THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF EMPEROR VESPASIAN

Note: A version of this article was submitted to The Journal of Roman Studies. The article was re-worked for the journal but the evidence remained the same. Unfortunately the article could not be accepted because purely because it had already been published in my book. Therefore although the editor saw the great interest in the topic, it had to be rejected on those grounds. This was an error on my part and was at the beginning of my research journey.

 INTRODUCTION

The Roman general Vespasian is regarded as a military genius of low origins who put down the revolt in Judea to bring a measure of peace to the Roman Empire. But evidence has been provided by the late Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver, Professor of Classical Studies, showing Vespasian’s revolt and rise did not begin with undisciplined and dissatisfied soldiers, as claimed in The Jewish War, but was orchestrated from the top.[1] A large part of his success was due to the support he received from members of the Herodian royal family (Agrippa II and his sister Berenice) and a man called Tiberius Julius Alexander. The investigation here expands on the above argument and the evidence will show that Vespasian was not of low origins but was in fact of royal Herodian blood.

The view of Titus Flavius Vespasianus (9 – 79 CE) is of a man who championed the poor against the rich to rise to power to become emperor, thanks to the support of the army and the essential gaining of influential networks. Our understanding that Vespasian came from a fairly undistinguished background comes from what the individual known to us as Suetonius tells us; past works on Vespasian that present his background as being the above include publications by Bernard William Henderson; Barbara M. Levick; and Barry Strauss.[2]

Philip B. Sullivan stated in his article/paper ‘A Note on the Flavian Accession’, “This paper will offer an explanation and an account of the conspiracy which elevated Vespasian and his brief dynasty to the imperial purple. The evidence will show that the persons supporting Vespasian were all closely connected by ties of blood, marriage or intimate friendship.”[3]

With Sullivan’s conclusion in mind and with new discoveries providing a more accurate picture of Vespasian’s background, what will hopefully become clear is that the ties of blood ran deeper than has been previously thought and all is not as it seems.

Vespasian may indeed have been a great general and currently there may appear to be no reason to doubt his presented genealogy, however certain factors raise suspicion. The Jewish War, a work produced by the man known to us as Flavius Josephus, was written after 70 CE, the same period as the gospels, as agreed by scholars.[4]

The man we know today as Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus appeared to feel the need to apologise for Vespasian’s lack of distinction, “This house was, it is true, obscure and without family portraits, yet it was one of which our country had no reason whatever to be ashamed”.[5] When introducing Vespasian, and throughout his description of him, Suetonius feels the need to remind the reader of his humble origins, he also writes that Vespasian apparently laughed at desire of certain Roman men to create a noble ancestry.[6] Concerning him being descended, distantly, from a patrician family, whom claimed to be descended from a key god, we are told Vespasian refused to accept this flattery. However, shortly after he began his reign he did deify his family, elevating them to a status above others and allowing them to be worshipped through the establishing of a priest hood.[7]

Furthermore, Suetonius could apparently trace Vespasian’s ancestry back no further than his maternal and paternal grandfathers. According to Suetonius, Titus Flavius Petro, Vespasian’s paternal grandfather, was the first member of the family to reach any status. The evidence here will show that Vespasian, through his mother, a woman recorded as Vespasia Polla, was a descendant of Herod the Great. A detailed examination of two names of supposedly different men who lived during the same period of time will show how the above conclusion can made. The names are Vespasius Pollio (I) and Herod Pollio.

I am fully aware this is a bold claim, but it is one that has been made as a result of a much larger investigation into connections between the Roman-Jewish War of CE 66-73 and the emergence of the Synoptic gospels. The investigation resulted in justifiable suspicions and doubts concerning Vespasian’s ancestry, and so, therefore, it has been scrutinised.

Furthermore, critically investigating the sequential parallels that have come to light in recent years between the The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and the gospels, mainly through the publication by Joseph Atwill, also brought the suspicious details of Vespasian’s ancestry to the forefront; there are also over forty correlations between the work of ‘Josephus’ and the New Testament.[8]

It is important to also honestly acknowledge, without any emotion attached, that the historical evidence for the Jesus of the New Testament is fragile at best. I will present four parallels here. The first concerns the location of Nazareth, the first parallel between The Jewish War and the New Testament. The current archaeological evidence in the area only tells us it was a place for burials and agriculture;[9] the only tombs found there date to after 70 70 and belong to wealthy Jews migrating there after Jerusalem was destroyed.[10] Currently there is no evidence of houses in the Nazareth area dating to the turn of the century, meaning a domestic habitation presence can only be placed from around 70 CE or perhaps just before. ‘Herodian’ lamps found in the tombs have been dated from approximately 70-135 CE[11] and personal items found in or near the tombs logically date to the same period; personal items are often buried with the dead. Nazareth’s location is important, but the New Testament does not provide this information.

The location ‘discovered’ by Helena is the exact same place as the commencement of the Roman military campaign in Judea, that is, Japhia.[12] Lastly, excavated remains have been claimed to be a house.[13] On p. 39 in the article cited in the footnote just given, it shows pictures of the excavated area. The pictures clearly show remains of an agricultural structure, because they match the remains of another agricultural area presented in Professor Joan Taylor’s book (Christians and the Holy Places) on pages 231-232.

I feel it is important to clarify here that I am not suggesting a Nazareth did not exist, I am presenting evidence to show that the area ‘discovered’ by Helena is suspicious in that it is the same location as the start of the Roman military campaign, as stated above. Another parallel concerns the casting out of a ‘demon’. In book 3 of The Jewish War, on pages 703-5 (Loeb), we read that the whole city of Tiberias had been influenced or ‘infected’ by the ‘wickedness’ or ‘madness’ of a few. The mad few are then ‘casted out’ and a saviour is declared:

“for he had heard that the people in general desired peace, but were overruled and being driven to hostilities by some seditious individuals... the principal promoters of the rising dashed out in arms to meet him, headed by a certain Jesus, son of Saphat, the ringleader of this band of brigands...Dreading the consequences of this incident, the elders and the more respected of the citizens fled to the Roman camp and, after obtaining the king’s support, threw themselves as suppliants at Vespasian’s feet, entreating him not to disregard them nor to impute to the whole city the madness of a few; let him spare a people who had always shown themselves friendly to the Romans and punish the authors of the revolt, under whose power they themselves had been kept to this day, long as they had been anxious to sue for terms... The delegates thus secured terms on behalf of their fellow-citizens, whereupon Jesus and his party, thinking themselves no longer safe at Tiberias, fled to Tarichaeae. The next day Vespasian sent forward Trajan to the ridge of the hill to discover whether the whole multitude were peaceably disposed. Having assured himself that the people were of one mind with the petitioners, he then advanced with his army to the city. The population opened their gates to him and went out to meet him with acclamations, hailing him as saviour and benefactor.”

The parallel narrative in Luke describes Jesus casting out demons that have ‘infected’ the whole town, whereby he is described as the saviour.

Luke 4:40-41 (Mark 1:29; Matthew 8:14-17)

“And at the going down of the sun all as many as had [persons] sick with diseases various brought them to him, and he on one each of them hands having laid healed them; and went out also demons from many, crying out and saying, Thou art the Christ the Son of God.”

The next sequential parallel concerns the Sea of Galilee/Lake of Gennesareth/Tiberias and the taking place of a naval battle in The Jewish War and the ‘Fishers of Men’ event in the New Testament. This parallel requires somewhat more explanation than others presented here and I have compared the Loeb translation with the translation done by English Classical scholar Martin Hammond. I will first state that it is well agreed that the New Testament writers drew on Old Testament passages, however, we also find the concept of ‘fishing for men’ in The Odyssey by Homer, an ancient Greek poet. In the Odyssey it reads:

“the mighty Laestrygonians came thronging from all sides...at once there rose throughout the ships a dreadful din, alike from men that were dying and from ships that were being crushed. And spearing them like fishes they bore them home, a loathly meal.”[14]

It has also been argued that the concept of ‘fishers of men’ was taken from Jeremiah 16.6 and Ezekiel 47.10.[15] The above may be the case. However, War curiously presents a typological conceptual parallel event that, again, occurs in the same sequence of events as is presented in the New Testament. The only obvious differences are the situations of the events and, in some instances, the manner in which the object in the water is captured.

Contained within War are a long set of passages describing Vespasian’s son Titus essentially telling his men to not be afraid, to follow him, that he will lead them and that God is on his side (War, Book 3, p. 713). After a description of the lake of Gennesareth in Galilee, we read a brief description of Vespasian’s forces engaged in what is described as a naval battle and catching Jews on both the beach and in the water after they had failed to catch or kill a great many of them the previous day and night:

“The inhabitants, moreover, had ready on the lake a considerable fleet, to serve as a refuge if they were defeated on land, and equipped for naval combat, if required for that purpose... From his position not far from the wall, Titus overheard this commotion. “Now is the time,” he cried; “why tarry, comrades, when God himself delivers the Jews into our hands?...” As he spoke he leapt on his horse, led his troops to the lake, rode through the water and was the first to enter the town, followed by his men. Terror-struck at his audacity, none of the defenders on the ramparts ventured to fight or to resist him; all abandoned their posts and fled, the partisans of Jesus across country, the others down to the lake. The latter ran into the arms of the enemy advancing to meet them; some were killed while boarding their boats, others endeavouring to swim out to their companions, who had previously gained the open water... Those who had taken refuge on the lake, seeing the city taken, sailed off and kept as far as possible out of range of the enemy.”

Following this, a naval battle has taken place and was won by Titus and Vespasian and of particular interest here is p. 725 of book 3 which describes the Jews as having fallen into the sea:

“sometimes the rafts closed in and caught their enemies between them, capturing men and vessels. When any who had been sunk rose to the surface, an arrow quickly reached or a raft overtook them; if in their despair they sought to board the enemy’s fleet, the Romans cut off their heads or their hands.”

We read that the Roman rafts surrounded the Jews’ vessels, “Thus perished these wretches on all sides in countless numbers and countless manners, until the survivors were routed and forced to the shore, their vessels surrounded by the enemy. As they streamed forth from them many were speared in the water; many sprang on land, where they were slain by the Romans.”[16]

When comparing the above narrative with that which is later presented in the gospels, the beginning stages of the public ministry and the passages describing ‘fishers of men’ parallel the above narrative in War. Of course the context in the War passage is that of conflict and the context message that later appears in the gospel’s passages appears to be theological.

In Luke, the fishermen enclose the fish and catch so many their ships begin to sink. We read that Jesus says to Simon fear not and instructs boats with their catch to be brought to land (the beach). The descriptions of this event end with the men following Jesus. In these narratives Jesus sees two ships standing by the lake which belonged to two fishermen. The fishermen had worked all night without catching anything. In Luke, Jesus proceeds to teach the fishermen and the others how to ‘fish’ by entering a ship and teaching from it:

Luke 5:1-11 (Mark 1:16-20; Matthew 4:18-22 and John 21:1-12)

“And it came to pass during the [time] the crowd pressed on him to hear the word of God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret: and he saw two ships standing by the lake, but the fishermen having gone out from them washed the nets. And having entered into one of the ships which was Simon’s, he asked him from the land to put off a little; and having sat down he taught from the ship the crowds. And when he ceased speaking he said to Simon, Put off into the deep and let down your nets for a haul. And answering Simon said to him, Master, through whole the night having laboured, nothing have we taken, but at thy word I will let down the net. And this having done they enclosed of fishes a shoal great; was breaking and net their. And they beckoned to the partners those in the other ship, that coming they should help them; and they came, and filled both the ships, so that were sinking they. And having seen Simon Peter fell at the knees of Jesus saying, Depart from me, for a man a sinner am I, Lord. For astonishment laid hold on him and said all those with him, at the haul of the fishes which they had taken; and in like manner also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And said to Simon Jesus, Fear not; from henceforth men though shalt be capturing. And having brought the ships to land, leaving all they followed him.”

The parallel concepts are as follows: the following of a leader; a ‘battle’ on the lake of Gennesaret - between the Romans and Jews, the Jews of which were in the water (War) and a battle between men and fish (New Testament); the surrounding or enclosing of something to be caught in the lake; the catching of something in the lake - fish (New Testament) - men (War); the sinking of vessels; fish and Jews being caught and brought to shore/land (explicitly stated in John 21:11).

Of course, as stated earlier, what is described in War is not a fishing expedition as we later see presented in the gospels and the narrative does not describe the Jews as being like ‘fish’ caught in the water. However, the ways in which the Jews are caught in the water in War can be likened to fishermen catching fish through spearfishing and bowfishing. Even if unintentional, the context provides the concept figuratively, that is, figuratively speaking, the Jews are described as being in the water and being caught and killed with bows, arrows and spears, and having their heads cut or sliced off, as fishermen would do. Essentially the Roman soldiers were trying to catch the Jews in the sea. The parallel is that the soldiers were ‘fishing’ for men, that is, the Jewish rebels in Sea of Galilee/Lake of Gennesareth/Tiberias.

I will present one more sequential parallel here which concerns the statement ‘the Stone/Son Cometh.’ We read in ‘Luke’ 19:39–41 of  Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem where he says, ‘I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out...If thou hadst known, even thou, even at least in day thy this, the things for peace thy: but now they are hid from thine eyes...’ At this point in the narrative of The Jewish War a word oddity appears in the Greek text. In the War narrative, in Volume 3, Book 4, pages 284-85, a stone is fired from a catapult and we read that a Jewish watchmen cried out that the stone is coming. However, the words in the Greek text do not say the watchman cries, “the stone is coming,” but the “the Son comes” or “the Son is coming”. Here are the narratives with the parallel concepts highlighted:

War Volume 3 (III), Book 5 (V), p. 285:

"The rocks which they hurled weighed a talent and had a range of two furlongs or more; and their impact not only to those who first met it but even to those considerably in rear was irresistible. The Jews, however, at the first were on their guard against the stone, for, being white, its approach was intimated not only to the ear by the whiz [‘crying out’], but also to the eye by its brilliance [brightness/light]. Watchmen were accordingly posted by them on the towers, who gave warning whenever the engine was fired and the stone in transit, by shouting in their native tongue, “Sonny's coming”; whereupon those in the line of fire promptly made way and lay down, owing to which precautions the stone passed harmlessly through and fell in their rear. To frustrate this it occurred to the Romans to blacken it [to hide it from their eyes]; when, as it was no longer equally discernible beforehand, they hit their mark and destroyed many with a single shot."

Luke 19:39-41

“I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out. And as he drew near, seeing the city he wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, even at least in day thy this, the things for peace thy; but now they are hid from thine eyes; for shall come days upon thee that shall cast about thine enemies a rampart thee, and shall close around thee and keep in thee on every side, and shall level with the ground thee and thy children in thee, and shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone, because thou knewest not the season of visitation thy.”

Both narratives concern the ‘entrances’ into Jerusalem. ‘Luke’ describes the ‘foreseeing’ of Jerusalem’s destruction and archaeological evidence shows that the Romans did encircle Jerusalem with a wall (War Book 5, p. 355).[17] The Jewish War describes the actions of the Roman army as they begin their aim of gaining entrance to Jerusalem. White stones weighing a talent were launched by the Roman army and the Jewish watchmen on the towers could see and hear the stones ‘crying out’ as they whizzed by. Apparently the watchmen cried out to fellow Jews warning them when a stone was coming. In response, the Romans blackened the stones, hiding them from sight. But Josephus wrote that the Jews cried out “the Son comes”, or ‘the Son is coming’ O UIOS EPXETAI /ὁ υἱός ἔρχεται, as is seen in the Greek and Latin manuscripts, not that the stone is coming. The Loeb Classical Library edition translates this as the “Sonny’s coming”.[18]

The evidence is strong that Josephus wrote ‘the Son’ and not ‘the stone’ in this passage because the Greek word ΠΕΤΡΑ/πετρα (petra) for stone is written before and after the above statement and past translators not only capitalised the statement, but have also made attempts to make sense of it. Indeed, the Loeb version includes the note, “Probably, as Reland suggests, ha-eben (“the stone”) was corrupted to habben (“the son”).” Recent commentaries on this have been made by Randall Buth and Chad Pierce.[19] Their hypothesis is similar to Reland’s above, noting the wordplay between ‘stone’ and ‘son’ in Hebrew and the fact the Aramiac word for ‘son’ cannot be confused for the Aramiac words for ‘stone’.

They argue the intention of the watchmen was to shout ‘a stone is coming’, but it would have sounded more like ‘the son is coming’. Buth and Pierce say that these words were spoken in a life and death situation, which, given the context of the narrative, is correct. We cannot be certain of which language War may originally have been written in, but if one were to agree with the ‘stone’/‘son’ wordplay argument, Hebrew seems logical (War Volume 2, Book 1, pages 3-5). This would lead to the word ‘son’ also being written in the Greek version which Buth and Pierce, among others, argue was a complete re-working and not merely a translation.[20] It is difficult to consider the ‘son’ word a scribal error, because surely a scribe would notice the ‘son’ word error and correct it to match the context.

It is important to note that the brief commentaries on this oddity have focussed on what the Jewish watchmen may have said, instead of focussing on what was clearly intentionally written and what appears in the manuscripts.

I argue the man known to us as Josephus chose this wordplay deliberately. He wanted to support his narrative of Vespasian and Titus fulfilling his reinterpretation of Jewish messianic prophecies with Daniel in mind and his claim that his fortune came from the care of God (Josephus, The Life, pages 157-9). We read War was written with the blessing of Vespasian and Titus and presented to them and it is logical to conclude that had they not approved of anything it would not have been published (Life, pages 133-5).[21] Then, later, we see the parallel narrative in ‘Luke’, further indicating a closer relationship between Josephus and the New Testament authors in Rome. I consider this to be the case for two reasons.

The first reason is that it is logical to assume the man we know as Josephus would have known the watchmen shouted ‘stone’ rather than ‘son’ based on the context of what he was writing, so the only conclusion to make, as just mentioned, is that his choice of words was deliberate. The second reason, and I consider this reason to perhaps be more important, when War is read along with the New Testament, Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem as described in Luke 19:39-41 occurs at the same point of events as those described in War. The narrative in Luke describes Jesus approaching the walls of the city and saying, “I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out ... but now they are hid from thine eyes.”; furthermore, Jesus refers to himself as a ‘stone’ in Matthew 21:42.

Both narratives describe stones crying out, in War the stones are seen by their ‘brilliance’[22] or ‘visible brightness’,[23] that is, in this context, their brightness of ‘light’ from being white and Matthew 5:14-16 and John 8:12 has Jesus describe himself as, “the light of the world.” We also see a hiding from eyes described within the context of stones crying out, Jerusalem is encircled and destroyed and the passage in War has been noted in the past as very peculiar. The ‘son of man’ is a title for the coming Messiah applied to Jesus by the Gospel authors likely interpreted from Daniel 7:13-14.[24] 

Of course, the narrative in War is far more detailed, but the parallel placement, concept and wording is clear when the passages are read together. At this point I feel the words of Adriaan Reland (1676—1718) and William Whiston (1667—1752) from Whiston’s translation of Josephus are worth citing, “many will here look for a mystery, as though the meaning were that the Son of God came now to take vengeance on the sins of the Jewish nation.” Based on the narrative of the New Testament, Whiston comments, “which is indeed the truth of the fact, but hardly what the Jews could now mean; unless possibly by way of derision of Christ’s threatening so often made, that he would come at the head of the Roman army for their destruction. But even this interpretation has but a very small degree of probability.”

The available evidence does not support any views that the Jewish people would have called out or thought the above. I argue the man we know as Josephus knew about the ‘son of man’ concept and used it to subtly support the War narrative. Therefore, in my opinion, only an investigation void of any assumptions or priori positions will allow a clearer understanding of the most likely reasons for the New Testament to have been written.

NEW DISCOVERIES THROUGH NEW RESEARCH

The data concerning Vespasian’s ancestry and rise to power becomes suspicious when critically investigating: (1) those of the Herodian royal family who supported him; (2) the parallels between The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and the gospels and; (3) attempting to thoroughly investigate the ancestry of the individual known to us as ‘Titus Flavius Josephus’, who gives his birth name as ‘Yosef ben Matityahu’.

Josephus, we are told, was treated exceptionally well, which is in complete contrast to the fate of other Jewish leaders, for example, Simon bar Giora (War, Volume 3, Book 7, pages 511-15); also see Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Book 65 (LXV/LXVI), pages 269-71. We are also told by Josephus that he had his men pour boiling oil down upon the Romans and boiling fenugreek over the Roman assault planks during the siege of Jotapata (Yodefat) in 67 CE (War, Volume 2, Book 3, pages 655-57). The apparent result of this was the Romans were burnt in excruciating agony and their flesh was devoured.

With the above in mind, before the evidence for Vespasian’s actual genealogy is presented, I think it is sensible to first provide some background information. Emperor Vespasian’s rise to power came during the period of the Roman-Jewish War. This war came as a result of religious and political differences between Rome and the people of Judea. This period also saw Emperor Nero hated by the senate and aristocracy, and civil war breaking out in Rome itself. Two Jewish sects known as the Scribes and Pharisees, the latter of which would lay the foundation for what would become rabbinic Judaism, can be viewed as the ‘good guys’ in the war, as they were trying to bring a much-needed change to the world: basic human rights for the common people; an end to slavery within the Roman Empire; a new governmental system based upon Democracy. That is why the Pharisees are portrayed as the enemies in the New Testament and inferior in wisdom to the Jesus character.

These points can be deciphered from reading the Talmud, which teaches the value of thinking and reasoning, and practical ethics over that of mere religious belief. For further supporting evidence concerning the Pharisees as being against slavery, see Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, page 10, by Catherine Hezser. She states that although slaves of Jewish origin were certainly held by Jewish masters in antiquity, rabbis considered enslavement a reversal of the Exodus experience.[25]

The Pharisees were also opposed to the use of religion to steal from the people, as it was the priests of this era who compiled the laws, including some for themselves:

“Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.” (Numbers 18:28)

In the Jewish Antiquities it describes religion as being a most profitable ‘business’, by saying:

“and they continued day by day to enrich the alter with costly sacrifices” (Jewish Antiquities, Volume 6, Book 9, p. 89 (Loeb))

Tithes and sacrifices were divided up by percent to the High Priests who sent the majority to the king of the location, in Judea that would have been King Herod, who in turn sent tribute to the emperor of Rome. Josephus also states in The Life, p. 27 (Loeb):

“My colleagues, having amassed a large sum of money from the tithes which they accepted as their priestly due”

The exact amount of money from tithes the High Priests and king were expecting to receive was known, as records were kept. The people were having great wealth taken from them on a constant basis. When this system was disrupted by the Pharisees, the ruling elites must have felt they were being ‘robbed’. The Sicarii or zealots, therefore, are described as ‘robbers’ to make them appear to be the bad guys. It seems the aristocracy was obsessed with power and greed to the point of very much pushing the idea of daily sacrifices.[26] The main ongoing battle between the Jews was that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, a battle that caused great concern for the aristocracy of Rome.

Problems arose for the Sadducean sect, consisting of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants, because they were viewed as corrupt by the people, and certain Hasmonean Jewish leaders showed support for the Pharisees, to a point where they had gained power over the Hasmonean (Maccabean) rulers. The Jewish leaders of the Pharisees, and the Hasmonean leadership had been in conflict for many years, that conflict would produce a bitter divide between the Pharisees and the Sadducees under later Hasmonean rulers, such as Alexander Jannaeus (127-76 B.C.E.).

The Pharisees had become so popular with the people it meant they had gained both public support and wealth from contributions from the public, because they were fighting on their behalf, which meant the Pharisees were running things.

Several passages in The Jewish War allude to the power and influence the Pharisees had. In War, Volume 2, Book 1, pages 53-5 it says the Pharisees were, “the real administrators of the state...In short, the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs...if she [Salome] ruled the nation, the Pharisees ruled her.” In War, Volume 2, Book 2, p. 385 the Pharisees, “hold the position of leading sect’. War, Volume 2, Book 2, p. 387 says they “cultivate harmonious relations with the community.” War, Volume 2, Book 2, p. 485 says, “the principal citizens assembled with the chief priests and the most notable Pharisees to deliberate on the position of affairs.”[27]

Once they had gained this authority and position of power, the enemies of the Pharisees called upon Rome’s aristocracy to help overthrow them and their influence. In answer to this call for help, Rome made Herod king of Judea, and so, in that sense, King of the Jews. The political power of the Pharisees came from influence, not authoritative governmental positions, that is, the Pharisees did not consist of power hungry elites.

VESPASIAN’S GENEALOGY

Leaving behind the Sadducean leaders and believers, and other Jews, the Herodian royal family appear to have been evacuated to Rome just before the siege of Jerusalem.[28] Queen Berenice and King Agrippa II of the family of Herod the Great, seem to have been treated very well by the Flavians, the reason could logically be viewed that, as is written, Agrippa tried to convince the people that they could not win against the might of Rome. When this failed, he supported Rome in the war and fought in Vespasian’s campaign. But when one critically investigates Josephus’ genealogy, the results of that investigation will be shown in my next book, and possibly before on this site, and data concerning the Herodians and Flavians, including the statement, “Salute those of the [household] of Aristobulus. Salute Herodian, my kinsman” (Romans 16:10) certain individuals stand out. That is because of various dates, places, and other scattered items that link to the connections being investigated.

One important name that re-emerges with certain individuals is the name ‘Pollio’, those individuals being Vespasius Pollio (I) and Herod Pollio, grandson of Herod the Great and Mariame I (variant spellings are Mariamne and Mariamme); Herod Pollio is also recorded as Herod II/III/IV/V and Herod King of Chalcis, he also had the titular rank (formal position without much real authority) of praetor (magistrate or military commander).[29] Both individuals above had the ‘Pollio’ name and a connection to the Herodians and the Flavians. In 44 CE, at the age of 16, Julia Berenice (born 28 CE), sister of King Agrippa II (27/28-92/100 CE) and granddaughter of Aristobulus IV (31-7 BCE), became the second wife of Herod Pollio, her uncle, but he died when she was twenty; two sons are recorded from this marriage, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus, but no daughter.

Herod Pollio’s first wife was a woman called Mariame IV, who would have been educated in Rome. She married Herod Pollio apparently in the late twenties CE, and was a daughter of Joseph ben Joseph, nephew of Herod the Great, and Olympias the Herodian, daughter of Herod the Great. A son is recorded from the marriage of Herod Pollio and Mariame IV, his name was Aristobulus III (born approximately in the 30’s CE), later becoming Aristobulus of Chalcis in 57 CE.[30]

‘Pollio’ is a common name given to ancient Roman citizens, which the family of Herod the Great became. However, when dates and family trees for Vespasius and Herod Pollio are compared, using the gathering of scattered data, they are alike, only with different names having been used, the indication being that they were the same person:

Vespasius Pollio, whose wife is unnamed in history, is recorded as an equestrian who resided in Nursia who became a tribunus militum in a legion three times; those of equestrian rank who served as military tribunes often became senators. The record also states him becoming a praefectus castrorum (camp prefect, the third most senior staff officer of the Roman legion) no earlier than the time of Augustus (63 BCE – 14 CE - reigned 27 BCE – 14 CE)[31] I will note here that epigraphic evidence has been found in Nursia (modern Norcia) which appears to provide evidence of Vespasian’s family living there.[32] Interestingly, Alfoldy states on p. 157 in the source in the footnote just given, “we know a Roman who was born in Nursia...This is Vespasius Pollio’. But Suetonius, our source, does not say Pollio was born in Nursia, this is only presumed. What Suetonius does say is that his daughter Polla was born of “an honourable family at Nursia”[33]

Herod Pollio (born 10-9 BCE - died 48-49 CE), son of Aristobulus IV and brother of Herod Agrippa I and Herodias, was taken to Rome after the death of Herod the Great, and was given the praetorian rank and a principality.[34] He was granted the kingdom of Chalcis in 41 CE by Emperor Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (10 BCE – 54 CE); it is important to note that Chalcis is modern day Aanjar, and is next to the Beqaa Valley, which was a source of grain for the Roman provinces. The birth date for Herod Pollio is concluded from coinage, found in modern Lebanon,[35] the ages of the wives and sons and information provided in Jewish Antiquities, Volume 9, Book 19, p. 381 (Loeb). There we read Agrippa I was in his fifty-fourth year when he died in the summer of 44 CE. If his fifty-fourth year began in late 43 CE, his birth may be concluded as being in the late 11 BCE; Aristobulus I/IV returned from Rome in late 12 BCE and died in 6-7 BCE.

Vespasius is recorded as having a son and daughter. The daughter’s name is recorded as Vespasia Polla/Pollia, the name used for the son is Vespasius Pollio (II), although the name is not given in the historical record.[36] Suetonius records that this son became a senator with the rank of praetor, a position of which exercised extensive authority in the government. Polla is described as being superior to her husband, Titus Flavius Sabinus I, in social position, Suetonius states he:

“farmed the public tax of a fortieth in Asia... and ... there existed for some time statues erected in his honor by the cities of Asia”

Vespasian’s early education was the responsibility of Tertulla, his paternal grandmother. It appears, then, that his mother and father were away on business for long periods. Suetonius also states that apparently many monuments of the family of the Vespasii were still to be seen in his time at a village called ‘Vespasiae’ between Nursia and Spoletum, therefore, in the Sabine country, affording strong proof of the renown and antiquity of the house.[37]

When investigating the historical documentation further, we can find that a King Julius Tigranes VI of Armenia, born before 25 CE,[38] an abandoner of Judaism and a Herodian Prince who served as a Roman Client King of Armenia in the first century (first reign 58-61 CE - second reign 66/7 CE) married a noblewoman called Opgalli of Phrygia, in Anatolia (Asia Minor) (approximately six days walk from Chalcis). Her royal title is ΒΑΣ ΟΠΓΑΛΛΥ but we only learn of her existence through numismatic evidence of Tigranes’s second kingship; in an article called Tigranes IV, V, and VI: New Attributions, found on p. 347 in the American Journal of Numismatics, Volume 2, Frank L. Kovacs states her inclusion on the coinage of Tigranes’s second-reign suggests a recent marriage or at least an enhanced importance. Tigranes’s father was a man called Gaius Julius Alexander, according to Josephus,[39] the second-born son of Alexander and Glaphyra, making Tigranes’s grandfather Alexander, son of Herod the Great and Mariame I. Tigranes grandfather, therefore, is the brother of Aristobulus IV:

“Alexander, King Herod’s son, who had been put to death by his father, had two sons, Alexander and Tigranes, by the daughter of Archelaus king of Cappadocia. Tigranes, who was king of Armenia, died childless after charges were brought against him at Rome. Alexander had a son who had the same name as his brother Tigranes, and who was sent forth by Nero to be king of Armenia.”

Tigranes, who was raised in Rome[40] is recorded as having a daughter called Julia, a Herodian Princess who married a Roman senator called M. Plancius Varus of Perge, the governor of Bithynia-Pontus under Emperor Vespasian. The name of this daughter was deciphered through the finding of a stone of the early second century that records an offering by a Julia Ammia to an unnamed deity in the town of Falerii in Etruria:

EX VOTO MATRI DEUM MAG(NAE) DIACRITAMENAE [I]ULIA TIGRANIS REGIS F(ILIA) AMMIA [a] SOLO FECIT IDEMQUE DEDICAVIT[41]

Tranlsation:

To fulfil a vow to the great mother of the Gods Diacritamenae, Julia Ammia, daughter of King Tigranes, raised (this monument) from the ground and likewise dedicated it

Tigrane’s son, Julia’s brother, Julius Alexander, entered mainstream Roman politics between 90 and 110 CE by becoming a consul suffectus (substitute Roman consul). Julia’s and Julius’ paternal great-great-grandparents were Herod the Great and Mariame. This Julia looks to have the feminine form of her father’s name, Julius; of course, it is also the same name as Julia Berenice (Berenike, Bernice), the second wife of Herod Pollio.

If we now look again at the name of Tigranes’s wife, Op-galli, important points must be noted:

1. ‘Op’ looks to be ‘Ops’ or ‘Opis’, fertility deity and earth goddess of Sabine origin; the word ‘ops’ has the meaning of ‘abundance and plenty’ and is related to the word ‘opus’, meaning ‘working the earth’, ploughing and sowing’

2. Galli can be ‘galla’, just as Mariame can be ‘Miriam’, and ‘galla’ (feminine from of gallus meaning rooster/cockerel) means the same as ‘polla’ (feminine form of Pollio and pollo, also meaning chicken/cockerel/rooster),[42] i.e. the same as Herod Pollio.

If Tigranes’ wife was the daughter of Herod Pollio, then the great-great-grandparents of Tigranes’ daughter and son would be Herod and Mariame on both their father and mother’s side; interestingly, Julia’s brother, C. Julius Alexander, King in Cilicia, named his son C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus[43] and a possible remote descendant of this son has been suggested based on an inscription of Heliopolis/Baalbek, thought to be dated to the second century CE:

Tiberius Claudius Antoninus Calpurnius Atticus Julius Berenicianus

TI(BERIO) CLAUDIO ANTONINO C[AL]PURNIO ATTI[CO] [IUI]IO [B]ERENIC[IANO] TI(BERI) CLAUDI A[NTONI]NI ATTICI [F](ILIO) - (IGLSyr 6 2784)[44]

Austrian classical scholar Edmund Groag (1873-1945) also suggested in Pauly-Wissowa Encyclopedia (Stuttgart, 1917), 19: pages 157–158) that Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus, presented on inscriptions of Ephesus and Laodicea, was a descendant of the Herodian house of Chalcis, i.e., the family of Queen Berenice.[45] The article cited in the footnote just given has this statement on p. 377:

“It appears that the name Berenicianus quickly gained popularity in Herodian circles and elsewhere, particularly in the vicinity of Chalcis where Berenice had been queen.”

The question to answer now, then, is, if Herod Pollio was the father of ‘Opgalli’, who was her mother?

‘VESPASIUS POLLIO’ AS A PSEUDONYM OF HEROD POLLIO

We appear to have identified a son and daughter for both Vespasius Pollio and Herod Pollio, all of which were active within elite circles in the same period. If Vespasius Pollio was Herod Pollio, then some blanks in the historical data can be filled in. For example, it would provide details about the children of Vespasius Pollio and give the name/s of his wife or wives. It would also show his brother to have been King Agrippa I. Interestingly, the coinage of both King Agrippa II and Emperor Vespasian (born 9 CE, according to Suetonius, Life of Vespasian) appear to present a physical family resemblance [Fig. 1]. This would be because of the sharing of the same common ancestry, which is their descent from King Herod the Great; King Agrippa II would be Vespasian’s first cousin, once removed, and great uncle on Vespasian’s mother’s side.

Fig. 1

Discovering Vespasius Pollio as a pseudonym of Herod Pollio would show Vespasius as a king, and therefore, his and his descendant’s right to rule. If the name Vespasius was a pseudonym, understanding a possible reason as to why it was chosen is a good idea. Concerning pseudonyms, I will briefly cite the words of the late classicist Gilbert Highet. He provides his comments on a woman called Clodia Metelli, born into the ancient aristocratic Roman family of the Claudii. She has been identified as the woman called Lesbia appearing in the poems of the poet Catullus. The practice of replacing real names with ones of equivalent metrical value was frequent in Latin poetry. Gilbert Highet stated in his book Juvenal the Satirist, A Study on pages 290-1:

“However, it is also possible that Cluvienus is not the poet’s real name at all, but a cover-name. There are plenty of instances of this trick in Latin satire. The woman Horace hated was called Gratidia. When he wrote about her he changed her name, inserted a slighting allusion to her grey hair, and called her Canidia (Porphyrio on Epod. 3.7)...(The practice is familiar from love-poetry also: Catullus could name his mistress Clodia when he read her his poems, but he called her Lesbia when they were published.) Sometimes both names have got into the tradition – either because the real name was known, written in the margin by a reader, and in a later copy substituted for the cover-name; or because the author himself, in a later edition, when he grew bolder, withdrew the pseudonym and put in the real name.” 

Highet continues to give further examples of pseudonyms in the publication above. It is also worth citing again, I did also cite the following statement on the About page, the introduction to the Penguin Classics version of The Letters of the Younger Pliny, “It has even been suggested that in his choice of pseudonyms Juvenal satirises some of Pliny’s correspondents.” But it is known that ancient royals also used titles as a part of names, for example, ‘Ptolemy Soter,’ a title bestowed upon many monarchs, is a Greek form of the Egyptian God-title, ‘Ptah-Mes Soter,’ meaning ‘son of God the Saviour’ - ‘Mes’ meaning ‘son of’ and ‘Soter’ meaning ‘Saviour’.

But concerning Vespasius as a pseudonym, in the Acts of the Apostles 12.20, we read:

“Was and Herod in bitter hostility with [the] Tyrians and Sidonians; but with one accord they came to him, and having gained Blastus who [was] over the bedchamber of the king, sought peace, because was nourished their country by the kings.” 

Acts is stating here that the people of these cities asked the king for peace because they received food supplies from his country. Therefore, Acts is informing us of relations between King Herod Pollio of Chalcis (Aanjar) and the population of Tyre and Sidon, two Lebanese cities; Josephus does not mention a meeting of the ambassadors of Tyre and Sidon with Agrippa - Chalcis was situated ‘under Mount Libanus’ (modern Mount Lebanon), and two types of coins for Herod Pollio were found mainly in the Lebanon:

“Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, who was prince of Chalcis, at the foot of Mount Lebanon. And he sent his son, Philippion, to Ascalon to Aristobulus’s wife” (Jewish Antiquities, Volume 7 (VII), Book 14 (XIV), p. 515 (Loeb)).

Commentators on the New Testament have identified the Herod being spoken of in Acts 12:20 as being Agrippa I. However, we are in the dark as to why these cities would be in conflict with Agrippa, enough to ask for peace. When analysing what is presented in Acts, and comparing the information given in Antiquities, in which Herod Chalcis is ‘confused’ with other people, it appears a mistake has been made. The events described in Acts 11:27-12:23 are as follows:

“And in these days came down from Jerusalem prophets to Antioch; and having risen up one from among them, by name Agabus, he signified by the Spirit, A famine great is about to be over the whole habitable world; which also came to pass under Claudius Caesar. And the disciples according as was prospered anyone, determined, each of them, for ministration to send to the dwelling in Judea brethren; which also they did, sending [it] to the elders by [the] hand of Barnabas and Saul. And at that time put forth Herod the King [his] hands to ill-treat some of those of the assembly; and he put to death James the brother of John with a sword. And having seen that pleasing it is to the Jews he added to take also Peter...”

“...Herod and after having sought after him and not having found, having examined, the guards he commanded [them] to be led away [to death]. And having gone down from Judea to Caesarea he stayed [there]. Was and Herod in bitter hostility with [the] Tyrians and Sidonians; but with one accord they came to him, and having gained Blastus who [was] over the bedchamber of the king, sought peace, because was nourished their country by the kings. And on a set day Herod having put on apparel royal, and having sat on the tribunal, was making an oration to them. And the people were crying out, Of a god [the] the voice and not of a man! And immediately smote him an angel of [the] Lord, because he gave not the glory to God, and having been eaten of worms he expired. But the word of God grew and multiplied. And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministration, having taken with [them] also John who was surnamed Mark.”

In Antiquities (Loeb) we read:

Volume 9, Book 19, p. 377-81, “After the completion of the third year of his reign over the whole of Judaea, Agrippa came to the city of Caesareea, which had previously been called Strato’s Tower. Here he celebrated spectacles in honour of Caesar, knowing that these had been instituted as a kind of festival on behalf of Caesar’s well-being. For this occasion there were gathered a large number of men who held office or had advanced to some rank in the kingdom. On the second day of spectacles, clad in a garment woven completely of silver so that its texture was indeed wondrous, he entered the theatre at daybreak...Straightway his flatterers raised their voices from various directions - though hardly for his good - addressing him as a god...The king did not rebuke them nor did he reject their flattery as impious. But shortly thereafter he looked up and saw an owl perched on a rope over his head. At once, recognizing this as a harbinger of woes just as it had once been of good tidings, he felt a stab of pain in his heart. He was also gripped in his stomach by an ache that he felt everywhere at once and that was intense from the start...Even as he was speaking these words, he was overcome by more intense pain. They hastened, therefore, to convey him to the palace; and the word flashed about to everyone that he was on the very verge of death...Exhausted after five straight days by the pain in his abdomen, he departed this life in the fifty-fourth year of his life and the seventh of his reign.”

Volume 9, Book 19, p. 387, “He [Claudius Caesar] had accordingly resolved to send the younger Agrippa at once to take over the kingdom...He was, however, dissuaded by those of his freedmen and friends who had great influence with him...He therefore dispatched Cuspius Fadus as procurator of Judaea”

Volume 13, Book 20, pages 10-11, “HEROD, brother of the deceased Agrippa, who was at this time charged with administration of Chalcis, also asked Claudius Caesar to give him authority over the temple, and the holy vessel and the selection of the high priests – all of which requests he obtained.”

Volume 13, Book 20, pages 55-57, “The successor of Fadus was Tiberius Alexander, the son of that Alexander who had been alabarch in Alexandria and who surpassed all his fellow citizens both in ancestry and in wealth...It was in the administration of Tiberius Alexander that the great famine occurred in Judea...Herod, king of Chalcis, now removed Joseph, the son of Camei, from the high priesthood...Cumanus also came as successor to Tiberius Alexander. Herod, the brother of the great king Agrippa, died in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar [48 CE].”

During the reign of Claudius, we are told the empire suffered several famines.[46] The fourth year of Claudius’ reign (45 CE, after the death of Agrippa I), saw a famine occur in Judea, mentioned above in Acts 11:28. The third famine was in Greece, in approximately 50 CE, the fourth in 52 CE in Rome. The above textual analysis of Acts and Antiquities describes the same period of famine in Judea, meaning that the king’s country mentioned above in Acts could not be Judaea, which suffered from lack of food at the time. Therefore, confusion between which of the two brothers is being referred to looks to have taken place, possibly due to the presented closeness and similarity of their deaths; it appears Tacitus also confuses Herod Chalcis with Agrippa I by stating the death of Agrippa happened in 49 CE, when he actually died in 44 CE.[47]

From what is written, we are told both were likened to a god before their passing and both died in Caesarea. However, Herod of Chalcis fell ill when receiving delegation from Tyre and Sidion, Agrippa felt pain whilst watching shows in the theatre. Furthermore, Josephus does not call Agrippa I ‘Herod’, but he does name Herod Antipas either Herod or Antipas, for example, Jewish Antiquites, Volume 8, Book 17, pages 373-75; Volume 9, Book 18, pages 73-75; Jewish War, Volume 2, Book 2, p. 387 (Loeb), and Acts calls Agrippa Junior ‘Agrippa’ (25:13). Herod is not a name attributed to Agrippa I by other early sources, such as Tacitus (Annals, Book 12, p. 347 Loeb), Philo (Volume 9, Flaccus, p. 317 Loeb; Embassy to Gaius, Volume 10, p. 93 Loeb) and the Jewish Mishnah (Bikkurim 3.4; Sotah 7.8). The British Encyclopedia too states that Agrippa I was called Herod only in the New Testament. Other than Josephus, one ancient source mentions Herod of Chalcis, that being Lucius Cassius Dio. In the sixtieth book of his Roman History, p. 387 (Loeb) he states:

“He [Claudius] enlarged the domain of Agrippa of Palestine… and bestowed on him the rank of consul; and to his brother Herod he gave the rank of praetor and a principality. And he permitted them to enter the senate and to express their thanks to him in Greek.”

Josephus cites an edict of Claudius, an edict, it is logical to assume, the author of Acts would have read. We may ask, then, how the author of Acts confused Herod and Agrippa?

“Kings Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same privileges to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire… It is my will that the ruling bodies of the cities and colonies and municipia in Italy and outside Italy, and the kings and other authorities through their own ambassadors, shall cause this edict of mine to be inscribed, and keep it posted for not less than thirty days in a place where it can plainly be read from the ground.” (Jewish Antiquities, Volume 9, Book 19, pages 351-53 Loeb)

Another official paper of Claudius, written after the death of Agrippa, states:

“My friend Agrippa, whom I have brought up and now have with me, a man of the greatest piety, brought your envoys before me...I know that in doing so I shall give great pleasure to King Herod himself and to Aristobulus the Younger – excellent men for whom I have high regard, men of whose devotion to me and zeal for your [Jews] interest I am aware and with whom I have very many ties of friendship.” (Jewish Antiquities, Volume 13, Book 20, pages 7-9 Loeb)

Josephus praised the moral standards of King Agrippa I, making no mention of any persecutions during his rule (Bellum Judaicum and Jewish Antiquities); Concerning the above, past commentators have stated that we must be mindful of apologetic bias. Disturbances began after Agrippa’s death, when Herod of Chalcis was given the authority over the temple in Jerusalem.

THE NAME ‘VESPASIAN’

We are able to conclude, then, that King Herod of Chalcis was associated with an ‘act of peace’. Emperor Vespasian’s reign is recorded as a ‘time of peace’; the Forum Vespasiani, or the Templum Pacis (Pax) was constructed to celebrate the pacification of the east.[48] From Nero’s Domus Aurea many works of art were transferred to the Templum Pacis. Coins were also minted in Rome under Vespasian that celebrated military victory or ‘peace’, as did Nero’s.[49] The name/title Vespasian/Vespasianus/Vespasius, therefore, looks to have been created titles using two parts, concluded from the information found and connected, and through applying the methods suggested by Sir Ronald Syme in his publication Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, under the chapter name ‘The Bogus Names’. He gave examples of name distortions presented in the ancient texts and also provided ten ways to examine the nomenclature of ancient history, which of course can be applied to other periods.

Those ten ways are: (1) Indistinctive Names, (2) Imperial Gentilicia, (3) Names from earlier Vitae, (4) Recurrent and favourite Names, (5) The names of the Authors, (6) Names of Classical Authors, (7) Names from Literature, (8) Names of fun and Fantasy, (9) Perverted Names, (10) Fictitious Characters; meaning their names or attributes, or both, resemble eminent families of the aristocracy of Rome.

With the above in mind, the name/title ‘Vespasian’ appears to have been created as follows:

1. ‘Vas’ becomes ‘Bas’ (V and B are interchangeable)[50] and vowels in ancient languages were fluid or interchangeable; in the Egyptian language they were seen as not being there and in Hebrew they were not indicated.

2. ‘Pasius’ becomes ‘Paci-us’ - paci being a dative singular of pax (peace); third declension.[51]

In the system of philologist John Walker (1732-1807) it states:

T, S, and C, before ia, ie, ii, io, iu, and eu, preceded by the accent, in Latin words, as in English, change to sh and zh, as Tatian, Statius, [and] Portius ... pronounced Tashean, Stasheus, [and] Porsheus.[52]

‘Vas/Bas’ ΒΑΣ is the abbreviation for the Greek word ‘Basilius’ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ/βασιλεύς (King), ‘Basilicos’ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΟΣ/βασιλικός (Royal), and ‘Basilissa’ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΑ/Βασίλισσα (Queen), just as ‘Imp’ is short for Imperatori (Emperor) or ‘Caes’ short for Caesari (Caesar), and ‘Pasius’ (‘Paci-us’) = Peace.

Therefore, this ‘peace’ word used in the name Ves/Vas-pasius can logically be concluded as meaning ‘King-Peace’, or ‘Roman Peace’, because in the minds of the aristocracy, peace was guaranteed by destroying the opposition. For the nobility, war was necessary to obtain a measure of peace, at least for them, even if it was only temporary.

As is known in academia, the Herodians were schooled in Rome, in the Roman ways. Aristobulus IV was sent to Rome at the age of 12, along with his brother Alexander, to be schooled in the household of Augustus (20-28 BCE), staying in the household of a man called Gaius Asinius Pollio, a politician, literary critic, Roman soldier, and historian; Aristobulus and Alexander were later executed by Herod the Great in 7 BCE. Agrippa II was raised and educated at the imperial court in Rome, and, according to Josephus, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, his full brother Archelaus and his half-brother Philip were also raised and educated in Rome.[53]

Concerning Herod Pollio as ‘Vespasius Pollio’, we have learned he must have had a son and daughter, the latter recorded as Vespasia Polla, the former currently being called Vespasius Pollio II (possibly a name used for Aristobulus of Chalcis?) in the writings of Suetonius. Vespasia Polla (Opgalli/Julia Polla/Julia of Chalcis/Mariamne – Julia being her name as a result of adoption, that is, her father’s marriage to Berenice?) married a man called T. Flavius Sabinus I, a tax-gatherer in Asia and a banker among the Helvetii.[54] They had two sons, T. Flavius Sabinus II, and the future Emperor Vespasian, and a daughter who is thought to have died in infancy. After the death of Sabinus I, we are told Vespasia prodded her sons to seek military glory as commanders instead of foot soldiers - Sabinus II was the first to gain senatorial rank. The marriage of ‘Vespasia’ to Sabinus I must have been before her marriage to Tigranes as ‘Opgalli’, and, based on the data gathered, she must be the daughter of Herod Pollio and Mariame IV; born possibly just before or just after the beginning of what is classed as the Christian era, if her mother, Olympias, was born 22 BCE. This would mean Emperor Vespasian was of royal blood and anyone descended from either him or his brother could trace their ancestry back to King Herod the Great, and then to his ancestry and/or that of his wives, including Mariame I.

This presents us with a controversial realisation. The question that needs to be asked is did the Roman historians presenting ‘Vespasian’ as a military man of humble origins who had ‘risen’ to become Emperor, know of Vespasian’s ancestry and neglected to give that information? The other alternative is that Vespasian chose not to disclose or allow the full details of his maternal ancestry to be known. The ancient historians would surely have had more documents and inscriptions available to research than are available to us today. If they were aware, perhaps they were either told to or made the decision themselves to only provide family connections using pseudonyms; as an aside, it is worth noting here that Sir Ronald Syme considered a leading jurist called Neratius Priscus to be the same man as the Roman historian and politician Tacitus.[55]

A threat, therefore, must have been perceived that those who were able could have read the published histories and realised what had happened. It is otherwise difficult to explain why pseudonyms were used to obscure genealogies and family connections if mass literacy was not a thing at that time. The rulers in Rome must have anticipated that at some point people would be educated enough to read more complex work.  The Jewish leaders at that time were trying to educate people as best they could and the Romans eventually saw a benefit in educating people to a certain standard, but they delayed that education for as long as they could. Eventually ‘schools’ were created in certain places,[56] which seemed to counter what the Jewish leaders were teaching.[57]

Furthermore, identities and standard dates of historical people are not always set in stone and can change based on new evidence. Vespasian’s given birth date of 17 November 9 CE, as given by Suetonius, may need to be reconsidered; the identity of ‘Suetonius’ is examined in my first publication (see pages 300-307) and will be examined more in this book. In the Bible the number seventeen symbolises ‘overcoming the enemy’ and ‘complete victory’, and the Synoptic Gospels state that the Jesus ‘character’ died on the ninth hour. Given this connection, Vespasian’s birth date becomes suspect - could he have actually been born around the same time as Agrippa II (27/28 CE)? Concerning this connection, I feel it is important to acknowledge that Tacitus and Suetonius wrote that the Jewish prophecy of a coming Messiah had actually, supposedly, pointed to Vespasian and Titus.[58]

If ‘Vespasian’ was born around the same time as Agrippa II, my hypothesis, which is entirely plausible, based on the above, is as follows: Herod Pollio (born 10-9 BCE) married Mariame (born 1 BCE-1 CE) in approximately 12-14 CE. ‘Vespasia’ Polla would be born late 12 to late 14 CE, Vespasian could be born approximately late 24 to late 26 CE. This hypothesis is based upon the reading of the primary literature and on research presented by M.K. Hopkins, professor of Ancient History at Cambridge, from 1985-2000, in his article/paper The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage (Population Studies, Volume 18, No. 3, 1965) and by Princeton professor of Classics Brent D. Shaw in his article/paper The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage: Some Reconsiderations (Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 77, 1987, pages 30-46). In his article/paper, on pages 317 and 326, Hopkins states:

“We can reasonably suppose therefore that there was nothing extraordinary about these marriages and that many other girls from the highest aristocracy and from the imperial family would have married within this same age range 11 to 17...we can deduce that Tacitus thought Roman girls married young. Dio wrote that in Rome the age of 12 was considered the right time for marriage, but Ovid wrote of 14 being a nubile age.”

And

“Whether pre-pubertal or not, girls’ age at marriage was by our standards very young and marriages were generally immediately consummated.”

A further comment by Sir Ronald Syme can be added to support the above, “Early marriages occur in the highest ranks of Roman society. C. Marcellus, the nephew of the ruler was seventeen when he married Julia, Germanicus Caesar nineteen when acquiring Agrippina”[59]

PROPAGANDA

Based on the evidence and the context surrounding that evidence, it can be concluded that an ‘illusion’ was created that presented ‘Vespasian’ as a ‘commoner’. The illusion gave the ordinary soldiers the hope that they too could perhaps one day become emperor, leading to their supporting of his bid for the throne. When Emperor Nero was essentially assassinated through forced suicide in 68 CE, a man called Lucius Livius Ocella Sulpicius Galba became emperor and adopted and named the nobleman Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus as his intended successor. Galba’s choice did not have a consensus agreement, and Licinianus had held no political office in Rome. Galba and Licinianus were murdered and overthrown by the man called Marcus Salvius Otho, who was then overthrown by the man called Aulus Vitellius. At that point Vespasian’s allies, which included a man called Gaius Licinius Mucianus, a Roman general, statesman and writer, and Tiberius Julius Alexander began joining together against Vitellius.

Concerning Emperor Nero, he was a sensitive and talented man and not one for bloodshed and was not known as being fearsome or cruel in the first century CE. He became the target of much propaganda after his death, which came from the Roman elite after the war of 70 CE; the accusation he persecuted ‘Christians’ for the Great Fire of Rome in 65 CE goes against the available evidence that any Christians would have been protected under Roman law as Jews. Most modern scholars/classicists agree that the descriptions of Nero’s character and actions by the ancient historians form a one-sided picture and one far from the truth. The idea of ‘Christians’ being a recognizably different group from Jews during Nero’s reign is one based on outdated scholarship and taking statements at face value.[60]

To gain the support of the soldiers for ‘Vespasian’, letters were sent to all the armies, which likely promised modest bonuses and promotions:

“Many he rewarded with prefectures and procuratorships ; large numbers of excellent men who later attained the highest positions he raised to senatorial rank; in the case of some good fortune took the place of merit. In his first speech Mucianus had held out hopes of only a moderate donative to the soldiers; even Vespasian did not offer more for civil war than others did in time of peace. He was firmly opposed to extravagant gifts to the soldiers and therefore had a better army...Letters were addressed to all the armies and to all their commanders, directing them to try to win over the praetorians, who hated Vitellius, by holding out to them the hope of re-entering the service.” (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1, Book 2, p. 293)

A letter, apparently coming from Otho, although most certainly forged, and not accepted as genuine by modern scholarship, no doubt was seen as proof of endorsement of Vespasian for a large number of soldiers, leading to a large part of Vespasian’s support coming from Otho’s troops;[61] although a claim that Vespasian’s revolt was a response to the demands of his troops can be found in The Jewish War.[62] Vitellius was a friend of Emperor Nero, the latter of which remained widely in favour with the common people in the empire. This was in part due to his sponsoring the relief programme after the great fire, opening his grounds to the homeless and building projects that could be used by the people - Macellum Magnum (C.E. 59); a port at Antium (C.E. 60); Thermae Neronis (C.E. 62 or 64). Vitellius too was a victim of Vespasian’s propaganda, with his apparent luxury and cruelty being the focus. Tacitus repeats the propaganda of Vespasian, by writing:

“Vitellius, however, was sunk in sloth and was already enjoying a foretaste of his imperial fortune by indolent luxury and extravagant dinners; at midday he was tipsy and gorged with food.” (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1, Book 1, p. 105 (Loeb))

By the same token, Vespasian remained behind after he, apparently reluctantly, accepted the soldiers’ request for him to be emperor and his revolt began, leaving the fighting to one of his generals. We are told he had to be, “urged by Mucianus and the other generals to act as emperor”.[63] Can we argue that if the propaganda was focused on him, this too would have been likened to Vitellius being “sunk in sloth”? Vitellius was portrayed as an incapable usurper, who was lazy and excessively greedy. He was no saint, but it is written that he was a former consul and governor of a province with an army, showing exceptional integrity.[64] Tacitus provides a lot information about who was on which side during the war. Nero and Vitellius appear to have been on the side of the common people. Galba and Licinianus Frugi Piso appear to have been on the side of Vespasian. Tacitus writes:

“Neither Vespasian’s desires nor sentiments were opposed to Galba, for he sent his son, Titus, to pay his respects and to show his allegiance to him, as we shall tell at the proper time.” (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1, Book 1, p. 21 (Loeb))

There is confusing information about Otho, however, because Vitellius could not stand for him to be emperor. Otho may have had the same desire as Vespasian and his supporters. Concerning Galba, the legions under Lucius Verginius Rufus showed their preference for him to become emperor over Galba. Again, Tacitus tells us that:

“The armies in Germany were vexed and angry, a condition most dangerous when large forces are involved.​ They were moved by pride in their recent victory and also by fear, because they had favoured the losing side. They had been slow to abandon Nero; and Verginius, their commander, had not pronounced for Galba immediately; men were inclined to think that he would not have been unwilling to be emperor himself; and it was believed that the soldiers offered him the imperial power.” (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1, Book 1, p. 17 (Loeb))

This tells us that Lucius Verginius Rufus came close to becoming emperor himself, as did Gaius Licinius Mucianus:

“The East was as yet undisturbed. Syria and its four legions were held by Licinius Mucianus, a man notorious in prosperity and adversity alike.​ When a young man he had cultivated friendships with the nobility for his own ends; later, when his wealth was exhausted, his position insecure, and he also suspected that Claudius was angry with him, he withdrew to retirement in Asia and was as near to exile then as afterwards he was to the throne.” (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1, Book 1, p. 19 (Loeb))

Tacitus goes on to say that “he was a man who found it easier to bestow the imperial power than to hold it himself.” The footnote of the Loeb Classical Library edition of Tacitus’ The Histories says, “Licinius Mucianus had been consul under Emperor Nero, and in 67 CE was appointed governor of Syria. After Vespasian claimed the imperial power, Mucianus became his strongest supporter” (see above, p. 18).

The late Guy Edward Farquhar Chilver, Professor of Classical Studies, provided evidence showing Vespasian’s revolt and rise did not begin with undisciplined and dissatisfied soldiers, as claimed in The Jewish War, but was orchestrated from the top[65] and Phillip B. Sullivan stated in his article/paper, ‘A Note on the Flavian Accession’, that:

“On the basis of ancient sources, both literary and epigraphic, one might be justified in arguing that, while the evidence supporting the contentions as to Berenice’s role is nowhere conclusive (there is no direct statement affirming her part), it is almost impossible to explain Vespasian’s success without reference to the Herods and to Tiberius Julius Alexander [brother of Tigranes?].”[66]

Genealogical information about ancient royals that was made available to the public usually began at a certain point, with a certain person. Therefore, the genealogy is virtually impossible to trace back any further via superficial or ‘face value’ readings of the histories that were left to us. Important dates and details were often omitted, adding frustration for a researcher. Could this have been a purposeful decision by the authors of the texts in question here or did the family of ‘Vespasian’ not give honest information about their ancestry? Or were the historians told to distort the genealogical information?

The reason critical information was not given seems to be because revealing those genealogies would reveal the connection to other royals, that is, their royal lineage. But why would the Roman and Jewish aristocracies want to hide their lineage? The answer, very unfortunately and disturbingly, lies in the fact that the nobility was in control of virtually everything. The ‘common’ people, especially the soldiers, vastly outnumbered the ruling elites, and had they become aware of what was happening, in terms of an oligarchy connected by blood once again becoming rulers, no doubt another rebellion would have occurred. The aristocracy would have been killed and the system of oppression overturned through a mass revolution. This makes one think about one of the reasons the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) was built, to distract people from revolting and to reinforce Roman social order and hierarchy. The statement in the work of the man known to us as Juvenal (55-128 CE) also comes to mind when thinking about this, “the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things-Bread and Games!” (Juvenal and Persius, The Satires of Juvenal, Satire 10 (X), p. 199, (Loeb)).

One way for the emperors to get their version of events to people of Rome was through coins, it was essentially propaganda in their pockets. The people were given the hope that anyone could advance in life and perhaps even become emperor, as the illusion of different ruling family dynasties had and was being created. In reality, the same elite family circles kept their rule by only providing certain information to the public. The ruling elites controlled what was published in the empire for ‘mass consumption’ and were the only ones educated to a standard high enough to create the kind of prose seen in the histories and religious text that were produced.

Essentially, the majority of the people of the Roman Empire only knew what the ruling elites allowed them to know, indeed, the main source of information concerning Vespasian’s ancestry comes from the man we know as Suetonius, approximately 42 years after the first Flavian emperors’ death. The reality, behind the scenes, was that Vespasian was of Herodian royal blood, if somewhat removed from and not as relatively rich as the current ruling family, but a facade of upward mobility, a metaphorical ‘glass ceiling’, was created. Vespasian’s royal genealogy was hidden through the use of literary ‘rules’, a mixing of languages, the meaning behind words, and phonetics. If one was in a position to use these ‘rules’ for their motives, an individual, or individuals, an oligarchy (Syme examined this in The Roman Revolution) could use the literary ‘rules’ how they pleased. For example, we have the Scytale form of encryption used in ancient/classical Greece, the Ceasar cipher, Augustus apparently also used cipher,[67] the 500-year-old secret code of King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the more recently cracked code of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Here is what the man known to us as Suetonius wrote about the cipher used by Julius Caesar and Augustus (see footnote just given):

Concerning Julius Caesar-“if he had anything confidential to say, he wrote it in cipher, that is, by so changing the order of the letters of the alphabet, that not a word could be made out. If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely D, for A, and so with the others.”

Concerning Augustus-“He does not strictly comply with orthography, [the conventional spelling system of a language] that is to say the theoretical rules of spelling laid down by the grammarians, seeming to be rather of the mind of those who believe that we should spell exactly as we pronounce. Of course his frequent transposition or omission of syllables as well as of letters are slips common to all mankind. I should not have noted this, did it not seem to me surprising that some have written that he cashiered a consular governor, as an uncultivated and ignorant fellow, because he observed that he had written ixi for ipsi. Whenever he wrote in cipher, he wrote B for A, C for B, and the rest of the letters on the same principle, using AA for X.”

The creation of titles, then, could become much more flexible, which is what happened with the title ‘Vespasian’. The ancient nobility were the creators and developers of all of the main or known ancient languages (either directly or indirectly). They were also very knowledgeable about various religions, philosophy, and the Jewish religion and had close supporters to help them. Although there was no specific rule in place limiting who could publish literature, in reality the only people who had the means to do so were nobles, merchants, and high-ranking people. Rome’s aristocratic population became experts in using many languages, especially Latin and Greek, and some Hebrew, and the weapon of rhetoric, understood very well by the Roman elite; the ones privileged enough to receive a bilingual education were children of the ruling class.[68] In an article/paper called ‘Slave Education in Roman Empire’,

S. L. Mohler states:

“I am convinced that its administration was as democratic as its curriculum was snobbish for, as applied to education, liberalis means not that which is appropriate for any free individual, but that which is appropriate for a member of an aristocracy whose only serious occupation was the practice of law.”[69]

Latin was used for imperial administration and legislation, Koine (common) Greek was used for the majority of the populations of the Roman Empire, which included the Jewish population. Of course, the use of rhetoric is presented within the scriptures, a decent presentation of this can be found in the publication Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. An example is as follows:

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god [i.e., ‘heaven’].” Mark 10:25; Matthew 19:24; Luke 18:25

The rhetoric in the book of Acts is known to New Testament scholars, but the above example was used to get people to give their money to the church in their will. Previously a sacrifice was required, but tithes and bequests were pushed by priests of the new church, meaning it received money regularly. But the church also gained real property. Rhetorical statements are purposely created for a particular effect, and can be found in the form of questions.

In conclusion, based on the evidence, The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and the New Testament were produced as supporting tools to aid the pacification of the East; the latter two works essentially attempt to do away with Jewish history and Jewish Antiquities is destructive against the Torah and the Jews, portraying their supposed disobedience being punished by Yahweh; it may be a very uncomfortable acknowledgment for some, but the fact is the message of the literature that became the New Testament is one of slaves being advised or told to obey their masters.[70] Vespasian’s portrayal and promotion as a ‘lower elite commoner’ or middle class was necessary, not only for himself, but also his immediate family, and his close relations. We are told Vespasian approved those histories written during his rule, making certain that biases against him were not published[71] and banishing those who spoke against him.[72]

The Jewish War describes the bloody warfare that gave the Flavians and their supporters the victory they wanted. The Jewish armies were out-numbered and killed, the Judean cities were systematically destroyed, the dead littered the streets of Jerusalem, the farmland was decimated, and the second Temple destroyed. The ancient writers would then describe the defeat of all of Rome’s enemies and declare that Vespasian had brought peace to the empire, leading to him and his son Titus being described as the Messiah (Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 2 (II), Book 5 (V), p. 199 (Loeb)).

The Jewish War blames the internal conflict of the Jews for destroying Judea, and states God had sent Vespasian to punish his people (Jewish War, Volume 3, Book 6, p. 467 (Loeb)), Suetonius and Tacitus also play along.[73] The long Roman-Jewish War was as much a family battle as it was a political and religious one - the violent rebellions of the Judaean people were against the Herodian rulers of Judea, who were relations of Emperor Vespasian and his brother, T. Flavius Sabinus II. Political propaganda promoted Vespasian’s military victories and his supposed hesitancy to take power, even though he elevated the status of his family to that of gods, despite the narrative of them being simple farmers. The histories describe his distancing himself from Emperor Nero, a man of peace - the gates of the Temple of Janus were rarely closed, but when closed, they signified peace; the closed gates of the Temple of Janus featured on the coinage of Nero.

By Vespasian and his family taking control, one desired result would have been the controlling of the spread of information and threat of ongoing mass rebellions; though future rebellions occurred, for example, the Bar Kochba revolt (131-late 135 CE); some scholars hold the view it lasted from 132-136 CE. The Jewish scripture was the fuel igniting the people of Judea to rebel, to accept any Roman as a ‘God’ was unthinkable to them.

But there appears to be a hint of a previous effort to put an end to the source of the Jewish rebellion by appealing to Nero’s interests. The Gospels are written in the form of what resembles a play, with acts and scenes; Act One: Galilee, Act Two: On the way to Jerusalem, Act Three: Jerusalem. If this is the case, this effort may have been rejected by Nero, supported by the influence of his wife Poppaea Sabina. She is described as a ‘theosebes’ (‘God-fearing’), a term understood as referring to the respect shown for the Jewish God, and we are told she helped the Jewish people. In the Life of Josephus she helped Jewish prisoners just before the start of the war.[74]

Much of the populace of the Roman Empire had turned to Judaism, this, combined with the support the Pharisees had gained, became another crucial problem for the Roman and Jewish aristocracy to solve, as evidenced by the individual known to us as ‘St. Augustine’ quoting Seneca the Younger’s views on Judaism, in which he says he actively opposed Jewish observances and ridiculed them.[75]

The reality of the situation is that the number of converts to Judaism continued to grow. The control the Pharisees would have eventually gained would undoubtedly have lead to them being able to overpower both the Jewish and Roman aristocracies, and the system of oppression that was in place. Nero was viewed as weak and was the enemy, not of the people, but of the majority of the ruling elite, of which the family of ‘Vespasian’ were blood relations. Jerusalem was destroyed, and with it the hope and fight of the Jewish people for a better quality of life. Once again power was given back to those who desired it, through a collaborative family effort, albeit, a hidden one.

GENEALOGY OF HEROD THE GREAT

King Herod’s descent from

Eleazar Maccabeus (Auran) of the Hasmoneans

Mattathias ben Johanan (d.165/166 BCE)

M. (a royal cousin)

|

Eleazar Auran (Eleazar Avaran/Auraneas/Aureneas Hasmoneaus, d. 163

BCE)

M. (a royal cousin)

Jewish Antiquities (Loeb), Volume 7, Book 12 (XII), pages 137-139 (Mattathias and his sons),

193-194 - as brother of Judas of the Maccabees (Hasmoneans)

|

Jason Auran (Jason ben Eleazar/Auraneas/Aureneas Hasmoneaus, circa 130

BCE)

M. (a royal cousin)

Book XII, pages 217-219

|

Antipater I Antipas (Antipater ben Jason/Antipas I/Antipos Auraneas

Hasmoneaus – governor of Idumea – 130-70/80 BCE)

M. (a royal cousin)

Book XIII, p. 311 (Antipater, son of Jason)

|

Antipater II (Antipas II/Antipos Auraneas

Hasmoneaus II – governor of Judea – died 43 BCE)

M. Cypros/Cypris/Cypras of Arabia (Idumia) (circa 30 BCE)

Book XIV, p. 453 (“This Antipater, it seems, was first called Antipas,

 which was also the name of his father...”)

|

King Herod ‘The Great’ (d. 4 BCE)

M. Mariamne I (Mariamne Hasmoneaus, dr. of Alexander &

Alexandra Regent)

Book XIV, pages 511-513, 532, 703 (son of Antipater)

The references shown below can be found in Whiston’s translation

of the works of ‘Flavius Josephus’

Jason, son of Eleazar (Auran), is found in two places on p. 256.

Eleazar, who was called ‘Auran’ (of the Maccabees); pg. 258.

Eleazar (Auran), brother of Judas of the Maccabees

(Hasmoneans); pg. 263.

Antipater (I), son of Jason; pg. 274.

Antipater II (Antipas), which was his father’s name also; pg.

289.

Antipater II (Antipas), King Herod’s father; pg. 289, 293, 295,

296, 297, 303, 434, 439, 441.

[1] The Army in Politics, A.D. 68-70, Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 47.

[2] Henderson, Bernard W. (1969) Five Roman Emperors: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, A.D. 69-117, Barnes And Noble, Inc., p. 6; Levick, Barbara (2017) Roman Imperial Biographies: Vespasian (Second Edition), Routledge; Strauss, Barry (2019) Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine, Simon and Schuster, Chapter 4 Vespasian. 

[3] The Classical Journal, Volume 49, pages 67-70. Also see Ferrill, Arther (1965) ‘Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian’, The Classical Journal, Volume 60, Number 6, pages 267-269.

[4] For example see The new Oxford Annotated Bible states that scholars generally agree that the gospels were written 40 to 60 years after the presented death of Jesus. (New Revised Standard Version, page 1380).

[5] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Vespasian (Loeb); Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius) also writes that Vespasian was apparently, “neither of noble birth nor rich.” (Dio, Roman History, Volume 8, p. 279, (Loeb)

[6] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Vespasian, p. 305 (Loeb).

[7] Bernard William Henderson (1969) Five Roman Emperors: Vespasian , Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, A.D. 69-117, p. 29

[8] For a sober and non-polemical analysis of the sequential parallels between The Jewish War and the gospels using the Loeb Classical Library edition, see ‘An Analysis of Claimed Sequential Narrative Parallels Between The Jewish War and the Synoptic Gospels’ here. The current article contains a brief description of the feedback received from The Journal of Roman Studies.

[9] Taylor, E. Joan, (1993) Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, p. 230; ‘Missing Magdala And The Name Of Mary ‘Magdalane’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Volume 146, 3 (2014), pp. 205-223- Professor Ken Dark has published a book that attempts to provide evidence of early first century domestic habitation in ‘Nazareth’. However his book provides no new or clear evidence of this. See Archaeology Of Jesus’ Nazareth.

[10] Berlin, Andrea M. (2005) Jewish Life Before The Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Volume 36, Number 4, pages 417-470 (p. 464 specifically); Kuhnen, Hans-Peter and Beck, C.H. (1990) Palastina in griechisch-romischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archaologie: Vorderasien II 2; Aviam, Morechai, (2004) ‘First Century Jewish Galilee: an archaeological perspective’-in Edwards, D.R. (ed.), Religion and Society in Roman Palestine. Old Questions, New Approaches; (2019) Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys-Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods; see also Keddie (2019) Class and Power in Roman Palestine: The Socioeconomic Setting of Judaism and Christian Origins.

[11] Sussman, Varda, (2012) Roman Period Oil Lamps in the Holy Land, pages 77, 91, 92; Shihin Excavation Project: Oil Lamp Production at Ancient Shihin, Strata 35 (2017), pages 67-8, 79.

[12] Josephus, The Life, p. 87 (Loeb); Bellum Judaicum, Book 2, paragraph 572 – see The Latin Josephus Project, Bellum Judaicum, Book 2; The Jewish War, Volume 2 (II), Book 3, pages 543, 588-9-note a, 658-9-note b (Loeb).

[13] Yardenna, Alexandre (2020) ‘The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period, Atiqot, Volume 98, Article 3, pages 25-92.

[14] Homer, The Odyssey, Volume 1 (I), p. 353 (Loeb – translated by A. T. Murray).

[15] Smith 1959: 187—203; Wassell and Llewelyn 2014: 627—46. Luke 5:3-11 and John 21:3-11 can be interpreted as either the image of ‘fishers of men’ as symbolising salvation or gathering people for judgement; Luke 5:10 reads, “And said to Simon Jesus, Fear not; from henceforth men thou shalt be capturing.” The image of the catching of fish is implying the calling of people to Christ. In Jeremiah, the image of ‘fish’ or fishing is symbolising the pulling of people out of their homeland.   

[16] The translation by Hammond is similar to the translation done by H. St. J. Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library. See Hammond, Martin (2017) Josephus Jewish War, Oxford World’s Classics, p. 199 (Ebook), “some were crushed together with their boats when caught between colliding rafts. Anyone resurfacing from the water was immediately stopped by an arrow, and those desperately trying to climb on board the enemy vessels had their heads or hands sliced off by the Romans...‘the survivors’ boats were rounded up and forced to run for the shore. As they poured out of them many were shot down while still in the water, and many who did jump out onto land were killed by the Romans on the beach”.

[17] Arbiv, K. (2023) ‘Evidence of the Roman Attack on the Third Wall of Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period’, Atiqot 111, The Science of Ancient Warfare and Defense, pages 103—18.

[18] Hammond in Josephus Jewish War translates this as “Sonny-boy coming”, which is not as faithful to the Greek text as seen in the Loeb version and Teubner series: Flavii Iosephi Opera Omnia ab Immanuele Bekkero Recognita, Volumen Sextum (The Complete Works of Josephus Flavius Revised by Immanuel Bekkero, Volume Six) p. 32. Also see the Greek text used in the Brill Scholarly Editions Flavius Josephus Online: https://scholarlyeditions.brill.com/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0526.tlg004.fjo-ed1-grc:5.272?q=%CE%BF%20%CF%85%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82%20%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%B9&qk=form (Accessed: 1 Feb 2025).

[19] Buth, R. and Pierce, C. (2014) ‘Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean “Aramiac”?’ in Buth, R. and Notley, R.S. (eds), The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Brill, 88-9.

[20] Professor Steve Mason, recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Josephus today, has argued an hypothesis that a first version of War was in Aramaic and may have been letters rather than a complete ‘book’ in ‘Josephus’s Judean War’ in Chapman, H.H and Rodgers, Z. (eds) (2016) A Companion To Josephus, Wiley-Blackwell, pages 16—17.

[21] Furthermore, we are told Vespasian approved those histories written during his rule. He, along with others mentioned by Josephus, would apparently not tolerate the publishing of what they determined to be distorted accounts of events or words expressing true negative views towards those in positions of power (Ap. 1.48—52; Tac., His, 1.1; Plin., His. Nat. preface. Also see Ferrill 1965: 267—69. Vespasian also apparently banished those who spoke against his rule (Dio 65.12—14).

[22] As seen in the Loeb edition translated by Thackeray.

[23] As translated by Hammond in Josephus Jewish War, p. 277.

[24] We read that Jesus describes himself as “the Son of man” in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

[25] Also see - The Social Status of Slaves in the Talmud Yerushalmi and in Graeco-Roman Society, in Peter Schafer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco Roman Culture, Volume 3, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 93, Tubingen 2002, p. 108; Louis Finklestein, The Pharisees The Social Background of Their Faith, Volume 1, Third Edition, p. 292)

[26] Josephus, Jewish War, Volume 3 (III), Book 6 (VI), p. 403 (Loeb).

[27] Further passages are found in Jewish Antiquities, Volume 7 (VII), Book 13 (XIII), pages 373-77, 429; Volume 8 (VIII), Book 17 (XVII), p. 391; Volume 9 (IX), Book 18 (XVIII), pages 11-15 (Loeb).

[28] Josephus, Jewish War, Volume 2 (II), Book 2 (II), pages 509-11, 537 (Loeb). The gospels of ‘Matthew’ 24:15-20 and ‘Luke’ 21:20-24 also provide hints of this.

[29] Sir Anthony Richard Wagner, 1975: Pedigree and Progress: Essays in the Genealogical Interpretation of History, page 174; Professor of Jewish History, Richard A. Freund, Digging Through The Bible, Chapter 4, page 612–615.

[30] Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, Book 7, paragraph 219 – available at The Latin Josephus Project, Bellum Judaicum; Jewish War, Volume 3 (III), Book 7 (VII), p. 571 (Loeb); William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, pages 301–302.

[31] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Vespasian, p. 283 (Loeb).

[32] The evidence is presented in Geza Alfoldy’s ‘Epigraphische Notizen aus Italien III. Inschriften aus Nursia (Norcia) - source: Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 77 (1989) pages 155–180.)

[33] Also see a similar remark on p. 39 of Morris, John, (1963) Changing Fashions In Roman Nomenclature In The Early Empire, Listy filologicke/Folia philological, Roc. 86, Cis. 1, pp. 34-36.

[34] Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Volume 7 (VII), Book 60 (LX), p. 387 (Loeb).

[35] Ancient Jewish Coins 2, p. 170

[36] James Anderson D.D, Royal Genealogies 1732: p. 362.

[37] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Vespasian, pages 281-282.

[38] Tacitus, The Annals, Volume 4 (IV), Book 14 (XIV), p. 151 (Loeb); Kokkinos, Nikos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, Spink, p. 248.

[39] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume 9 (IX), Book 18 (XVIII0, p. 95 (Loeb).

[40] Tacitus, The Annals, Volume 4 (IV), Book 14 (XIV), p. 151 (Loeb).

[41] CIL 11.380 = ILS 850; Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 1 (I), Book 2 (II), p. 261 (Loeb); George W. Houston, M. Plancius Varus and the Events of A.D. 69–70, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Volume 103; Marie-Louise Chaumont (1992) ‘Remarques Sur La Dedicace D’un Monument (Ex-Voto) Eleve A Cybele Par La Fille D’un Roi Tigrane A Falerii Veteres (Civita Castellana)’, Ancient Society, Volume 23, pages 43-60.

[42] Martial, Epigrams, Volume 2 (II), Book 10 (X), Poem 64 (LXIV), p. 203 - here Martial refers to Polla, wife of Lucan the Poet as ‘Queen’.

[43] Josephus and Judean politics, pages 147-149.

[44] Available at: https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/245068

[45] Further reading on this identification can be read in the paper Julia Crispina, Daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian Princess in the Babatha Archive: A Case Study in Historical Identification, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. - Apr., 1992, Volume 82, Number 3/4 (Jan. - Apr., 1992), pages 361-381.

[46] Sperber Kenneth Gapp (1935) ‘The Universal Famine under Claudius’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 28, pages 258-65; Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Volume 7 (VII), Book 60 (LX), p. 393 (Loeb); Tacitus, The Annals, Book 12 (XII), p. 377 (Loeb).

[47] Tacitus, The Annals, Book 12, p. 347 (Loeb); Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Volume  2, p. 75.

[48] Josephus, Jewish War, Volume 3 (III), Book 7 (VII), p. 551 (Loeb); Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Volume 8 (VIII), Book 65 (LXV), p. 289 (Loeb).

[49] Brian William Jones,1971: Some Thoughts on the Propaganda of Vespasian and Domitian, The Classical Journal, Volume 66, p. 251.

[50] Politzer, Robert L (1952) On b and v in Latin and Romance; Gignac, Francis T. (1970) ‘The Pronunciation of Greek Stops in the Papyri’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Volume 101, pages 185-202 (p. 188 specifically). Also see Kantor, Benjamin Paul (2017) The Second Column (Secunda) of Origen’s Hexapla in Light of Greek Pronunciation, pages 140-41.

[51] t, c, or s, preceded by the accent, and followed by an i, y, and eu, plus another vowel in the final syllable, can change phonetically. S can change to IPA [ʒ] or [z], C to IPA [ʃ], and T changes into IPA [ʃ], the I or Y is sometimes omitted – see Collins, A. (2012) The English Pronunciation of Latin: Its Rise and Fall, The Cambridge Classical Journal, Volume 58, pages 23–57 (specifically pages 47-49).

[52] Rules for Pronouncing The Vowels of Greek and Latin Proper Names, rule 10, 4. 

[53] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume 8 (VIII), Book 17 (XVII), p. 383 (Loeb).

[54] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Book 8 (VIII), Vespasian, p. 283 (Loeb).

[55] Syme, Ronald, Roman Papers, Volume 4, p. 199; People in Pliny, Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 58, Parts 1 and 2, p. 141.

[56] For example the Catechetical School of Alexandria.

[57] Concerning reading and writing abilities also see: Charlesworth, Scott D. (2014), R Recognizing Greek Literacy in Early Roman Documents from the Judean Desert, The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, Volume 51, pages 161-189; Johnson, William A. and Parker, Holt N. (eds.) (2009) Ancient Literacies The Culture Of Reading In Greece And Rome; Jr, Edward E. Best. (1966) The Literate Roman Soldier, The Classical Journal, Volume 62, pages 122-127.

[58] Tacitus, Histories, Volume 2 (II), Book 5 (V), p. 199 (Loeb); Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Book 8 (VIII), Vespasian, p. 289 (Loeb); Vespasian is also portrayed as performing ‘healing miracles’ akin to Jesus in Tacitus, Histories, Volume 2 (II), Book 4 (IV), p. 159; Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Book 8 (VIII), Vespasian, p. 299 (Loeb); Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Volume 8 (VIII), Book 65 (LXV), p. 271 (Loeb); Mary Beard mentions this in Emperor Of Rome, p. 72 (Ebook), although she considers this attribution as “one way of compensating for a lack of imperial connections.”

[59] Syme, sir Ronald (1980) ‘The Sons of Piso the Pontifex’, The American Journal of Philology, Volume 101, Number 3, pages 333-41 (specifically p. 340).

[60] For example, although much debate has been had over the statement made by the man known to us as Suetonius, Christians are believed, by some, to have been active in the mid first-century CE. This is because Suetonius, apparently, places them during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) by using the name ‘Chrestus’. Nero being accused of persecution is also discussed by Professor of Classics Brent D. Shaw in his 2015 article ‘The myth of the Neronian Persecution’, Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 105, pages 73-100 and 2018 article ‘Response to Christopher Jones: The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution’, New Testament Studies, Volume  64, Issue 2, pages 231–242. Lost contemporary histories apparently condemning Nero were by Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, and Pliny the Elder.

[61] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Book 8 (VIII), Vespasian, pages 295-297 (Loeb).

[62] Josephus, The Jewish War, Book 4 (IV), pages 175-79 (Loeb); Bellum Judaicum, 4.592-604.

[63] Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume 3 (III), Book 4 (IV), p. 179 (Loeb).

[64] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Volume 2 (II), Book 7 (VII), Vitellius, p. 255 (Loeb).

[65] The Army in Politics, A.D. 68-70, Journal of Roman Studies, Volume 47.

[66] The Classical Journal, Volume 49, pages 67-70. Also see Ferrill, Arther (1965) ‘Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian’, The Classical Journal, Volume 60, Number 6, pages 267-269.

[67] Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars, The Deified Julius, Volume 1 (I), Book 1 (I), p. 79; The Deified Augustus, Volume 1 (I), Book 2 (II), p. 257 (Loeb).

[68] Hezser, Catherine, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Mohr Siebeck, pages 107-108.

[69] Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Volume 71, p. 265.

[70] For supporting evidence of this see: Glancy, Jennifer A. (2002) Slavery in Early Christianity, Oxford University Press; Harrill, J. Albert (2005) Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions, Fortress Press.

[71] Josephus, Volume 1, Life, pages 133-35; Against Apion, p. 183 (Loeb); Tacitus , The Histories, Volume 1 (I), Book 1 (I), pages 3-5 (Loeb); Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Preface. Also see Ferrill, A. (1965) ‘Otho, Vitellius, and the Propaganda of Vespasian’, The Classical Journal, pages 267-69.

[72] Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius), Roman History, Volume 8 (VIII), Book 65 (LXV), pages 283-87 (Loeb).

[73] Suetonius, The Live of the Caesars, Vespasian, Volume 2 (II), Book 8 (VIII), p. 289, 293 (Loeb); Tacitus, The Histories, Volume 2 (II), Book 4 (IV), p. 161; Book 5 (V), p. 199 (Loeb).

[74] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume 13 (XIII), Book 20 (XX), p. 105. Also see a more dubious statement in Life, Volume 1 (I), p. 9 (Loeb).

[75] ‘St. Augustine, The City of God, Modern Library, Random House, (2000), p. 466. Translated by Marcus Dods, D.D.; Berthelot, Katell (2021) Jews and Their Roman Rivals: Pagan Rome’s Challenge to Israel, p. 6.