so I really cannot give a good educated opinion on how he thought. But I suspect his opinions would reflect those of a Hellenized Jew, and said characteristics would lean to the Greek since he wrote for his Roman audience.

(Question 8) If the Senate's math was correct in calulating the date of the loss of the Republic a hundred years before, then is it just a random coincidence or some kind of paranormal synchronicity that Emperor Caligula died and the Senate tried to restore the Republic on the Centennial?

Anniversaries hold a special emotional charge for people. So I am sure they took note and made every use of the date in their cause. But unless you can find a prophecy concerning the event, whether the “synchronicity” was random or paranormal is pure speculation. However the pagan in us does like to attribute such timing to “the gods.” And men, in marking historical events such as loss of freedom can date events to their own ends, as such events can be dated from different events.

(Question 9) What specifically did Claudius expect the Jews to do in relation to pagan deities?

In the pagan world of the time, one did not disrespect the gods of a land. Claudius would have had no problem with the Jews worshiping their God, as this was just another in the pantheon of gods to him. But there being Jews scattered throughout much of his empire he would have had a real problem with this God of a people interfering with the gods of the lands where they resided.

When men converted then, it was not like we think of them just going to another church. They abandoned their gods, their people, their families- everything they were was changed as they followed this new God (or gods). So whenever the Jews made a proselyte it would be as though someone died. Catholics used to, and probably still (though you’d know better than me) turn a person’s picture to the wall and treat them as deceased when they left the faith to be a Prod, or worse, a Jew! That custom comes from antiquity. Remember Naomi’s speech to Ruth? “I will go where you go, your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God.” This is what she was saying: "I’m leaving everything I was behind me to live in your land, become a Jew and worship your God alone.”

Their converting people who would then live among their former community would have a destabilizing effect wherever they were.

Then there was Israel itself. When they revolted they were a force to be reckoned with. The emperor was saying “We have an uneasy peace; let’s keep it that way. Do your thing and I’ll let you alone as far as religious worship is concerned. Just don’t make trouble.” But there is an implied threat there if they didn’t behave. It was an early model of “Detente” and the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction.” 

He was proven right much later, in the 3rd major Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba ending in 136 CE. The Jews almost won, and it took 6 legions plus many auxiliaries which weakened the rest of the regional defenses. One legion was so badly mauled, the XXII, it was disbanded and not reformed. And strategically the loss of this tiny piece of real estate would have been a disaster for Rome. Even the disruption of a major revolt was costly to trade and dangerous should armies need to be moved quickly in the region.

[alon]

(Question 10) Is the Nazirites' (Nazir) order related to Nazareth(Natzrat) or to the "Nazarenes"?

Numbers 6:18 has these instructions: "The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head of hair at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings.”

There is a lot of confusion among churches and even scholars between a person from Nazareth, a person who is of the Sect of the Nazarenes, and a person under a Nazarite (natziyr) Vow. However it is really simple. The vow was from antiquity even in the 1st cen., and is spoken of several places in scripture. We have the instructions of which you referenced, and stories of Nazarites in other books. Shimshon (Samson) was a life-long Nazarite.

The people from the city of Natzrat (Nazareth) and the region around it. In the time of Yeshua (Jesus) Natzrat and Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) were in the Galil (Galilee) province of Yahudah (Judea). This was where much of Yeshua’s ministry occurred. So it is not surprising to find the sect He established (those who believed in Him as HaMoshiach (the Messiah) would come to be known as Notsarim (Nazarenes).

Thus 3 different terms from the same root, which when translated to Greek then English tends to get confused. Which is why Christians and even many Meshiachim (Messianics) are so confused about so many things. Well, that and we use a lot of Hebrew terms just to further confuse you'all. 

Your own summary of the "root" of the problem was pretty good as well! 

[alon]

(Question 11) Does it make sense that the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated Agrippa's death with "ointments and libations to Charon", since Charon was a pagan deity?

Difficult to say if they included Jews, but I am sure the majority of the town did these rites as they were pagans. And remember in Revelation where the 7 ASSEMBLIES (not churches) were almost all criticized for following some of the customs of the places and deities where they were.

(Question 12) Are the similarities between the Partian Queen Helena's conversion to Judaism and the Roman Queen Helena's conversion to Christianity merely a random coincidence or are they a case of paranormal or supernatural Synchronicity?

The Parthian Helena may have converted to the sect of the Nazarenes or to another sect. I don’t know. However the Roman Helena if converting to Christianity would have still been pagan. Constantine never gave up his pagan rites, and most (if not all) the church fathers of the time were themselves pagan. Most were virulent anti-Semites, and biblically there are only 2 kinds of people- pagans and Jews. You are either grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, or you are unsaved. The church of that time was the latter.

Later as so many were deceived, yet still did the best they knew how, many may have been saved. I do not pretend to know where the line is for any individual which demarcates salvation. I am however sure the church fathers almost to a man fell in the unsaved, pagan camp. Their own writings and what they created bears witness to that.

The 1st century Parthian Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgar of Edessa who appears in Christian legends as a king to whom Jesus sent a picture of himself.

No Jew would have even sat for a portrait, and they certainly would not have sent one to a ruler! Especially Yeshua would not have done this!

(Question 13) It's curious that Josephus repeatedly in Book 20 says that he is going to address certain incidents at a later time in his writings. Maybe Josephus was forced to stop writing prematurely and didn't have a chance to finish?

Not being particularly scrupulous or careful in his writing, Jo probably just neglected to write about it further.

(Question 14) Did the Romans' and Agrippa's reaction against the killing of James damage or cripple the power of the Sadduccees?

Not just cripple, it destroyed them! James the Just, brother of Yeshua was well loved by almost everyone, itself an immense accomplishment in that time. The Sadducees (who were obsequious sycophants of Rome) killing of James in 62 CE and Romes indifference and support of the Sadducees was in large part responsible for the Great Jewish Rebellion of 66 CE. That resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the eradication of the Sadducees who were so closely tied to Temple service and rule.

(Question 15) Who was the High Priest Jesus son of Damnaeus, who replaced Ananus, and what does the name "Damnaeus", or in Greek Damneion, mean? "The Condemned?" If so, what 1st century Levite would be named "The Condemned", especially with such a name in Greek, rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew?

He was real, however it was Joshua ben Damnai. Joshua in Hebrew is “Yehoshua,” and even many Messianics get this wrong and translate it as Jesus. Jesus is “Yeshua,” which can be a shortened form of Yehoshua. I don’t know what “Damnai” means in Hebrew, but the Greek sounds like some similar sounding term was used, its meaning obviously different. Either that, or the appellation was given him at the time he was deposed.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

For Question 1, the difference between the two Judahs, Eliezer Paltiel notes that one Judah made attempts at achieving royalty for himself, whereas the other taught that against having any king but God. He also notes that Josephus introduces them independently, without noting a connection between them. That is when he introduces the second one, he introduces him as if doing so for the first time.

J Kennard theorizes that they were both the same person because Josephus doesnt differentiate them, the son of Ezekias could be tied to Gaulonitis, the home of the other Judah in that the Ezekias clan was active on the Syrian frontier, which included that region. Its noteworthy to me that one is identified by his patronymic, but no hometown is given, whereas the opposite is true of the other, the son of Ezekias.

Another factor is that the two rebel leader Judahs are mentioned not far apart from each other in both Wars and Antiquities. They are also not far apart chronologically.

[rakovsky]

The essay JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS by John Rhoads argues that the two Judases- the son of Ezekias and the Galilean - are the same and that Josephus was using different sources in narrating them. So his approach in writing was more narrative than chronologically exact. He theorizes that they were also the same as the earlier mentioned Judas son of the Sephorean.
Josephus did not explicitly equate them because he was taking them from different sources. So in his presentation, there is no mutual identification. Ie. He introduces Judas the Galilean by saying something like There was one Judas a Galilean, which he wouldn't normally write if he had already introduced such a person earlier.

Rhoads notes the similarities between the three Judases like how Judas the son of the Sephorean attacked Herod's temple area and taught major tenets of the 4th Sect, whereas Judas son of Ezekias attacked Herod's palace and Judas the Galilean focused on Sephoris and taught the 4th Sect.

[rakovsky]

For (Question 2) (What is Loeb's footnote referring to as "BJ iv. 121 ff."?), the answer is that it literally refers to Manuscript Section 121, but that the editor intended to refer to the passage in Section 118, because 118 is the passage that corresponds to the given part of the Antiquities on Judas the Galilean's sect. Scholars consider many parts of the Antiquities and Wars to correspond to each other, covering the same topics in different ways with different details.
That answers Question 2.

[rakovsky]

Regarding Question 3, I guess that if they were two different women, Paulina and Fulvia didn't share the same husband, since Wikipedia says:

Marriage in ancient Rome (conubium) was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives.

I guess Paulina's husband could have divorced her and married Fulvia, only to have her also religiously fooled, but this seems too unlikely a coincidence and Josephus doesn't imply that they had the same husband.

At least Josephus doesn't present Paulina and Fulvia as if they were the same woman. And since the account seems fictional, this entails that they were separate as we would be stuck with the author's own presentation of his story.

It sounds to me like Josephus was hinting at an idea that whereas Paulina was betrothed to "Saturninus", a hint at a Roman name for the Jewish God, she betrayed him in copulating with the Egyptian cult god Anubis.

An article in Mosaic magazine, "Saturday and the Jews" says,

Ancient Roman astrologers connected each day of the week with a heavenly body; hence Saturn corresponds to Saturday and was associated with the Jews, for whom the seventh day was holy. In Hebrew, as in English, the association is acknowledged in the planet’s name: Shabb’tai.

The article "The Sabbath Planet" in Forward magazine says,

In the verse of Latin poet Tibullus, who lived in the first century BCE, there is a passage telling of a voyage he made from Italy to Greece despite his premonitions that it would turn out badly, so that, in my Loeb Classical Library translation, he kept searching “in my disquiet for reasons to linger and delay [setting out]. Either [auguries of] birds or words of evil omen were my pretexts, or there was the accursed day of Saturn to detain me.”

Accursed? Or would a better translation be “holy”? Tibullus speaks of dies Saturni sacra, and sacra in Latin can mean either of these two things depending on the context. One way or another, it seems almost certain that, even though he was not a Jew, Tibullus was referring to the Jewish Sabbath — whose ban on travel, if one was looking for a superstitious excuse to stay at home, might deter a non-Jew, too.

A second bit of evidence, also cited by Ben-Yehuda, comes from Tacitus, a Roman historian. Writing in the late first or early second century C.E., Tacitus tells us that the Jews rest every seventh day, and let the earth lie fallow every seventh year, in honor of Saturn, the seventh and highest of the heavenly bodies. Although he does not say that the Jews worship Saturn, Tacitus does state that it is considered by them to be the planet with the most powerful influence on human life.

Tibellus antedates Bereshit Rabba by 500 years. Tacitus does so by at least 300. It is likely, therefore, that dies Saturni is an older term than shabtai, and that, even before the rise of Christianity, the Romans, aware that the Jews rested every seven days and wondering why they did, attributed this to the role played in their religion by Saturn and referred to the Jewish Sabbath as “Saturn’s day.”

In Histories 5.2, Tacitus writes “The Jews are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete who settled in the remotest corner of Libya in the days when, according to the story, Saturn was driven from his throne by the aggression of Jupiter.”
Regarding their Sabbath Tacitus writes: “We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils…Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”[1]

The name Idaei is derived from the name of Mount Ida, the highest mountain in Crete, around which the Idaei dwelt. This was a mountain sacred to the Titaness Rhea or Magna Mater, the sister and wife of Cronus or Saturn. Tacitus likewise relates the speculation that the name Judaei, from which Jew is derived, is “the barbarous lengthening of Idaei.”

SOURCE: CHRISTMAS, THE SATURNALIA AND THE JEWISH SATURN, MARK BRAHMIN, JANUARY 5, 2019

I am not endorsing Tacitus' speculations, but rather citing them to show that Saturn was associated by Romans with the Jews or their God. Certainly this doesn't mean that Josephus, a Jewish apologist, believed Saturn was their God, just that he could have chosen the name for a fictional character based on the association in Romans' thinking.

Shlomo Sela writes on the Katz Center's blog:

Prominent Roman historians such as Tacitus (56–120 CE) and Cassius Dio (ca. 155–after 229), as well as Church fathers like Augustine (354–430), acknowledged a special link between Saturn and Saturday, the holiest day of the week for the Jews. That Jewish society of the talmudic period recognized the same association is shown by the fact that the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 156a) refers to Saturn as Shabbetai, i.e., the star of Shabbat (Saturday).

Tacitus' Histories 5.2 has:

The Jews are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete who settled in the remotest corner of Libya in the days when, according to the story, Saturn was driven from his throne by the aggression of Jupiter.[Editor's note: According to Greek-Roman legend, Jupiter (Greek: Zeus) was born on Crete and overthrew his father Saturn (Kronos). Tacitus rationalizes this myth and seems to believe that Zeus and Kronos were kings.] This is a deduction from the name Judaei by which they became known: the word is to be regarded as a barbarous lengthening of Idaei, the name of the people dwelling around the famous Mount Ida in Crete.

www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

(Livius, above, is an academic website as a source of materials.)

[alon]

Oct 5, 2019 3:29:52 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 1, the difference between the two Judahs, Eliezer Paltiel notes that one Judah made attempts at achieving royalty for himself, whereas the other taught that against having any king but God. He also notes that Josephus introduces them independently, without noting a connection between them. That is when he introduces the second one, he introduces him as if doing so for the first time.

J Kennard theorizes that they were both the same person because Josephus doesnt differentiate them, the son of Ezekias could be tied to Gaulonitis, the home of the other Judah in that the Ezekias clan was active on the Syrian frontier, which included that region. Its noteworthy to me that one is identified by his patronymic, but no hometown is given, whereas the opposite is true of the other, the son of Ezekias.

Another factor is that the two rebel leader Judahs are mentioned not far apart from each other in both Wars and Antiquities. They are also not far apart chronologically.

It's difficult for me to really know what Josephus meant, since I don't study his works. I don't even hold him to be a reliable source. However I do need to make one, sort of a correction. I missed this when I originally replied, but you said "(B) the rebel leader "Judas the Galiliean", a Gaulonite from Gamala, who started Judaism's "Fourth Philosophy" in c.6 AD?" Josephus lived in the 1st cen CE, and what he called the 4th Philosophy I believe was loosely a sub-sect of the Pharisees; the Zealots. And yes, they were very active in the year 6 CE/AD, but the movement was I believe started long before that. However since movements build over time it is generally difficult to place a date on when they actually started. Who knows what criteria Josephus used in assigning this date and person as the creator of the movement, but I believe he was wrong on both counts. Judas the Galiliean may have taken over the movement at that time, probably more effectively leading it, but he didn't start it. "No king/no ruler but God" was a popular sentiment long before Judas was born. It was part of the reason the Jews rebelled against the greatest power the world had known; Rome. They were looking for the Messiah, and throwing off the yoke of Roman rule was one of the things they thought would bring Him. Failing that, many looked to Messiah Himself to lead them in rebellion. But they wanted Rome gone so they could worship as God intended. They wanted the idols and pagan temples smashed across Israel! They wanted the demons who dwelt in their land in places the pagans had declared holy gone, their worship outlawed. They wanted Roman quislings removed from power in their Temple. They wanted to be cleansed of Hellenized Jews polluting their land. They wanted their families safe from Roman brutality. And they wanted self rule, with absolute allegiance to the God of Israel. They actually had more reason to revolt against Rome than we did against England. As a patriot myself, and one who loves my own country as well as Israel, and who thinks both should return to Godly rule I can see why they revolted time and again. And I understand the Zealots. I also understand movements like the Zealots do not just spring up from nothing one day. They just get better leadership and become more effective.

[rakovsky]

You made a good point for Question 1 when you said, " yes, they were very active in the year 6 CE/AD, but the movement was I believe started long before that."

Rhoads' theory, which I guess is true, is that this Judas the Galilean who founded the sect is the same as Judas the son of the Sephorean, who Josephus says got together a religious school with principles that match those he later attributes to Judas the Galilean's 4h sect. Josephus writes that the earlier Judas the son of the Sephorean, was active under Herod the Great, ie. maybe 10 or more years earlier.

You could theorize that while basics of the Zealot movement already existed, Judas the Galilean coalesced it or a major part of it into a single organized sect.

[rakovsky]

Let me share with you what I found to apparently be the answer for Question 15 (<<What does the Greek name "Damneion" mean? What 1st century Jew would be named "The Condemned", especially with a name in Greek, rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew?>>) It apparently means "Subduer". Some First Century Jews had Greek names.

BrianB wrote to me on the GreekTextkit forum:

The Twelve Apostles included an Andrew and a Philip, and one of Herod the Great’s high priests was called Boethus. Δαμναιος is not, I think, connected with Latin damno but with the verb δαμάζω, which is usually translated as something like “overpower”, “subdue”, “break”, or “crush”. In the NT it occurs, for example, in the Gadarene Swine passage (Mark 5:4)

In Mark 5:4, "δαμάσαι" is used to mean that nobody could "control" the demon-possessed person.

Outside of the instance of this person in the Antiquities, "Δαμναιος " is never recorded in Greek as a real name. It comes from the Greek term δαμάζω, forms of which include δαμνάω/δάμνημι.

There were ancient Jewish high priests with Greek names (eg. Theophilus in the 1st century, and Alexander and Antigonus in the 1st cent. BC).


So the apparent meaning is "Subduer". I suppose that Josephus could have used it as part of literary license and based it on the Latin term "Damnatio", but this seems less likely. He did not really give much clear indication that he was using the name that way. If Josephus had written some bad things about the Damneus figure, like saying that he become a persona non grata in the Temple, there would be a better case to think that Josephus made up his name.

[alon]

Nov 4, 2019 20:25:04 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Let me share with you what I found to apparently be the answer for Question 15 (<<What does the Greek name "Damneion" mean? What 1st century Jew would be named "The Condemned", especially with a name in Greek, rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew?>>) It apparently means "Subduer". Some First Century Jews had Greek names.

BrianB wrote to me on the GreekTextkit forum:

The Twelve Apostles included an Andrew and a Philip, and one of Herod the Great’s high priests was called Boethus. Δαμναιος is not, I think, connected with Latin damno but with the verb δαμάζω, which is usually translated as something like “overpower”, “subdue”, “break”, or “crush”. In the NT it occurs, for example, in the Gadarene Swine passage (Mark 5:4)

In Mark 5:4, "δαμάσαι" is used to mean that nobody could "control" the demon-possessed person.

Outside of the instance of this person in the Antiquities, "Δαμναιος " is never recorded in Greek as a real name. It comes from the Greek term δαμάζω, forms of which include δαμνάω/δάμνημι.

There were ancient Jewish high priests with Greek names (eg. Theophilus in the 1st century, and Alexander and Antigonus in the 1st cent. BC).


So the apparent meaning is "Subduer". I suppose that Josephus could have used it as part of literary license and based it on the Latin term "Damnatio", but this seems less likely. He did not really give much clear indication that he was using the name that way. If Josephus had written some bad things about the Damneus figure, like saying that he become a persona non grata in the Temple, there would be a better case to think that Josephus made up his name.

Many Jews did have Greek names, but almost all of those had Hebrew names as well. Paul for example was also called Shaul, both names given him at birth because he was Jewish but also a Roman citizen. They'd use the Greek names in conducting business, but at home and with friends or other Jews they preferred their Hebrew names. I am sure there were some exceptions, such as in a thoroughly Hellenized home the parents might forgo the Hebrew name, opting only for Greek. But that wasn't the norm. Greek interpreters of the NT and treasonous jerks like Josephus would have preferred to use their Greek name when they knew it, so often that is all we have recorded.  

[rakovsky]

Good point.

[rakovsky]

May 18, 2019 22:32:16 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 4) How does Josephus' depiction of John's baptism compare with the christian understanding of Christian baptism? Does Christianity follow this model: The believer repents of their sins, accepts Christ's sacrifice, receives the Holy Spirit and Grace, and then receives "water baptism", which only "seals" those processes?

Christians do everything from sprinkle to dunk, but not a one of the major denominations does it right. Baptism comes from the Jewish practice of tevilah, which the apostles also did. Tevilah is full body immersion in the waters of a mikvah. It was done many times in a Jewish person’s life, and for many reasons; changing sects or accepting the faith being 2 of them. Do a search here for the word ‘tevilah’ and you’ll find several enlightening posts on it.

Sure, I can see that Baptism came from Tevilah. I think that Tevilah was done in a Mikvah pool. Also, as I understand it, John the Baptist practised some kind of baptism for the forgiveness of sins that was special to John. And Jesus' disciples had a practice of "once for all" baptism that was different and was especially associated with the Holy Spirit. That is, unlike normal Tevilah immersions, the disciples' Baptism was not something that was expected to be done repeatedly in the life of the Christian/Nazarene. I don't know if John's Baptism practice was once-for-all, but it sounds like it was, because later in the New Testament, Paul met some believers who had been given "John's Baptism" and not yet Christian/Nazarene Baptism. The reference to "John's Baptism" makes it sound like it was a one-time ritual of baptism that was special to John, comparable to how Christian/Nazarene Baptism was a one-time ritual for believers.