Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus

Never Existed

flavius josephus genealogy

This genealogy is perhaps the most difficult to explain. The reason is that a plethora of intricate and difficult information needed to be researched and investigated, which included biblical writing, the writings of ancient historians, and the work of past and present scholars and classicists. The following information, for whatever reason, has not been pieced together by mainstream academia.

 

If you have read my book, you will be aware of the parallels (over which much debate has taken place) between Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels and the writings of the man known to us as Flavius Josephus. However, there are many more parallels between Josephus’ works and the New Testament, those parallels are presented at the end.

The man known as Titus Flavius Josephus, or to use the original name, given by him, Yosef ben Matityahu, produced four major writings: The Jewish War (approx. 75 CE), Antiquities of the Jews (approx. 94 CE), Against Apion (approx. 97 CE), and The Life of Flavius Josephus (approx. 99 CE).

It is known, at least in the academic world, that Josephus’ work has been very closely linked to the New Testament, as he describes the same prophecy that appears in the Gospels. It is odd then that those in control of the Church, since the middle ages, chose not to promote his work, but instead make the religion more about faith rather than evidence. Only recently have apologetics been considered important so people can have a somewhat rational reason to believe based on evidence. For that reason, the work of Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, etc., are unknown to many. We are told by Josephus that he was a Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the long Jewish War of 66–70 CE and on earlier Jewish history. He says he was a son of Matthias, a man of priestly descent, and a mother who claimed royal blood.

 

Josephus becomes an incredibly suspicious individual, especially due to 1) the known fact that the message of the New Testament emerged after the war, 2) because when this man surrendered to the future Emperor Vespasian, he was treated exceptionally well thereafter, which is in contrast to the fate of other Jewish leaders, such as Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus, The Jewish War, 6.5.3) and Simon bar Giora (Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.2.1) and 3) because Roman generals routinely took enemy generals to Rome to be publicly executed, Josephus, however, escaped this fate. He was treated immensely well, even living in Vespasian’s house and, as we read, receiving the Flavian name through adoption. I find it very difficult to believe this, especially considering he tells us that during the siege of Jotapata (Yodefat) he had his men pour boiling oil down upon the Romans and boiling fenugreek over the Roman assault planks in 67 CE (Josephus, The Jewish War, 3.271-279).

 

If there were only a few parallels that contained the same concepts, we could speculate that these events were common occurrences at that time, however, that is not what has been presented, so we must investigate further. The first important detail to mention is that no Jewish historical commentary mentions Josephus, not even in the Talmud, which is suspicious, considering the background he has as a high priest. As Historian and Biblical scholar Steve Mason states:

Although Josephus most often refers to himself as a general (στρατηγος), he is plainly much more than that: governor, chief magistrate, teacher, and supreme patron (ευεργετης, § 244; προστατης, § 250). He quickly evolves from membership in a triumvirate (§ 29) to sole mastery of the region (§§ 244, 259). Essentially, he is “the man,” whose position is legitimized not by an office, but by the populace’s overwhelming affirmation of his virtue, prestige, and authority (auctoritas, on which see Galinsky 1996: 10-41).” (ref - Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Introduction, XXXV)

Now one reason they may not mention him could be because they saw him as a traitor, but it could be logically assumed that he was important enough to at least have been mentioned as being a traitor to his people. Given we find nothing in the Talmud or other Jewish commentary relating to Josephus, we must investigate other sources.

His genealogy can only be traced back through two individuals - a) King Herod ‘The Great’, and b) his first wife, Mariamne I, who was the daughter of Alexander and Alexandra Regent. But the way Josephus presents his genealogy makes no reasonable sense. Whiston’s translation of ‘The Life Of Josephus’ states Josephus wrote that his grandfather’s father [great-grandfather] was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus. But as the Loeb Classical Library translation is considered the standard for scholarly study, our investigation here will be based on that translation. In the Loeb translation of ‘Life Of Josephus’, it reads ‘My great-grandfather's grandfather was named Simon surnamed Psellus’.

 

This makes a man named Matthias Curtus (born 135 BCE) his great-grandfather; Matthias was a contemporary to the last rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty, particularly Hyrcanus II, who served as high priest from 76–67 BCE and 63–40 BCE. Matthias married an unnamed Jewish woman through whom he had a son called Josephus (Yosef), which should make this son the paternal grandfather of Flavius Josephus if Josephus is correct in claiming Matthias was born the first year that a man named Johanan Hyrcanus was a high priest (134 BCE). However, the genealogy Josephus gives raises questions that are historically unanswerable when the information is studied literally, as the males of Josephus’ family would have had to have married late or often.

 

Regarding this, Steve Mason, states:

It remains unclear why Josephus should have chosen Simon as the patriarch of his family, rather than one of Simon’s ancestors or Simon’s son Matthias, who actually married into the Hasmonean line. Perhaps the coincidence in name with the contemporary Hasmonean Simon provided a motive. If Simon Psellus was already a priest, then Josephus has spoken ambiguously (open to doubt or uncertainty) at Ant. 16.187 in attributing his priestly heritage to the Hasmoneans.” (ref - Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Page 8, Life of Josephus)

 

Also:

 

If Matthias II (Curtus) was born in 135 BCE and produced a son Josephus I in 68 BCE, he was a father at about the age of 77. This would have been a remarkable feat, especially in view of ancient mortality rates: When Abraham fathered Ishmael at 86 (Gen 16:16) it was a charter miracle of Israel’s history. Since Josephus does not draw attention either to this feat or to its counterpart in the next generation, it is unlikely that he notices, or expects his audience to notice, the chronological problem. More likely, he has accidentally omitted a couple of generations or fabricated much of the genealogy. Possibly our text is corrupt.’...‘If Josephus I was born in 68 BCE and fathered Matthias III at age 73 or 74 (in 6 CE), we are once again faced with a patriarchal feat unmentioned by Josephus.

Given the chronological gaps & Josephus’ tendency to defend himself, rejecting his family tree as a fabrication would not be unreasonable. But because he insists that his genealogy is based on public records, (Loeb, Life Of Josephus, 4-11) and also states that priestly pedigrees were carefully preserved in the major Judean centers and that after a war the priestly survivors would quickly recreate those records that had been destroyed (Apion 1.31.5), it makes this assumption hard to justify when studying the information literally. Priestly lineage was enthusiastically recorded by Jerusalem’s conservative ruling aristocracy, and it was the priest’s job to regulate the priestly courses (groups). It is highly unlikely that Josephus would have claimed descent from the Hasmonean royal house if he was not of that lineage, especially considering the audience for his works.

 

Therefore, he must have been a descendant of that royal house, surely? When taking a step back, there are only certain facts available to work with, those being that his genealogy can only be traced back through King Herod ‘The Great’ and his first wife, Mariamne I, as mentioned above. As a son of Matthias, Josephus’ descent would be from the Hasmonean royal house, but because of what is known about that royal house, his genealogy makes no sense. Therefore, if we note the reasoning of Steve Mason above regarding a possible genealogical fabrication, and follow the advice of Sir Ronald Syme: ‘When the attempt is made to expose a fraud, attack on all fronts is to be commended...’ (Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta) it is logical to examine more deeply other possible ancestral lines for Josephus, and this is where preconceptions need to be put aside. From his wealth of knowledge and experience regarding ancient Rome, Sir Ronald believed that simply reading classical works on a superficial level was not enough if someone wished to learn all the information necessary to have a complete understanding of ancient history.

 

Josephus, or the man who used this name, gave the necessary information to discover his actual genealogy via his writings, but vital information needed to confirm it was not given in a straightforward way, it was, it appears, very much scattered into little pieces of information here and there, the question to ask is, why? The individual who appears to have used the name Flavius Josephus used what I can only describe as naming techniques to disguise his genealogy, and those naming techniques incorporated literary ‘rules’ already used by the Roman aristocracy, for example, nomenclature, a combination of personal and family names used to create a new name.

There is no connection to the Hasmonean royal house under the name ‘Flavius Josephus’ using the genealogy presented. Flavius Josephus was a pen-name that belonged to a particular individual who was a member of a powerful and distinguished senatorial family the ancestry he presents belongs to, the family in question is a Roman-Jewish family called the Calpurnius Pisos, of the noble ancient house of Calpurnii. The house of the Calpurnii claimed descent from Calpus, the son of Numa Pompilius, the second legendary king of Rome, succeeding Romulus. The Calpurnius Pisos were related to the family of Emperor Vespasian (see his genealogy here), and the Pisos’ relationship to the Flavians was discovered by investigating the historical writings that document Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus Flavius, and their descent from Herod Pollio (see Vespasian’s genealogy). If Josephus was apparently ‘adopted’ and given a wife and house by Vespasian, we could expect to find contemporary records mentioning and confirming this. But again, we find none, only quotes from historians of the time, and any mentions are brief, Suetonius mentions him, but even what he says is slightly suspicious:

“…Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian’s, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters and who would then be emperor…” (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Vespasian)

Notice that Suetonius says ‘Josephus by name’, why would he say by name? To me, this implies ‘Josephus by name and not by birth.’

Researching historical documents related to the Flavian’s, and taking into consideration the many parallels between the Gospels and the writings of ‘Josephus’, this name is revealed as being an alias name for a man called Arrius Calpurnius Piso. This name has been found within the original Koine Greek writings of the New Testament, particularly the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Revelation, and those writings present the words ‘Arrius’, ‘Calpurnius’, and ‘Piso’ using the languages and numbers of the time. Through prior research done regarding the Flavian and Piso family history, most notably by Sir Ronald Syme, the connection between the two families is revealed.

 

It begins with a lady called Arria Clementina (Arrecina Clementina/Arria the Elder/Sr./Major) of royal Jewish descent marrying Emperor Vespasian’s brother before Vespasian became emperor. Vespasian’s brother was called T. Flavius Sabinus II (Caecina Paetus) the same as his father Titus Flavius Sabinus I. In historical documentation connected with T. Flavius Sabinus II, and inscription, the name ‘Paetus’ in regards to the marriage of Flavia Sabina (Arria the Younger) is shown as being a name used by the Pisos; although the name on the inscription looks to have been connected with the wrong Piso family member. (ref - ‘Doctors and Other Health Professionals In the Latin Epigraphy of Rome and the Italicae Augustae Regions,’ page 239  - Flaviae T(iti) [f(iliae)] / Sabinae / Caesenni Paeti (uxori) (CIL XIV, 2830)).

The marriage of T. Flavius Sabinus II to Arria Clementina (Arrecina Clementina/Arria the Elder/Sr./Major), shows that the man who will be shown to have been called Arrius Calpurnius Piso was also of Flavian descent. In Sir Ronald Syme’s paper, ‘People in Pliny’ JRS, pages 144, 146, and 148, quite a bit of information is provided for this family. In that paper, he states that an A. Caecina Paetus is a Roman consul in 37 CE in Patavium, with the Patavine P. Clodius Thrasea Paetus taking his daughter for a wife. The late professor Gavin Townend also provided much information in his ‘Some Flavian Connections’ JRS 51, Parts I and II, where a Caesennius Paetus, a consul in 61 CE, is shown as a son of the former Paetus. Also mentioned here, as well as being found in the work of Tacitus, and researched by Syme (Tacitus 595, n.5), is the fact the Caesennius Paetus (son of the former Paetus) is married to Vespasian’s niece, Flavia Sabina, in the early ’70s and governs Syria.

Emperor Nero executed Arrius Calpurnius Piso’s father, a very wealthy politician called Gaius Calpurnius Piso, in 65/67 CE, as a result of the failed ‘Pisonian Conspiracy’. This is recorded under the name Thrasea Paetus, Stoic philosopher (Tacitus, Annals, 16), whose wife was Arria the Younger (Tacitus, Annals, XVI.34) and a few pages previously in the Annals, the leader of the group of conspirators against Nero is named as Calpurnius Piso (Tacitus, Annals, 15.59); here Gaius’ wife is presented as ‘Satria Galla’, which can be viewed as T.S. Aria Galla, Titia (the feminine form of Titus) Sabina (the feminine form of Sabinus) Aria Galla (the feminine form of Gallus, which has the same meaning as Pollio, ‘rooster’/‘cock’/male chicken - again, see Vespasians’ genealogy). That record of the execution led to the later discovery that Arrius was the son of Gaius, as Arrius is recorded under the name of Caesennius Paetus, governor of Syria (Jewish War, Book 7, 56-64) as well as ‘Montanus’ (Tacitus, Annals, 16.33); it seems he used many created names through the use of nomenclature, which will be shown, including L. Caesoninus Junius Paetus, discussed in Gavin Townend’s paper above. It appears Arrius was given a masculine form of his mother’s name Arria, who was the daughter of Arria Clementina (Arria the Elder/Sr./Major)

The information presented within the text of the New Testament (as investigated in my book) indicates that Arrius Calpurnius Piso used the literary pen-name/pseudonym of ‘Flavius Josephus’. It appears this name was created to not only provide a historical appearance of authenticity regarding the new religion of Christianity but also provide a ‘role model’ of sorts for later generations of Jews turning away from Judaism. The information above shows Arrius was already a Flavian through his inherited name usage, and not because Emperor Flavius Vespasian adopted him, as the ancient writers have told us. Essentially what we have is information leading us to understand that T. Flavius Sabinus II (Flavius Vespasian’s brother) and Arrecina (Arr(ia) (Ca)ecina) Clementina (Arria the Elder/Sr./Major) had a daughter called Aria/Arria, who married Gaius Calpurnius Piso, and this is where the alliance of the Flavian’s and the Piso’s would begin.


 

When researching historical documents related to the Flavian family, and when investigating the Koine Greek New Testament scriptures, Arrius' name, and the Piso family name, has been found within them, particularly the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Revelation, and those writings present the words 'Arrius', 'Calpurnius', and 'Piso' using the languages, and the 'rules' associated with those languages, and numbers of the time.

As shown above, the genealogy 'Josephus' provides starts with the family of Herod The Great, then leads to the brother of Emperor Vespasian, which leads to the Calpurnius Piso family of Rome; a very rich and powerful senatorial family.

A few points to note:

  • The number '616' spells 'Christ Piso'. The current understanding is that the number '666' was changed to '616', in order to present the name Nero in Latin. But, as one of the worlds most prominent biblical scholars, Candida Moss has argued, the term, Christian, wasn't known until the end of the first century, long after Nero had died, and if we resort to the idea for a moment that there were Christians when Nero was alive, they would have only been known as Jews. If using the current understanding regarding early Christianity, it means the religion had not fully emerged from Judaism at that point, so for Nero to specifically name Christians as the cause of the fire does not fit with the period; although some would say that argument is hard to sustain given clear references to that term in both pagan, [Suetonius] and 'Christian', [Tertullian] sources and the strong early Christian tradition that depicted Nero as the pagan persecutor. The translating of the New Testament into Latin makes no sense either if using the current understanding of the history of Christianity, and the languages understood by the majority of people. By 1522, Martin Luther, a German professor of theology, had translated the New Testament into German, as the people could not understand the Latin version, even today, Catholic masses are in Latin. Martin Luther wanted the people to be able to read the Bible themselves, and so he translated it from the original Greek and Hebrew, which worried the church officials, as they no longer had strict control over the word of 'God'.

  • The name Piso is presented within the New Testament scripture, particularly the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of Mark. Just two examples from the Gospel of Mark are Mark 1:7, “Who is he (that) comes mightier than I?, the Piso/οπισω (is) me…” and Mark 1:17, “And Jesus said to them, come (to) me, the Piso, and I will make you to become (as) fishers of men…”

  • The name Joseph (Josephus) has the same letters rearranged in Hebrew as the name Piso.

To confirm the facts from this information, the family of 'Thrasea Paetus' (Gaius Calpurnius Piso) and Arria the Younger needs to be examined closely. To begin, they had a daughter, also named Arria, and we find Gaius and Arria the Younger's daughter being called 'Fannia' in historical documents, which is also an pseudonym name created using her Arria name. Her actual name was Flavia Arria, which is the feminine form of the name Flavius and Arria combined. They used the ‘F’ in ‘Flavia’ as an initial and left it in front of her Arria name and changed the 'r's in her name to 'n's, which created the name 'Fannia' (F.Annia).

Information about a ‘C. Fannius’ (most likely Arrius Piso) as a barrister, who wrote the biographies of Nero’s victims, is given in the ‘Prosopographia Imperii Romani’ (Edmund Groag in PIR-2, F116). In there it reads:

C. Fannius (v, 5). Barrister who wrote biographies of Nero’s victims. Supposed a relative of Fannia, the daughter of the Patavine (P. [Publius] Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by his marriage with Arria, the daughter of A. [Aulus] Caecina Paetus (suff. 37) [T. Flavius Sabinus I].

Sir Ronald Syme, who researched this information, even stated in his paper ‘People in Pliny’:

Why she should be called 'Fannia', no clue.”

I agree with Sir Ronald, it would be safe to think that a daughter of an Arria would use the name of her mother, somewhere. A closer look at this name, as demonstrated above, reveals the Arria name is there, as 'F. Arria/Annia' where the r's are replaced with n's, but why are the r's replaced with n's? That is difficult to answer, however, one possible reason could be that the letter 'n' was used as a link to Christianity. The Phoenician letter was named 'nun', meaning 'fish', and the fish and anchor symbols were used on the Flavian coins and other artifacts of that period, and the first symbol of Christianity was a fish. Let us not forget that one of the letters that make up the number '666' in the Book of Revelation, is Phoenician.

 

The name Arrius and Piso in the New Testament


 

In Revelation 5:8, 'Jesus' is stated as being the "the Lamb", and the word for 'Lamb' in Greek is 'Arnion' αρνιον or 'Amnos' αμνος. What was written in this instance, however, is the genitive of this word, which is ‘Arnius’ ‘αρνιου’, but Arnion αρνίον being a neutral noun means the word can appear the same in the accusative (direct object, i.e., ‘the Lamb’) and become feminine or masculine by personification. Under a normal reading, the word ‘Arnius’ may not look suspicious, but because the previous findings, the author must have chosen this version of the word as a convenient way to present Arrius’ name, by saying that ‘Jesus’ is the Arrius (arnius/lamb). Remember, r’s and n’s were switched, as in the example found regarding Arria and her name being presented as F.Annia. It is clear the ‘Arnius’ word was seen as Arrius. Another telling clue is in the fact we find the word ‘Amnos’ used in John 1:29, 1:36; Acts 8:32; and I Peter 1:19; it is interesting to note here that in John 21:15 the plural word ‘Arnia’ is used (plural being more than two). ‘Arnia’ is another form of Arnion, but, as above, this word can also be seen as Arria.

Revelation 6:16 talks about the 'wrath of the Lamb' and uses the word 'Arnius' for the word Lamb again.

 

Revelation 7:14 has the phrase 'The blood of the Lamb', with the word 'Arnius' being used again. In this example, two different words for Lamb were used. The word Lamb in the phrase 'The blood of the Lamb' is spelled 'Arnius', but only a few lines later in 7:17 we have the word 'Lamb' again, spelled as 'Arnion' αρνιον. There is no reason for this unless of course to point to Arrius. There are many more examples presented in my book/thesis.

More information can be found in the book Creating Christianity - A Weapon of Ancient Rome

Additional correlations between the works of 'Flavius Josephus' and the Gospels:

 

(1) ‘Jesus, who was called Christ’ (Matt. 27:17; Antiquities, 20.9.1) (2) ‘The Egyptian’ (Acts 21:38; Antiquities, 20.8.6) (3) ‘Punishment of the Jews’ (Matt. 24:21; Mark 13:19; Luke 21:23-24; Jewish War, Preface; Calamities of the Jews, 6.5.4) (4) ‘Binding and Loosing’ (Matt 16:19; Jewish War, 1.5.2 ) (5) ‘The Weaker Sex’ (1 Peter 3:7; Jewish War, 1,18.2) (6) ‘Render unto Caesar...’ (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Jewish War, 1.13.5) (7) ‘My Father’s house has many Mansions’ (John 14:2; Jewish War, 1.13.5 (Note: same as above) (8) ‘The ‘New’ Testament’ (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb; 9:15; Jewish War, 2.2.6, 2.2.3) (9) ‘Pilate’ (Mark 15:1, 43-46; Matt. 27:1-2, 57-58; Luke 3:1-2, 13.1-5, 23:1, 50-53; John 18:28-40, 19:1, 38-39; Acts 3:13-15, 4:27-31, 13:28-33; 1 Tim. 6:13-16; Jewish War, 2.9.2) (10) ‘Felix, Procurator of Galilee’ (Acts 24:25; Jewish War, 2.12.18) (11) ‘Roman Jews’ (Acts 22:25-29; Jewish War, 2.15.9) (12) ‘King Agrippa’s wisdom on the Jews’ (Acts 26:28; Jewish War, 2.16.4) (13) ‘Public Mourners’ (Matt. 12:17; Jewish War, 3.9.5) (14) ‘Zacharias, son of Baruch’ (Matt. 23:35; Jewish War, 4.5.4) (15) ‘Houses of Prayers’ (Acts 16:13, 16; Luke 6:12; Jewish War, 4.7.2) (16) ‘Blood of Josephus’ (Take my own blood as a reward if it may but procure your preservation, i.e., ‘save you’ (John 6:56, ‘eat of my flesh, and drink my blood’ [to save you.]; Jewish War, 5.9.4) (17) ‘Seven Lamps’ (Rev. 1:12, 13, 20; 2:1, 5; 11:4; Jewish War, 3.6.7, 7.7; 7.5.5) (18) ‘Seven Heads’ (Rev. 4:5; 13:1; 17:3, 7; Antiquities, 3.7.7) (19) ‘Twelve Stones’ (Rev. 21:16, 19-20; Jewish War, 5.5.7; Antiquities, 3.7.5) (20) ‘John the Baptist’ (Matt. 3:4, Mark 1:6; ‘Banus’ in Vita and Antiquities, 18.5.2) (21) ‘Hairs of your head’ (Matt. 10:30, ...even the very hairs of your head are numbered.; Antiquities, 11.5.3) (22) ‘Eating ‘Common’ things’ (Acts 10:14-15, 28; 11:8-9, Rom. 14:14; Antiquities, 11.2.7) (23) ‘Grace at Meal’ (Mark 8:6, John 6:11, 23, Acts 27:35; Antiquities, 12.2.12) (24) ‘Ointment in an alabaster box’ (Mark 14:3; Matt. 26:7; Luke 7:37; Antiquities, 17.4.2) (25) ‘Judas/Theudas’ (Acts 5:36-37; Antiquities, 17.10.5, 20.5.1) (26) ‘Glad Tidings’, ‘The Gospels’ or ‘Good News’ (Luke 2:10; 1 Th. 3:6; Antiquities, 19.8.2) (27) ‘Only Begotten Son’ - used to say the wrong thing in Antiquities. The phrase, ‘Only-Begotten Son’, was a figure of speech used as a term of endearment, used for a son considered a ‘favorite’ out of more than one, by the father or mother of that son. (John 3:16: For God so love the world that he gave his only-begotten son.; Antiquities, 20.2.1) (28) ‘Famine’ (Acts 11:28; Antiquities, 20.2.5) (29) ‘Simon the Magician’ (Acts 8:9; Antiquities, 20.7.2) (30) ‘Our Father [Abba] who art in Heaven’ (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6; Antiquities, 4.4.7 - Josephus says ‘Aaron’ died in the month called ‘Abba’ by the Hebrews; also, O Father [Abba], why hast thee forsaken me? Josephus: One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his son imploring help of his father, when his hands are still bound. - Jewish War, 7.10.7.) (31) Tomorrow ye shall be with me in heaven (Luke 23:43; Antiquities, 6.14.2 - Tomorrow thou shalt be with me in Hades) (32) ‘Beaten with 40 stripes, save one’ (2 Cor. 2:24; Antiquities, 4.8.21) (33) ‘Gold, Incense, and Myrrh’ (Matt. 2:11; Antiquities, 3.8.3) (34) For we do not follow cunningly devised fables (2 Peter 1:16), And hath not preserved his writings from those indecent fables... and, he might have securely forged such lies – Antiquities, Preface, 4), ‘They followed fables...' - Antiquities, Preface, 4) (35) ‘Babylon the Great’ (Rev. 17:1-18; 18:1-24; Antiquities, 8.6.1) (36) ‘666’ (Rev. 13:18; Antiquities, 8.7.2) (37) ‘False Prophets’ (Mark 13:22; Antiquities, 13.11.2, 8.9.1) (38) ‘Filthy Lucre’ (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:2; Antiquities, 6.3.2, 15.7.9) (39) ‘Age 30’ (Luke 3:23; Vita. 1. 15.1) (40) ‘James, the brother of Jesus’ (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55; Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; 1 Co. 15:7; Gal. 1:19, 2:9, 2:12; Jas. 1:1; Antiquities, 20.9.1)