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

[rakovsky]

For Question 15, you wrote:

is highly more likely to have been Yehoshua. After that post I did some digging, and apparently "Damnai" means demon. Yeshua means salvation, so "Salvation son of a Demon?"

I was not able to find that it means Demon.
δαιμόνιον / daimonion means divine power / Divinity.
Maybe Damnai means demon in Latin.
Josephus was writing in Greek, and a few Jewish priests had Greek names, and the name in Greek means something like Subduer. So my guess is that it was a translation from a Hebrew name or nickname meaning Subduer into Greek.

May I ask what scholars suggested that the priest's name was Yehoshua instead of Yeshua? I have seen the priest's name also written as Joshua ben Damneus in English, but without an explanation of why. This might be what you are referring to, since I think that Joshua in English is used for Yehoshua.

[rakovsky]

For Question 12, about potential synchronicity between the two famous Queen Helenas, this could be a case of history repeating itself.

In Helena Augusta, Jan Willem Drijvers writes:

Although there are striking similarities between Helena of Adiabene and Helena Augusta - their conversion, their coming to Palestine, their care for those in need- there are no convincing reasons to explain their possible confusion [by Moses of Chorene, a medieval writer narrating Helena of Adiabene's life]. In fact, this supposed confusion raises more questions than it solves.

Footnote
These similarities were already noticed in the ninth century by Altman of Hautvillers, ASS Aug III, 18 Aug., 592.

In The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Volume 1
, Adolf von Harnack writes:

A further and striking parallel to the efforts of Queen Helena of Adiabene is to be found in the charitable activity of Constantine's mother, Queen Helena, in Jerusalem. Possibly the latter took the Jewish Queen as her model, for Helena of Adiabene's philanthropy was still remembered in Jerusalem and by Jews in general (cp. Eus., H.E., ii. 12, and the Tamudic tradition).

Wikipedia's article on Historic Recurrence says:

One of the recurrence patterns identified by G.W. Trompf involves "the isolation of any two specific events which bear a very striking similarity".[15] The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana observed that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."[29] Karl Marx, having in mind the respective coups d'état of Napoleon I (1799) and his nephew Napoleon III (1851), wrote acerbically in 1852: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."[30]



However, Poland's Adam Michnik believes that history is not just about the past because it is constantly recurring, and not as farce, as Marx had it, but as itself: "The world", writes Michnik, "is full of inquisitors and heretics, liars and those lied to, terrorists and the terrorized. There is still someone dying at Thermopylae, someone drinking a glass of hemlock, someone crossing the Rubicon, someone drawing up a proscription list."[31]
...
On 27 April 1521, Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, in the Philippine Islands, foolhardily, with only four dozen men, confronts 1,500 natives who have defied his attempt to Christianize them, and is killed.[34] On 14 February 1779, English explorer James Cook, on Hawaii Island, foolhardily, with only a few men, confronts the natives after some individuals have taken one of Cook's small boats, and Cook and four of his men are killed.

[30] The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), in Marx Engels Selected Works, volume I, p. 398.

Marx's Quote in his Preface to the The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte runs:

Hegel remarks somewhere[*] that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851[66] for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. 
...
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire...

I don't find this quote exactly applicable, because the second Queen Helena was not a farce of the first one. The main relevance of the quote is that it notes that there are historical circumstances that can cause repetitions. So the story of the earlier Helena, a convert wife of a king who gave to charity, could be part of historical circumstances, like conversion to Judaism or Christianity, as well as pilgrimages to the Holy Land, that caused a repetition, when a later Queen Helena acted similarly.

So I see similarities between the pilgrimages and charity work of the two Helenas, but it is not very apparent that the similarity is paranormal. The earlier one could easily have inspired her later namesake, as Adolf von Harnack pointed out. It's not as if there was a prophecy that there would be two Queen Helenas who provided benevolently for the religious life of the Holy Land.

[alon]

Dec 31, 2019 14:15:07 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 15, you wrote:

is highly more likely to have been Yehoshua. After that post I did some digging, and apparently "Damnai" means demon. Yeshua means salvation, so "Salvation son of a Demon?"

I was not able to find that it means Demon.
δαιμόνιον / daimonion means divine power / Divinity.
Maybe Damnai means demon in Latin. Good catch! Yes, I went back and checked and sure enough it was Latin. 
Josephus was writing in Greek, and a few Jewish priests had Greek names, and the name in Greek means something like Subduer. So my guess is that it was a translation from a Hebrew name or nickname meaning Subduer into Greek.

May I ask what scholars suggested that the priest's name was Yehoshua instead of Yeshua? I have seen the priest's name also written as Joshua ben Damneus in English, but without an explanation of why. This might be what you are referring to, since I think that Joshua in English is used for Yehoshua. Sources don't agree, but some say Yehoshua, meaning "Help us Lord" was shortened to Yeshua (Salvation) by the 1st cen and Yeshu in the north. That's just a little too neat a package for me. Yehoshua in English is Joshua, and why would they need to shorten it to mean something different? I think the name may just have fallen out of popular use. Yeshua was a very popular name in the 1st cen, as they were looking for the Messiah at the time. Yeshu, as I understand it is a term of endearment and/or an abbreviated form- like Dan for Daniel. Some say it was a derogatory appellation, but after meeting me they say the same thing about Dan!       

JOSHUA BEN DAMNAI, high priest in 62–63 C.E. Joshua was appointed to succeed *Anan b. Anan after the latter had been deposed by Agrippa II at the request of Albinus, because of the execution of James, brother of Jesus (cf. Jos., Ant., 20:200–3). These were the days immediately preceding the Roman War when the anarchy which prevailed in Jerusalem began to assume major proportions. The high priesthood ceased to be a purely religious office, becoming more and more a position of power contested among influential members of the priestly families, of whom Joshua b. Damnai was one. When the high priesthood was taken from him and given to *Joshua b. Gamla, street fighting broke out between their followers (Jos., Ant., 20:213).

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joshua-ben-damnai

[rakovsky]

You asked, "Sources don't agree, but some say Yehoshua, meaning "Help us Lord" was shortened to Yeshua (Salvation) by the 1st cen and Yeshu in the north. That's just a little too neat a package for me. Yehoshua in English is Joshua, and why would they need to shorten it to mean something different?"
I don't quite understand your question, but I guess you mean Why would they need to shorten Yehoshua to mean something different, Salvation?
One answer could be that it was just easier to use when it was shorter. At least, that was my initial impression.

After researching the name more, my conclusion became that Yeshua was alluding to at least two other names- Yehoshua being one, and maybe Hosea being another. I would have to refresh my memory, but it looked like the meaning in the Gospels, that He would be called Yeshua because He will save His people, was one of the sources or meanings for the name itself (even aside from its use in the Gospels).

[rakovsky]

For Question 13 (on whether Josephus stopped writing prematurely), Josephus says in Chapter XX, Chp. 7 (Whiston's translation):

...and when he[Felix] had had a son by her, he named him Agrippa. But after what manner that young man, with his wife, perished at the conflagration of the mountain Vesuvius, [Note] in the days of Titus Caesar, shall be related hereafter.
[Note]This is now wanting.
...
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.
[Note] This also is now wanting.

My initial guess was that Josephus was taken down in the purges under Domitian. But Josephus is considered to have finished his Antiquities in the last year of Domitian's rule in 93-94 AD, and then Josephus is considered to have died about 100 AD at abut 63 years old. He was working on a writing called "On Customs and Causes" about Jewish theology and the , but it is not extant, so it is appears that he didn't publish it.

In "The 'Autobiography' of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition of His 'Antiquities'", David A. Barish drew attention to Josephus' remarks in Book XX that he was going to discuss some topics later. Barish notes that the Antiquities don't cover events after 69 AD. One theory can be that Josephus was going to write about that later period, but didn't get a chance to. Barish writes: "It is possible that Josephus originally intended to deal with these subjects in the last book of the Antiquities, but, under the strain of completion, failed to do so." (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509775?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Ae1fc609216226080c6d70ebe186543ca&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents)

Barish notes that in Antiquities XX, Josephus wrote: "Here will be the end of my account of the Antiquities, after which point I began to write also concerning the war." Barish notes the context for this statement is that Josephus seems to be saying that the Antiquities covers the period up to the 12th year of Nero's reign, and that the Wars of the Jews covers the period following it. Josephus has other references in Book XX to what he plans to discuss in the future, and Barish associates this with Josephus' Autobiography that Josephus wrote after the Antiquities. After reviewing the evidence, Barish concludes, "Thus, at this point no evidence exists to support the hypothesis of a second edition of the Antiquities."

I think the best answer is that Yes, maybe someone, an imperial authority, forced Josephus to stop writing, since he never wrote what he said he would, and his books have the kind of information that could be politically sensitive if he had continued writing chronologically the events after 69 AD.

But more likely what happened was either that he lacked patronage for more major historical writing, since his patron Epaphroditus was likely killed under Domitian, or there was not enough demand for a follow up history, especially since he had already covered the Jewish Wars in his other book, Wars.

[alon]

Dec 31, 2019 22:15:58 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You asked, "Sources don't agree, but some say Yehoshua, meaning "Help us Lord" was shortened to Yeshua (Salvation) by the 1st cen and Yeshu in the north. That's just a little too neat a package for me. Yehoshua in English is Joshua, and why would they need to shorten it to mean something different?"
I don't quite understand your question,  It was rhetorical.   but I guess you mean Why would they need to shorten Yehoshua to mean something different, Salvation?
One answer could be that it was just easier to use when it was shorter. At least, that was my initial impression. The idea is that names gain and lose their popularity over time. But they don't go away. Someone can (and probably will) still name their baby Yehoshua. In fact, a quick search turns up this "From 1880 to 2017, the Social Security Administration has recorded 1,792 babies born with the first name Yehoshua in the United States." I'm guessing there's a few more than that in Israel, where the Name Yeshua is most likely out of favor these days. And they did apparently shorten both names to Yeshu. I remember reading somewhere that there were a lot of ossuaries found with the name Yeshu chiseled on the sides. 

After researching the name more, my conclusion became that Yeshua was alluding to at least two other names- Yehoshua being one, and maybe Hosea being another. I would have to refresh my memory, but it looked like the meaning in the Gospels, that He would be called Yeshua because He will save His people, was one of the sources or meanings for the name itself (even aside from its use in the Gospels). Hebrew names were usually, like other Hebrew words composites. So if they shared similar roots then they were linked. Now that you mention it, the link to Hoshea sounds vaguely familiar, though I'm not sure what that root would be. It's possible at any rate.

[rakovsky]

The answer to Question 14 is that No, Ananus' removal did not cripple the High priests' power. The Sadducees were closely associated with the Temple services due to the patronage of the government on their behalf. Josephus does not say whether Ananus' successors included Sadduccees, but he describes Ananus and figure(s) closely associated with him maintaining major influence and power. Josephus follows his story of Ananus' removal by writing:

But as for the High Priest Ananias, (28) he increased in glory every day; and this to a great degree: and had obtained the favour 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. He had also servants who were very wicked; who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the threshing floors, and took away the tythes that belonged to the priests by violence: and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tythes to them. So the other High Priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one’s being able to prohibit them.
...
[The Sicarii] took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus [Ananias] the High Priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them. After which they sent to Ananias, [who secured his release].

[rakovsky]

You said that you were not sure what the connection between Yeshua and Hosea could be. Wikipedia's article on Hosea relates the name Hosea to Joshua/Yehoshua:

The name Hosea, meaning 'salvation', or 'He saves', or 'He helps', seems to have been not uncommon, being derived from the auspicious verb from which we have the frequently recurring word salvation. It may be a contraction of a larger form of which the divine name (YHWH) or its abbreviation formed a part, so as to signify "YHWH helps". According to the Bible Numbers 13:8, 13:16 that was the original name of Joshua, son of Nun, until Moses gave him the longer, theophoric name Yehoshua, "YHWH is salvation".

[rakovsky]

For Question 10, it turns out that Nazir and Natsrat are related.
On the Biblical Hebrew Forum, Prof. Isaac Fried wrote to me:

The Hebrew root נזר is a member of the root family
נדר, נזר, נטר, נסר, נצר, נשר, נתר
of the common sense of 'separate, set aside, branch off', à peu près.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hebrew root נזר is is further related to
דר, זר, סר, צר, שר, תר
אדר, אזר, אסר, אצר, אשר, אתר
עדר, עזר, עטר, עצר, עשר, עתר
of the common meaning of 'enclose, surround, encompass, skirt, fringe, gird',

[rakovsky]

For the second part of Question 4 (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?), the answer is No, because Baptism doesn't "only" seal those processes, but it does other things too, like bring the person into the Christian community.

Also, as in Acts 19, the believer could get the Holy Spirit after the Baptism instead of before the Baptism. Acts 19 doesn't explicitly deny that the believers in that story lacked the Spirit until after their baptism, but my reading of it sounds that way:

2. So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
...
4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I guess that theoretically the Spirit could have come on them right before Paul baptised them. But in the story, it sounds like these events followed one right on another, with Paul preaching, then John's followers getting baptized in Jesus' name, and then only in verse 6, the Spirit coming on them.

[alon]

Jan 5, 2020 22:07:32 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For the second part of Question 4 (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?), the answer is No, because Baptism doesn't "only" seal those processes, but it does other things too, like bring the person into the Christian community.

Also, as in Acts 19, the believer could get the Holy Spirit after the Baptism instead of before the Baptism. Acts 19 doesn't explicitly deny that the believers in that story lacked the Spirit until after their baptism, but my reading of it sounds that way:

2. So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
...
4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I guess that theoretically the Spirit could have come on them right before Paul baptised them. But in the story, it sounds like these events followed one right on another, with Paul preaching, then John's followers getting baptized in Jesus' name, and then only in verse 6, the Spirit coming on them.

You are looking at two very different manifestations of the Holy Spirit her. One is when the Ruach indwells a person at the time that person accepts Yeshua as the work God did on the cross. The other is an outward manifestation done to glorify God. That is an important distinction. This was a witness to the Jews who to this day tend to be possessive of their God as just theirs as an inheritance. No, they and we (Gentiles) are HIS inheritance! Gentiles are grafted onto Israel, adoptive heirs to the promises. The Jews there needed to see evidence of this. 

The contemporary Pentecostal movement typically sees "tougues" as something that glorifies them. That isn't their doctrine, it's just what I've seen in a lot of Pentecostals. Tongues is not the babbling done today. It was always meant as an understandable language. I've heard of cases on the mission field where someone spoke to another in a language they did not speak. That I can believe. It glorifies God and works to the salvation or understanding of others. In the case in Acts it gave understanding to all believers that we are grafted in; especially to the Jewish believers who still thought a Gentile could not be saved without first going through the process of becoming a Jew. No, Jew and Gentile are saved, then the Jew teaches the Gentile how to be a Jew- slowly and methodically. The Gentiles for our part should listen, and obey.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Jan 6, 2020 12:56:40 GMT -8 alon said:

Jan 5, 2020 22:07:32 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For the second part of Question 4 (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?), the answer is No, because Baptism doesn't "only" seal those processes, but it does other things too, like bring the person into the Christian community.

Also, as in Acts 19, the believer could get the Holy Spirit after the Baptism instead of before the Baptism. Acts 19 doesn't explicitly deny that the believers in that story lacked the Spirit until after their baptism, but my reading of it sounds that way:
I guess that theoretically the Spirit could have come on them right before Paul baptised them. But in the story, it sounds like these events followed one right on another, with Paul preaching, then John's followers getting baptized in Jesus' name, and then only in verse 6, the Spirit coming on them.

You are looking at two very different manifestations of the Holy Spirit her. One is when the Ruach indwells a person at the time that person accepts Yeshua as the work God did on the cross. The other is an outward manifestation done to glorify God. That is an important distinction. This was a witness to the Jews who to this day tend to be possessive of their God as just theirs as an inheritance. No, they and we (Gentiles) are HIS inheritance! Gentiles are grafted onto Israel, adoptive heirs to the promises. The Jews there needed to see evidence of this. 

The contemporary Pentecostal movement typically sees "tougues" as something that glorifies them. That isn't their doctrine, it's just what I've seen in a lot of Pentecostals. Tongues is not the babbling done today. It was always meant as an understandable language. I've heard of cases on the mission field where someone spoke to another in a language they did not speak. That I can believe. It glorifies God and works to the salvation or understanding of others. In the case in Acts it gave understanding to all believers that we are grafted in; especially to the Jewish believers who still thought a Gentile could not be saved without first going through the process of becoming a Jew. No, Jew and Gentile are saved, then the Jew teaches the Gentile how to be a Jew- slowly and methodically. The Gentiles for our part should listen, and obey.

Dan C

My reading from Acts 19 was that the Spirit came on them first with the laying on of hands after the baptism, but I can imagine that you are right and that the Spirit already came on them - ie. at the moment that they accepted Yeshua, even before baptism. Is there any place in the NT that is very specific or open in saying that the Spirit always comes at the very moment when the person accepts Yeshua? It would be helpful in making the issue more clear, but nothing like that comes to my mind.

My impression from the Bible is that "the Spirit blows where it will", and that it is not definitive that the believer will have it necessarily at the moment of accepting Yeshua, since the prophets had the Spirit even before they recognized Yeshua Ha-Notzri in particular as the Messiah. So there might not be necessarily a precise equivalency or rule to the effect that the believer definitely gets it at the moment when he gets faith, or earlier. But maybe my impression is wrong and something else is more specific in the Bible.

In Acts 8, it sounds like Simon believed, but did not get the Holy Spirit until he got the laying on of hands after baptism:

13. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

14. Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
15. who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

[rakovsky]

Also for Question 4 (Josephus on John's Baptism vs. Christian Baptism):

For Josephus, John's Baptism was:

* done after justice / right behavior thoroughly cleansed the soul

*  for the body's holiness / consecration

*  not to forgive sins (since the soul had already been cleansed)


With Christian baptism on the other hand:
* St. John Chrysostom says that it "manifests a great grace, whereby it sets free from sin, it cleanses the spirit and bestows the gifts of the Spirit". By way of a contrast with John's Baptism, he implies that it imparts the Holy Spirit and grants forgiveness by grace, and absolves sins.

* The website for the Greek Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist says that it serves as incorporation into the Church, introduction to the Trinity's life, and as a symbol of cleansing, newness of life, a sacrament wherein one dies to sin and is born anew in Christ

* Met. Nektarios writes that it "depicts symbolically going down into the tomb with Christ, that is participation in his death, while emerging from the water expresses the overcoming of death, that is resurrection together with the Lord," and it signals "progress into the gift of the Holy Spirit of freedom and love."

* Orthodox Wikipedia's article on Baptism says: "baptism is 'for the remission of sins' (cf. the Nicene Creed) and for entrance into the Church; the person being baptized is cleansed of all sins and is united to Christ... In contrast to a common Protestant viewpoint, baptism is more than just a symbolic act of burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation. Baptism is believed to impart cleansing (remission) of sins and union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection"

[alon]

Jan 6, 2020 20:17:15 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

My reading from Acts 19 was that the Spirit came on them first with the laying on of hands after the baptism, but I can imagine that you are right and that the Spirit already came on them - ie. at the moment that they accepted Yeshua, even before baptism. Is there any place in the NT that is very specific or open in saying that the Spirit always comes at the very moment when the person accepts Yeshua? It would be helpful in making the issue more clear, but nothing like that comes to my mind.

Ephesians 1:13 (ESV) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

We also have the evidence of many scriptures like 2 Corinthians 1:21 which, while not saying outright we get the indwelling of the Ruach at salvation, still speak of it as though that is the case with no mention of baptism. Those are probably the ones to which you refer. Sometimes, when not told specifically either way we must go with the evidence.

But you are correct, it is somewhat ambiguous because in the cases where it is given by laying on of hands scripture doesn't caution us these were unique instances given for a purpose. The evidence is there if you read all in context. But if you are looking for an absolute statement either way, I am afraid God expects you will use the brain He gave you and figure it out.  

My impression from the Bible is that "the Spirit blows where it will", and that it is not definitive that the believer will have it necessarily at the moment of accepting Yeshua, since the prophets had the Spirit even before they recognized Yeshua Ha-Notzri in particular as the Messiah. Remember, the prophets were already saved. They already believed while in the system looking forward to Messiah. Don't buy into the unspoken but too often very real Christian teaching that Jews were not saved before they accepted Yeshua. Salvation was never about perfect keeping of "the law." There was always grace, and salvation was and is always the same: by grace, through faith. And too many Christians have the ides that the HS is only a NT thing:

2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Ezekiel 11:24-25 And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God to the exiles in Chaldea So the vision that I had seen left me. Then I told the exiles all the things that the LORD had shown me.

And there are many more in both testaments that say the Ruach was very active in the OT. In fact, right from the beginning the Ruach was there, moving over the deep. So they did not have to accept Yeshua yet to be saved. But they did, and the Ruach was working in them and so they did recognize him! "Well, why didn't those other Jews recognize the Gentiles as being brought in?" Because some men are attuned to the Ruachs leading. Some, like me must be thrown in the pool bodily by the Ruach, or be brought close to the fire, as it were. Then "OK God, I gotcha! You don't have to tell me twice!"   

So there might not be necessarily a precise equivalency or rule to the effect that the believer definitely gets it at the moment when he gets faith, or earlier. But maybe my impression is wrong and something else is more specific in the Bible. All I can say is if he doesn't get the Ruach upon his confession of faith, he is in BIG trouble; 'cause the adversary is going to go after him with everything he has!

In Acts 8, it sounds like Simon believed, but did not get the Holy Spirit until he got the laying on of hands after baptism:

13. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

14. Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
15. who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Again, a lesson was being taught heree; namely that the gifts of God are not to be purchased with money. Yhey are not to make anyone rich.

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4016/tongues?page=2

[rakovsky]

Good response above by you, Dan. You have a very good familiarity with the scriptures. It could be a bonus from being a PK.

2 Corinthians 1:21 doesn't specify what moment the Spirit comes (eg. at the moment of faith, or sometimes, afterwards).
Ephesians 1:13 is on point ("In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit"). But I sympathize with your warning: "But you are correct, it is somewhat ambiguous because in the cases where it is given by laying on of hands scripture doesn't caution us these were unique instances given for a purpose."

Good discussion here and throughout the thread. Thanks for so much attention to the questions. In these threads I asked about everything that I didn't understand in Josephus and the other Nazarene writings that we have. So if you take up reading them at some point, it should be pretty understandable and smooth, as we have cleared up all the tough issues in them.