Judas the Galilean of Nazareth

[MrMacSon]

Daniel T. Unterbrink has written three books outlining a composite Jesus theory

Judas the Galilean", explores the similarities between Jesus and another first-century rabbi, Judas the Galilean. Both men cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem, were involved in a Barabbas-style prisoner release, were proclaimed Messiah in Galilee, and both founded new philosophies. The Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote extensively about the life of Judas the Galilean but did not mention the cause or date of Judas' death. On the other hand, Josephus did not describe a single action of Jesus but did tell of Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Many scholars doubt the reliability of the "Jesus" passage in Josephus. I believe this "Jesus" passage was a substitution for the death of Judas the Galilean. Judas the Galilean founded the fourth philosophy (later known as the Zealots), and was always on the mind of Josephus. Josephus recorded the crucifixions of two of Judas' sons (45-47 CE), the stoning of another son, Menahen, who marched on Jerusalem ala Jesus in 66 CE, and the suicide of a grandson, Eleazar, at Masada in 73 CE. It is incomprehensible that Josephus would have forgotten to tell of Judas the Galilean's death. It is my contention that Jesus was simply a title for Judas the Galilean, and that the early church tried to distance Jesus from his true past.

The second book, "New Testament Lies", covers much of the same material as "Judas the Galilean", with one exception: "New Testament Lies" incorporates the Slavonic Josephus. Scholars have ignored the Slavonic Josephus for two reasons. First, a comprehensive comparison of the Slavonic version of the "War" with the Greek version was not published until 2003. Second, many items within the Slavonic "War" are not consistent with Traditional Christianity. The Slavonic Josephus includes "the star of Bethlehem" infant narrative but dates the story at 25 BCE, a full generation before the date as calculated in Matthew. There are three passages about John the Baptist which go against the conventional Gospel accounts. First, John came baptizing at the river Jordan in 6 CE, immediately before the tax revolt against Rome, led by Judas the Galilean. (Note that Jesus was crucified for his refusal to pay taxes to Rome.) This John also preached the same philosophy as practiced by Judas. In short, according to the Slavonic Josephus, John the Baptist was a disciple of Judas the Galilean. The two other passages concerning John place John's death at 36 CE, several years after the Gospel death of Jesus. This is confirmed by Josephus' "Antiquities". Obviously, the Gospel timeline of John the Baptist was shifted in order to hide John's connection with Judas the Galilean. The Slavonic Josephus also disproves the stories of Judas Iscariot and Barabbas. According to this source, the High Priests paid Pilate 30 talents to arrest Jesus, and it was Jesus who was released to the crowd, not Barabbas (Judas the Galilean was released to the Jewish crowd in 4 BCE by the son of Herod the Great, Archelaus.)

This is a very complicated subject, in that all of Christianity is turned upside down. With this earlier timeline for Jesus, it is now possible to compare the early church to the writings of Josephus. The result is unsettling. The hero of Traditional Christianity, Paul, becomes the traitor as depicted by Josephus and other early writings. The introduction of Judas Iscariot by the Gospel writers was just an attempt to shift blame from Paul to a Jewish Apostle. This whole cover-up is detailed in both books.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm

Unterbink's latest is Judas of Nazareth: How the Greatest Teacher of First-Century Israel Was Replaced by a Literary Creation

http://www.danielunterbrink.com/

[toejam]

I've seen this book at my local bookstore, but I've been hesitant to pick it up simply due to Unterbink's lack of qualifications. Isn't he a qualified accountant or something?? I'm always suspicious of 'Historical/Mythical Jesus' books written by people whose primary field of study isn't ancient history/the source material. There are simply too many other better qualified people to read first.

[DCHindley]

I've seen this book at my local bookstore, but I've been hesitant to pick it up simply due to Unterbink's lack of qualifications. Isn't he a qualified accountant or something?? I'm always suspicious of 'Historical/Mythical Jesus' books written by people whose primary field of study isn't ancient history/the source material. There are simply too many other better qualified people to read first.

Dan Unterbrink sometimes posts on JesusMysteries, especially when a new book is out, but seldom seems to interact with folks who throw questions his way (at least he's never answered any of mine). It's more like a book signing for him, publicity visits ... "wham bam thank you ma'am". He does post a lot on various moderate religious discussion boards, though.

However, in the world of biblical criticism, where there are so much "special pleading" to dilute genuine historical method so as not to disturb the faiths of the laypeople, reading the take of an outsider who has done some good homework can be a breath of fresh air. He has a web page (to promote his books) which gives some excerpts, if I recall correctly, if you want to gauge the man up. Here is the url:
http://www.danielunterbrink.com/

His self description is "Daniel T. Unterbrink has dual degrees (Accounting and Education) from the Ohio State University. He spent over twenty years in Medicare Auditing and retired four years ago."

Now I only have one sad degree from Ohio State University (Psychology), and am also an auditor, but not like the kind of forensic auditing he was doing. However, I can appreciate his interest in reverse engineering the NT accounts of Jesus against the background of non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, etc. I only have to find out why someone reported certain amounts of payroll to various work classifications, and after a while you just see things pop out at you. They didn't cap the wages of an officer the way they could have. They violated reporting rules and split certain employees' wages between a clerical and an operational class. They reported wages to the wrong work classification. Etc. He seems to be honestly convinced of that his observations fit his hypotheses, although I don't share that conviction.

Go check out his posts at the religion forums. Just Google "Dan Unterbrink".

DCH

[MrMacSon]

I've seen this book at my local bookstore, but I've been hesitant to pick it up simply due to Unterbink's lack of qualifications. Isn't he a qualified accountant or something?? I'm always suspicious of 'Historical/Mythical Jesus' books written by people whose primary field of study isn't ancient history/the source material. There are simply too many other better qualified people to read first.

... reading the take of an outsider who has done some good homework can be a breath of fresh air.

... the kind of forensic auditing he was doing. However, I can appreciate his interest in reverse engineering the NT accounts of Jesus against the background of non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, etc.

... He seems to be honestly convinced of that his observations fit his hypotheses ...

DCH

His role as a forensic auditor is interesting, as is his 'take' on Josephus's documentation of Judas the Galilean.

I have been intrigued by a proposition of maryhelena's that aspects of Josephus might be give more insights into the development of the NT, so thought his works were worth posting for interest & comment.

I think valid or cogent arguments trump qualifications.

[maryhelena]

I've seen this book at my local bookstore, but I've been hesitant to pick it up simply due to Unterbink's lack of qualifications. Isn't he a qualified accountant or something?? I'm always suspicious of 'Historical/Mythical Jesus' books written by people whose primary field of study isn't ancient history/the source material. There are simply too many other better qualified people to read first.

... reading the take of an outsider who has done some good homework can be a breath of fresh air.

... the kind of forensic auditing he was doing. However, I can appreciate his interest in reverse engineering the NT accounts of Jesus against the background of non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, etc.

... He seems to be honestly convinced of that his observations fit his hypotheses ...

DCH

His role as a forensic auditor is interesting, as is his 'take' on Josephus's documentation of Judas the Galilean.

I have been intrigued by a proposition of maryhelena's that aspects of Josephus might be give more insights into the development of the NT, so thought his works were worth posting for interest & comment.

I think valid or cogent arguments trump qualifications.

OK - I'll say my piece on Daniel Unterbrink' theory - later. I have an out of town visitor for the day so will be otherwise engaged......

[maryhelena]

Daniel Unterbrink’s theory:

Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament , is really a composite figure, an individual shaped by many differing agendas, combining the actual life of Judas the Galilean with Paul’s life and theology . I also concur that the historical Jesus was married and had important family ties. He followed the Law— the Torah— just like his brother James, and would not have condoned the teachings of Paul. He was an apocalyptic teacher, but was not the Jesus of the gospels. In short we all believe that “Jesus” was a human being and not a god.

So did Jesus really exist? In his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman clearly proves that a Messiah figure existed in the first century CE. However, mythicists *8 can rightly argue that the gospel Jesus did not exist. Even Ehrman admits that much of the gospel Jesus cannot be accepted as fact. My viewpoint , which will be argued throughout this book, is that a Messiah did preach the kingdom of heaven to the Jews. So, yes, there was a historical Messiah, but his teachings were absorbed into what we now know as Jesus of Nazareth, reconstructed along lines that would resonate with a late first-century Gentile audience. So, in a sense, my viewpoint is a middle ground

This “Jesus” was the Messiah known to the earliest disciples.

Unterbrink, Daniel T.. Judas of Nazareth: How the Greatest Teacher of First-Century Israel Was Replaced by a Literary Creation (Kindle Locations 346-347). Inner Traditions/Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

Middle ground? Unterbrink is a Jesus historicist. i.e. he, like Ehrman upholds an “apocalyptic teacher” as being the historical Jesus figure. His gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A composite that includes “combining the actual life of Judas the Galilean with Paul’s life and theology”. Thus, the gospel figure is a literary creation that includes reflection on the “actual life of Judas the Galilean”.

First stop here, of course, is Unterbrink’s acceptance of the Josephan story of Judas the Galilean as being historical. There is no historical evidence to support this assumption. Without that historical support Unterbrink’s composite gospel Jesus has no relevance.

Yes, it's back to Josephus and how one views his writing....One way would be to apply the type of approach that Thomas Brodie has suggests for the New Testament.

Since then Richard Hays has become a pioneer in narrative theology-in
showing how New Testament narrative often builds a story or narrative that
is grounded on that of the Old Testament, and his work is now complemented
by that of many others, for instance, N.T. Wright of Durham, Francis Watson
of Aberdeen, and in another way by Carol Stockhausen of Marquette University, Milwaukee. Such writers often say the New Testament contains 'echoes' (Hays's word) of the Old Testament, or has 'allusions' to it. Their
work is a real advance for New Testament research. Page 126

Narrative Allusion/Echoes/Reception

In this case the presence of the older text is generally less clear, less direct,
but it can evoke a whole narrative and theology. The exact meaning of terms
such as 'allusion' and 'echo' is debated, but workable summaries are available.
Somewhat like quotation, so also allusion and echo generally require
recognition; if hearers or readers do not catch the sound of the older text, do
not recognize the source, the effectiveness is largely lost. Page 130

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

The question then becomes - has the Josephan writer, in telling the story about Judas the Galilean, used an earlier source. i.e. are there illusions in the Judas Galilean story to earlier Josephan history?

Wikipedia condensed Josephan history:

Aristobulus_II

Pompey defeated the Jewish armies in multiple battles, and took the fortresses of Judea. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured in 63 BC. Aristobulos, suspicious of Pompey, entrenched himself in the fortress of Alexandrium, but when the Romans defeated his army again, he surrendered and undertook to deliver Jerusalem over to them. However, since many of his followers were unwilling to open the gates, the Romans besieged and captured the city by force, badly damaging city and temple. Hyrcanus was restored as High Priest, but deprived of political authority.

Aristobulus II escaped in 57 BC, instigating rebellion against Rome in Judea, until he was finally holed up by Aulus Gabinius, consul of the Roman province of Syria, in Machaerus. Marc Antony, commander of the cavalry under Gabinius, led several men to scale Aristobulus' fortifications and subdue his forces.[3]

Taken prisoner, Aristobulus was released by Julius Caesar in 49 BC in order to turn Judea against Pompey. He was on his way to Judaea with his son Alexander, when "he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party".[4] His son Alexander was beheaded by the Roman commander Scipio at Antioch.[5]

His son Antigonus led a rebellion against Rome, with help from the Parthians, and became king and high priest in 40 BC, but was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BC.

After Fadus came his successor Tiberius Alexander, the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, who was noted both for his family and his wealth and was also more pious than his son Alexander, who did not continue in our ancestral customs. Under these procurators the great famine happened in Judea, when queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense and distributed it to those who were in want, as I have said. Then too, the sons of Judas of Galilee were killed, that man who caused the people to revolt when Quirinius came to assess the estates of the Jews, as we mentioned in an earlier book; the sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander had crucified. Josephus: Ant.20.5.2

First point to notice is that Josephus has placed his Judas the Galilean story 70 years from the events of 63 b.c.e. Secondly, the two sons of Aristobulus were beheaded. Antigonus, re Cassius Dio, being first hung on a cross and scourged.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king.

A third point of interest is that Josephus places a son (grandson) of Judas at the revolt of 66 c.e. At Masada in 73/74 c.e. a cousin of this grandson of Judas is placed. i.e. a 7 year period.

Bottom line in all of this: If one wants to view elements of the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean in the literary construct of the gospel Jesus - one is, in effect, ascribing reflections of Hasmonean history to the gospel figure of Jesus and the gospel story. Hasmonean history is the undercurrent of the gospel story - as it is the undercurrent of the Josephan history of the early first century.

(footnote: Aristobulus spent some time, after escaping from Rome, at Machaerus, "a fortified hilltop palace". Built by Alexander Jannaeus - and the place where the story of the beheading of John the Baptist is placed around 36/7 c.e. - 100 years from the events of 63 b.c.e.)

[MrMacSon]

.
Middle ground? Unterbrink is a Jesus historicist. ie. he, like Ehrman upholds an “apocalyptic teacher” as being the historical Jesus figure. His gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A composite that includes “combining the actual life of Judas the Galilean with Paul’s life and theology”. Thus, the gospel figure is a literary creation that includes reflection on the “actual life of Judas the Galilean”.

First stop here, of course, is Unterbrink’s acceptance of the Josephan story of Judas the Galilean as being historical. There is no historical evidence to support this assumption. Without that historical support Unterbrink’s composite gospel Jesus has no relevance.

Cheers. I would caution about calling these composites, or other apocalyptic or salvation-preachers, ' .. "historical" Jesus figures'

I'd use terminology such as

• "he, like Ehrman upholds an “apocalyptic teacher” as being the [basis for] the historical [NT] Jesus figure."

ie. these proposed composites are not really 'historical' as such


I think you make some good points here -

.
Yes, it's back to Josephus and how one views his writing ... One way would be to apply the type of approach that Thomas Brodie has suggests for the New Testament.

... narrative theology - showing how New Testament narrative often builds a story or narrative that is grounded on that of the Old Testament

... the New Testament contains 'echoes' (Hays's word) of the Old Testament

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

• <snip>

Bottom line in all of this: If one wants to view elements of the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean in the literary construct of the gospel Jesus - one is, in effect, ascribing reflections of Hasmonean history to the gospel figure of Jesus and the gospel story. Hasmonean history is the undercurrent of the gospel story

- as it [Hasmonean history] is the undercurrent of the Josephan history of the early first century.
.

... Hasmonean history is [likely an] undercurrent of the gospel story, as is OT theology

[Adam]

Go check out his posts at the religion forums. Just Google "Dan Unterbrink".
DCH

Yes, I have seen his posts on Acts at Debating Christianity and Religion.
Another link is to the excellent review by Ken Humphreys at his website:

But Unterbrink's thesis is far more comprehensive than vulgar parallel mania. The author believes his breakthrough is to recognise that the early historians (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny) plus the "authentic" Pauline letters, are our primary sources and that the gospels are less reliable secondary sources. Viewed without the distorting lens of the gospels, the primary material supports the Judas thesis rather well, particularly if we allow a few not unreasonable speculations. - See more at: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/judas- ... db4S2.dpuf

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/judas-unterbrink.html
Relegating the gospels to secondary status necessarily skews the resultant picture of Jesus, particularly against mine with the opposite hypothesis.

[Jobar]

I have Unterbrink's book before me; I can scarcely recommend it as a well-written work, mainly because the organization of his ideas is atrocious. However, I find the ideas themselves extremely plausible, explaining many of the political and religious questions raised by the Christ story, and providing a framework to understand the extant writings of that era.

It's true that Unterbrink places great weight on the works of Josephus, and some of those works contradict U.'s theory and hypothetical timeline, as maryhelena points out above. However, we know for a fact that Josephus has been diddled with by Christian scribes, viz. the Testimonium Flavium.

Right after I read [i]Judas the Galilean[/i] I started a thread on it at the Secular Cafe; http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p ... post490679. Another contradiction from within Josephus is mentioned there-
[quote=Jobar]In his hypothesis, Judas is crucified in 19 AD- under Pontius Pilate. Of course, the knowledgeable here will protest that Pilate did not become procurator until 26 AD. But that date is based upon one line from Josephus; in context-
[quote]
After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty- seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. [b]When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.[/b][/quote][/quote]

U. points out that this date would have been easily changed, presuming an intent by the RCC to deny any resemblance between the Judean rebel Judas and their savior figure.

Anyone interested in this topic, to save me a lot of copy&paste, I ask that you go read that Cafe thread, in particular my posts #1, 3,4, 7, and 20. In them I explain why I find U's Judas = Jesus (or rather, Judas -> Jesus) hypothesis a plausible one.

[maryhelena]

I have Unterbrink's book before me; I can scarcely recommend it as a well-written work, mainly because the organization of his ideas is atrocious. However, I find the ideas themselves extremely plausible, explaining many of the political and religious questions raised by the Christ story, and providing a framework to understand the extant writings of that era.

It's true that Unterbrink places great weight on the works of Josephus, and some of those works contradict U.'s theory and hypothetical timeline, as maryhelena points out above. However, we know for a fact that Josephus has been diddled with by Christian scribes, viz. the Testimonium Flavium.

Right after I read Judas the Galilean I started a thread on it at the Secular Cafe; http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p ... post490679. Another contradiction from within Josephus is mentioned there-

In his hypothesis, Judas is crucified in 19 AD- under Pontius Pilate. Of course, the knowledgeable here will protest that Pilate did not become procurator until 26 AD. But that date is based upon one line from Josephus; in context-

After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty- seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

U. points out that this date would have been easily changed, presuming an intent by the RCC to deny any resemblance between the Judean rebel Judas and their savior figure.

Anyone interested in this topic, to save me a lot of copy&paste, I ask that you go read that Cafe thread, in particular my posts #1, 3,4, 7, and 20. In them I explain why I find U's Judas = Jesus (or rather, Judas -> Jesus) hypothesis a plausible one.

Your problem, Underbrink's problem, is that there is no historical evidence for Judas the Galilean. Josephus can tell stories as well as any gospel writer...

In your posts to the other forum you said:

Jobar: ..... I'm not at all surprised to learn that much of the character of Jesus has been taken from historical personages......

Historical personages - OK - then lets deal with historical personages!

HISTORY and Coins	Philo (died about 50 c.e.) Flaccus	JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.)Antiquities:(about 94 c.e.)	The composite gospel Jesus figure based upon the historical figures of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus; Philip the Tetrarch and Agrippa I.
King Antigonus Mattathias II High Priest of the Jews: 4 b.c.e. – 37 b.c.e. Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek.		Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant.
		Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared an enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16.	gJohn indicates a three year ministry for JC.
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22.		Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31.Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilingual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
		...and then but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3.
		Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1.	Acts: 11:16.The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Philip the Tetrarch: Herodian Coins. 4 b.c.e. – 34 c.e.		When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Caesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaida, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, Antiquities: Book 18 ch.2.	John 1:43-45. Philip, Andrew and Peter come from Bethsaida. Around the villages of Caesarea Phillipi JC asked the disciples who do people say he is. Peter says: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-16.
		(about 34 c.e.) About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp.His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities: Book 18 ch.4.	disciples/apostles: John 6:70; Mark 3:14; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13. A rich man from Arimathea, Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. Matthew 27:57-59. Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. JC crucified during rule of Pilate - which ends in 36 c.e.
Agrippa I. (d.44 c.e.) Herodian Coins.	The mocking of Carabbas:... a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick ..., he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, ....Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians;..when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disgustedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king.		The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. ..... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him............Pilate released Barabbas.