You can't understand Christ in the Temple without Rome's bronze law plates

Julius Caesar played a major role in the life and death of Jesus Christ. He was of prime importance in the existence and preservation of the Temple, even though Julius Caesar was long dead by the first century CE!

While the Temple existed, the Romans were unable to destroy Judaism and the Nazarenes. Why? Because in the period of one of the Roman civil wars, the Jews chose to help Julius Caesar against his rival Pompey. 

It turned out to be crucial for Rome and for the ruling Jerusalem priesthood that put their soldiers at Caesar's disposal. At this time the government in Israel had gained an unstable measure of freedom under the Hasmoneans and they then threw their weight on Caesar's side. Why? Their motivation makes the outcome a vital factor in NT history.

Jewish support was effective. Caesar, from an unsure situation where he shared power and then fought his former allies, gained unchallenged supremacy. He was grateful to his helpers in Jerusalem. He gave his thanks to receiving Jewish arms at a critical time. He made certain pledges to the Hasmoneans and the Jews when the Romans later occupied the land of Israel as a military power. They were not mere words that blew away with the wind.

Caesar's decrees had the support of the Roman Senate. They were so important they were engraved on bronze plates and exhibited in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Bronze plates with written law or declarations were used for millennia to show international agreements that must stand throughout time. Abraham was said to have made an agreement with the Jebusites about the future of Jerusalem and immortalized it on bronze plates. (See Jesus, James, Joseph, p580).

Without an understanding of these Roman bronze plates, much of the New Testament does not make sense. Happily we have an exact transcript of what they said.

A Roman bronze law plate

You will find these bronze plates described in detail in the fourteenth book of the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. 

It is quite extraordinary that so many Bible commentators have not understood the significance of these plates. They represent fully-fledged legal pledges of the Roman military Dictator and his Senate into the future. The whole of the history of Israel in the first century BCE and beyond into the persecution of the early Nazarenes depends on them. Not least because the Senate also pledged to their continuance long after Caesar was deceased. It had international powers. The Senate was the body that sent and received ambassadors and appointed governors to provinces abroad.

While the plates stood, the Senate and Rome where obliged to follow its words as law. Their destruction brought about the demise of the entire city of Jerusalem. It resulted in its disappearance as the capital of the Jews, not for a few years, or a few centuries, but for a millennium or more.

The story of the Roman bronze plates is a question of law but also of greed, cheating and international chicanery.  

Battle Background

In the first century BCE, the Maccabees (the Hasmonean dynasty) had gained Israel's independence from the Hellenistic empire of the Seleucids of Syria. In the last days of the Hasmoneans, a struggle broke out between two family factions, brothers Hyrcanus II versus Aristobulus II. When both sides sought help and arbitration they made a foolish mistake which cost the Israelite nation dear. They turned to Rome's general Pompey to arbitrate. He was then warring against the Armenians, to the north. 

Instead of acting as a peacemaker, he seized on the opportunity to gain control of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE. And then he entered the Temple's Holy of Holies to see if it was really empty. This sacred place is entered only by the High Priest on one day in the year, on Yon Kippur. The sacred ornaments including the Ark of the Covenant had long disappeared in previous wars. 

Hasmonean independence was ended.  Rome, not the Seleucids, was the master. Israel was again a land occupied by foreign armies.

Rome was then led by three men, the triumvirs. Pompey was the rival of super-rich Crassus. Julius Caesar was a military hero in Rome but he was in debt to Crassus. While it is said that Pompey did not steal riches from the Temple or further desecrate it, his act horrified the Jews who had fought tooth and nail to gain freedom from the Syro-Grecian empire of the Seleucids that had tried to wipe out Judaism by forced Hellenization.

Gold-mad Crassus, already possessing the equivalent of more than 200 tonnes of gold, planned to invade the Parthian Empire in the East and pillage its treasures. He wanted more gold. On his way east, he arrived in Jerusalem. He pillaged the Temple of an equivalent amount of gold plus silver. Antiq 14, 7,1, (105). 

He thought he would seize more gold in Parthia. It was a huge, rich empire that rivalled Rome's. Alas! In Parthia he met his fate. Both he and his legions were destroyed.  

So when Pompey and Caesar struggled for ultimate power, the Hasmoneans threw their support to Caesar, not the Temple-defiler, and promised to help. Pompey died in Egypt in 48 BCE. Caesar then chose Hyrcanus as high priest and leader of ethnic Jews.  

Embossed on Bronze

Caesar then made the following legal promulgation according to Josephus book 14 chapter 10,2 (190).

2. "Caius Julius Caesar, imperator and high priest (Pontifex Maximus), and dictator the second time, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Sidon, sends greeting. If you be in health, it is well. I also and the army are well. I have sent you a copy of that decree, registered on the tables, which concerns Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, that it may be laid up among the public records; and I will that it be openly proposed in a table of brass, both in Greek and in Latin. It is as follows: 

I, Julius Caesar, imperator the second time, and high priest, have made this decree, with the approbation of the senate. Whereas Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander the Jew, hath demonstrated his fidelity and diligence about our affairs, and this both now and in former times, both in peace and in war, as many of our generals have borne witness, and came to our assistance in the last Alexandrian war, with fifteen hundred soldiers; and when he was sent by me to Mithridates, showed himself superior in valor to all the rest of that army; - for these reasons I will that Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, and his children, be ethnarchs of the Jews, and have the high priesthood of the Jews for ever, according to the customs of their forefathers, and that he and his sons be our confederates; and that besides this, everyone of them be reckoned among our particular friends. I also ordain that he and his children retain whatsoever privileges belong to the office of high priest, or whatsoever favors have been hitherto granted them; and if at any time hereafter there arise any questions about the Jewish customs, I will that he determine the same. And I think it not proper that they should be obliged to find us winter quarters, or that any money should be required of them."

Thus the Hasmoneans under Hyrcanus II were made hereditary high priests and ethnarchs, or secular rulers. 

Along came Herod

Being high priests for ever is not something that Caesar or any human can guarantee. For one, it depends on the family having the reproductive powers to have children, and two, that any male child surviving to adulthood would fulfill the stringent requirements of the office. This included being free from a long list of physical deformities. Other factors such as the will of Rome's rulers also come into play.

When Herod received the power as king from the Roman Senate, he saw the high priesthood as a rival to his office. He did two things. He married Mariamne, the last legitimate daughter of the Hasmoneans. Then he made sure that her brother, the young, potentially very popular high priest, was assassinated by drowning by his Gaulish bodyguards. The Hasmoneans were then bereft of any legitimate candidate for high priest.

Herod then thought he could select whomsoever he wished to be high priest. He made priests of men who had no right according to the laws of the Temple. So Josephus.

As Rome's agent, Herod exercised royal power in Judea. He had ultimate control of who would be high priest, whether it conformed to Hebrew law or not. The choice conformed to his will as someone loyal to the pagan gods but also a fervent restorer of paganism. Judea was in a dire spiritual situation. 

Consider the religious and political implications of these events. What would happen to true worship in the Temple? We need to look at the dilemma from the point of view of the faithful Jews.

Who makes high priests?

When Julius Caesar proclaimed that the Hasmoneans were to be forever high priests, he was exercising his own religious authority as the Pontifex Maximus, the chief authority of all religions in the Roman Empire. Before Caesar, the holder of the office was a priest separate from secular and military powers. Traditionally the Pontifex Maximus remained in Rome. When Caesar gained the office that all changed. After his military victories, he had all secular and religious power combined together.

A faithful Jew could ask: Is that how it works? Does a pagan, in fact the chief of the pagans, have the delegated authority of God to name the high priest in the Jerusalem Temple, dedicated to the Supreme God of the Universe?

The subjection of all forms of Judaism to the power of Rome was how Romans thought was the natural order. Herod assumed he had the legal power to name whomsoever he wished to be high priest, following the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Did he have God's approval, according to the Jews faithful to Jehovah?

Certainly not. 

Hasmonean bronze plates

Bronze plates enunciating law and rights have along history. They were used in the Temple even before the Romans arrived to try to legitimize royal and priestly power. One set of bronze plates did not jibe for some Jews. Josephus makes it clear that neither the Hasmoneans (who had become corrupt and Hellenized) nor the Pontifex Maximus had powers to convince a certain group of Jews or provide any approval above Hebrew custom. Bronze decrees were often brazen attempts to overthrow God's laws written in minds and consciences.

The Hasmoneans were of a minor branch of the tribe of Levi and were not themselves fit to be high priests. Their glory lies in the facts of history. They refused to succumb to pagan Hellenism that the Seleucids wished to impose and thus to wipe out all forms of Judaism. They revolted. They fought the huge Seleucid Empire and won the independence of the nation with the help of the Parthian Empire in the East. 

But the revolt led by brave warriors did not give them divine rights to be high priests. Nor as it turned out later did it give them any right to claim to be kings or ethnarchs. The right of the high priesthood was always given to the sons of Aaron and their offspring. The throne of Israel was appointed to the offspring of King David.

The Hasmoneans saw things differently. They recorded their views on bronze plates in the Temple grounds. They claimed they were 'high priests and hegemons for ever' (eis ton aiona), I Macc 14:41. 

• Their word must be obeyed by all the people; 
• none should gainsay their words or else they would be punished; 
• the Hasmoneans should be clothed in purple and wear a gold buckle. 

These powers were conceded by their former imperial masters and confirmed by the Seleucid King Demetrius to Simon Maccabeus. They were written on bronze plates set up within the Temple in a conspicuous place so all could see them, v45.

  

They had overstepped the mark.

So where were the authentic priestly and royal dynasties at the time of the Hasmoneans and Julius Caesar?

The third parties

Let's go back to the time of the triumvirs, before Caesar was sole ruler. When Pompey conquered Israel, there were two last surviving Hasmonean brothers struggling for power: Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Caesar decreed that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his offspring should be perpetual priests. 

But neither brother was of legitimate priestly or royal descent. When Pompey first arrived and entered into the dispute, there was another party who made claim to both royal and priestly offices. In Antiquities 14, chapter three, we read (41) that Pompey came to Damascus:

And there it was he heard the causes of the Jews, and of their governors Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were at difference one with another, as also of the nation against them both, which did not desire to be under kingly government because the form of government they received from their forefathers was that of subjection to the priests of that God whom they worshipped; and [they complained], that though these two were of the posterity of priests, yet did they did they seek to change the government of the nation to another form, in order to enslave them.

Who were members of the nation against both Hasmonean brothers? They wanted to change the Hasmonean form of government that was trying to enslave them? The Greek τὸ ἔθνος, ethnos, refers to an ethnicity, a genealogical family and dynasty. They were not a part of the Hasmoneans. These people, this tribe, were reclaiming the ancient rights of the pure priesthood who should have direct Aaronic blood, and royal Davidic blood if they should be considered for the kingship. They wanted a royal and priestly system based on freedom, not Gentile-style autocracy. 

They were not the third party in the dispute but the legitimate, first claimants. 

The legitimate claimants

This is a key historic event that should be at the forefront of biblical commentators and historians when they discuss Christianity. Both the priesthood and the secular power of Israel were in the hands of imperious imposters! They were supported by all the might and power of the Hellenizing Seleucids and then pagan Rome. 

This true genealogical claim hearkens back to the Return from the Babylonian exile. Then Ezra led a group of purified priests and made sure that they did not have mixed blood with the surrounding pagans. Some of the priests had even married the native (pagan) girls of the land. Ezra made sure that these priests either divorced from these pagans or were expelled from any office in the priesthood -- forever. He told them that one of the main reasons for the Babylonian conquest and their exile was that their forefathers had mixed with pagans.

 

The royal line was the inheritance of a different tribe, that of Judah. The royal line was the offspring of Zerubbabel who became the leader after the Return. While his sons were not crowned kings because they were still subjects and under control of the powers of Babylon and then Persia, they provided leadership up to a point into the empire of Alexander the Great and later the Seleucids. When the Law of God indicated that they should not stay in Israel, a country riven with war, idolatry and rape, they exiled themselves in Egypt. They could thus preserve their offspring and ensure it was not polluted by rapine.

It is clear from this passage of Josephus, however, that, when the land of Israel was returning to independence, the legitimate clans were not allowed by the Hasmonean power-holders to regain their offices. Their representatives, however, made it clear to Pompey in Damascus (outside Israel) that the Hasmoneans were not legitimate.

This passage from Josephus indicates and presages the rise of the legitimate Aaronic priesthood of the family of Jesus as High Priest and Davidic line of the 'king of the Jews' of the New Testament, the New Covenant.

Priestly polemics

For Israelites in Israel and those exiled broad it was the essential part of their faith and adherence that the priesthood should follow the instructions of the Torah, the books of Moses. The Temple priesthood represented a connection of the people with the Creator God and the covenant their families had made at Sinai. It opposed all forms of paganism. A falsified priesthood may have sat well with religious and political authorities in Rome but for many Jews it was an insult and sacrilege.

After the demise of the Hasmonean dynasty, the effort of Herod trying to foist his own choice as high priest would have not resolved the dilemma. It would have made the sacrilege and public outrage even worse. The Hasmoneans had no legitimate offspring. The people that Herod chose as his high priest had even less. Where was the authentic Aaronic dynasty and how could it be installed again with Herod's acquiescence?

It should be recalled that Aaronic priests were always a minority among the Levitical priests that made up the tribe. Aaron had two surviving sons when the total number of male Levites was more than 22,000, Num 3. 

The solution was forced on Herod. It was not his choice. The undisputed dynastic claims made the choice inevitable. It was thrust upon him from Egypt of all places.

A man and his family arrived from refuge in Egypt and settled in Israel. The Land was now at peace, although it was ruled by a ruthless conqueror. For the priesthood it was important that their families and especially their virgin daughters should not live in a place of open warfare. Civil war was replaced by Roman law and administration.

Out of Egypt   

Simon Boethus arrived from Egypt and caused consternation. One surprising result of his arrival was that Herod had to divorce his queen! Why?

• Was it money? Was Simon super-rich? No. 
• Did he have an intimate political relationship to Caesar? There is no evidence of any relationship. 
• Did he blackmail Herod in some way? Not at all. Simon was known for his piety and adherence to the laws of God.

Simon was from a family of modest means. It was not wealth or politics that caused Herod to take real notice of him. 

Here's what Josephus records:

There was one Simon, the son of Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter who was esteemed as being the most beautiful woman of her time ...  Herod was stricken with her beauty. Antiq bk 15, 9, 4 (320).

What was the brutal Herod to do? Use his authority to abuse her? Be thus stigmatized by violence and tyranny? Simon was of a dignity (social standing) too inferior to be allied to him, but too considerable to be despised, says Josephus. Curious. Herod wielded enough brutal power to do what he wanted. But here with Simon, he did not exercise it. Simon had a social standing but not riches or political power.

What dignity did Simon have that an abuse of his daughter would have provoked a revolt?

What was the context of popular discord that Herod had already stirred up? The dignity that Simon possessed was not riches or powerful friends but a pure genealogy. Even Josephus, who held Hasmonean loyalties, had to admit Simon was a 'priest of great note'.

Herod immediately deprived Jesus son of Phabet of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, says Josephus. Thus it is clear that Simon had the standing of a pure Aaronic pedigree. No one objected when such a person became high priest. Then Herod did something that was illegal.

And so Herod joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter, Mariamne] says Josephus. It was not permitted for an Aaronic high priest to give his daughter to a non-Israelite. Herod threw up a cloud of false information about his origins. What could Simon do against the desires of an autocrat? For someone who Josephus describes as having little dignity, he drove a hard bargain: his daughter became Herod's first lady to the exclusion of all others.

Simon now held the title of high priest and ethnarch. By marrying into the family with the greatest priestly genealogical claims, Herod, the product of a disreputable line as far as Israel was concerned, sought to capture some of its legitimacy and make his offspring the heirs to his kingdom. That this was his motive is shown by the fact that he divorced his queen, his previous wife of Samaritan extraction (also named Mariamne) and made Simon's daughter his queen.

The previous high priest was a man of little breeding. Simon was a popular choice, and one that could not easily be reversed, as history shows. He remained high priest for some two decades.  

As Josephus tells the story it is about beauty and kingly power but the record shows much more was involved. Why is Josephus reticent in saying the word 'priestly pedigree'? Why use the word 'dignity'? Josephus confesses his own bias as narrator: he had some minor Hasmonean blood and therefore supported their cause; he was a Pharisee (as distinct from supporting the Nazarenes or Esseans) and he was a leader of the bloody and fruitless revolt against the Romans (which Simon and his family were not). To say more about Simon would reveal the inadequacy of his own positions by comparison.

The elevation of Simon to the high priesthood coincided with the golden revival of Jewish fortunes, the Parthian peace process. Peace with Rome's major rival, Parthia, meant neither side wasted resources on war. Trade blossomed. Simon led the rebuilding of the Temple and its glorification. With the influx of vast quantities of treasures from Israelites in Parthia and around the world the Temple became the greatest construction project in the Roman Empire. It was the result of a geopolitical agreement of peace between the kings of Parthia and Emperor Augustus of Rome. Herod merely submitted to Rome's geopolitical plan. In Israel other amazing construction projects with no parallel elsewhere in their ingenuity followed. Herod took the praise. 

 The Temple and the Plaque

With the end of the Hasmoneans, the legitimate Levitical priesthood had gained the high office in the Temple. The City State, recognized by Julius Caesar, continued as an autonomous entity of the high priest. The high priest held all powers within the Temple. The Hasmoneans had been ethnarchs as well masters in the Temple itself. But now under Roman occupation, the ethnarchy of the land of Israel outside the Temple complex was subject to Roman occupation and Herodian control. 

The sanctity of the Temple remained. No Roman, nor any Gentile was allowed within its inner courts, such as the Court of the Israelites, and certainly nowhere near the Court of Priest and the Temple itself. That included the powerful King Herod himself. What restrained him? Roman law and the bronze plaque showing the agreement and decree of Julius Caesar and Rome's continuous adherence to its principles. In other words, Augustus made it clear to Herod that the Temple and its grounds were off-limits to him because major geopolitical agreements were involved.  

The Despot of the House

But was Simon the sole master inside the Temple? Simon was the High Priest (Cohen haGodol) and as such was responsible for the rituals and daily services of sacrifice.  The Hebrew Scriptures speak of several high priests and they are ruled by a Chief Priest (Cohen haRosh). He was quite often a relative, that is a fellow Aaronic priest, sometimes with royal blood too. The Hasmoneans seem not to have followed this or demoted the latter to a subservient position as a military commander.

The Chief Priest was the Teacher of the high priest. As such he could discipline the high priest if he did not follow the rules of the Temple. The Chief Priest was in charge of all aspects of the Temple, including its security and the thousands who served as Temple guards, opened the gates at the appointed time and made sure that only Israelites of verified pure pedigree were admitted and they were all properly purified. He was in charge of the Temple treasury and the Temple archives. 

The Chief Priest was the Absolute Sovereign of the Temple, God's House. The Greek term, used in the NT, is oikodespotis -- literally House Despot, whose voice had to be obeyed as the voice of God. The term despotis was not used by observant Jews of any man but only of God, the supreme power of good. No human outside the Temple wielded such power over Israelites, not even the Caesar. The customary exception was that of the head of a family with slaves as this described that absolute authority on a much smaller scale. He had total power of life, torture and death over his slaves under Roman law. They were his objects. 

Caesar's bronze plates state Roman Law that no one in the Empire had the right to violate the sanctity of the Temple. That had to be observed by all Roman soldiers in Jerusalem. Within the whole Roman Empire there may therefore have been one area that lay outside any force of Roman power. That was the tiny enclave of the Temple. The House of God itself was a fortress, built square with sides one Roman stade long. That is 185 meters or 600 feet. Its wall rose 140 meters from the Kidron valley. Josephus Wars 5,5,1 (188.) Jesus, James, Joseph, p439ff.

Besides this impressive battlement, certain other land was attached. This included the wine and olive press gardens on the east side of the precipitous Kidron valley. Gethsemane was connected by a holy bridge. Both the bridge and the area of Gethsemane were Temple ground. The ownership of this land dated back to the time of King David. Only priests were allowed to use this area. That is why the fraudulent high priests made such a clamor when Christ crossed the Kidron on a donkey just like his ancestor David. 

The ride on a mule was no random choice. It was an assertion of royal legitimacy. It reflected the historic event when King David rode from his palace on the Mount of Olives on the bridge to the Temple area to quell the rebellion of his son and his military commander. He then crowned Solomon king as his legitimate successor, and the high priest anointed Solomon over the sacred Gihon spring, the site of the Temple. Jesus, James, Joseph, p429ff.

The ride was an assertion by Jesus that he was a Davidic king of the Temple and rightful priest. 

The fraudsters had to react. Jesus re-affirmed his genealogy to Pontius Pilate's question 'Are you a king?' 'You said it! I am king,' John 18:37. But not of Caesar's world. He was king and priest of the Temple, the last remaining parcel of Israelite sovereignty. Pilate's praetorium lay outside this zone and Jerusalem proper. To the fraudsters' questions, he said nothing. He did not have to justify the claim; they had to give grounds for theirs. 

Inside the Temple, Jesus could call on all loyal priest-guards and Israelites. Outside he was on Roman occupied ground. Inside he was designated by right as military commander. He is called Commander many times in the NT but readers would not know it from almost all English translations. 

In Luke 5:5 Simon Peter at his first meeting calls Jesus epistatis, usually translated as Master. It means much more. The Geneva Bible has a note: The word signifies him that is made ruler over anything. The original Weymouth has Commander. The Julia Smith or Jonathan Mitchell Literal translations also have Commander. The same word is used in the Greek Septuagint in Jeremiah 29:25 as 'overseer in the Temple' in 2Chron 31 :12 it is ruler-priest and elsewhere taskmaster in charge of construction.

The lexicon says it means chief or commander. Chief and commander over what? The Temple.  It was a fortress. The commander had absolute command.

Some translations have Rabbi! That is false and an outright distortion of the Greek. The Greek for rabbi is literally rabbi! If Peter wanted to say Rabbi, he would have said Rabbi. That shows the confusion among churches that have not come to grips with the technical terms of the NT and its Temple context.  

The Greek translators knew Greek history and usage. The term epistatis is a special, technical political term used for centuries earlier and also later. He is the head of a city. In this case the Temple-city. He was in charge of fortification and security and all aspects of the politics.  He was thus Superintendent of the city's assembly -- which is called the ekklesia in Greek! He holds the key to the city and is their military commander. That is the way the term ekklesia is used in the NT. 

It is used of the Congregation of the tribes of Israel, Acts 7:38. It is the political assembly of Israel. In the NT it is used of a Greek political assembly, Acts 19:32, 39, 41. Yet many people today think it means 'church' in the style set up in the Middle Ages by the Catholic church. In the NT it means the political assembly of those who recognized the kingship of Christ. The ekklesia abroad were run by his designated Ambassadors (the Greek word is apostolos). When Peter and others address Christ as epistatis they acknowledge he is king, military commander and keeper of the archives (canon). He was absolute, sovereign ruler, despotis.

What this is saying is that firstly Jesus is the designated, hereditary leader and Sovereign of Israel. Secondly in the Roman context, he is Ruler of the Temple, an independent City-State, recognized by Rome as separate from their own laws and religious obligations.

That came into conflict with the Roman quislings, their high priests chosen to be guardians of Roman control of the people. It was these fraudulent high priests, working for Rome, that denounced Christ as undermining their authority. But Pontius Pilate knew his Roman law and that Christ was the real King and Chief Priest of Holy Jerusalem. He declared him innocent of any charge. He knew the genealogies of Christ made him the hereditary Ruler. 

And Christ also made clear that outside Holy Jerusalem, for example, as a prisoner inside the praetorium of Pilate, he was not an active king. 'My kingdom is not of this world (kosmos)' -- the Roman world. Inside the Temple fortress it was different. 'If my kingdom were of this (Roman) world, then would my officers (hyperetai) fight' to deliver me. John 18:36. That would mean taking on the whole Roman world. It would incite a world war with Jews and Israelites in the Diaspora and with the Parthian Empire. Jesus the king (as Pilate confirmed) was totally in Rome's hands without help inside the Roman hall of judgement of the legionary garrison. He showed Jesus to the mob outside as 'the King of the Jews'. They demanded punishment and refused clemency. 

Pilate showed his power by scourging Christ with a multi-thronged whip with attached jagged metal pieces.  Hoping this would satisfy their illicit desires to humiliate and eliminate Christ, he had soldiers hit the bloodied Jesus and say 'Hail the king of the Jews!' striking him several times across the face with their hands, John 19:3.  Pilate then presented him with a crown of thorns to the mob: 'See the man now!' 

Pilate tried further to get out of the dilemma, when Christ as God's legitimate High Priest, told him that he, Pilate, governor from Rome, had no authority except that which was allowed by God. Those that demanded his death had the greater culpability, John 19:11. They demanded his death and Pilate gave the order.

Jesus was crucified. A green tree (xulon), Acts 5:30, was used as a stake. 

What was at stake at his trial before Pilate? 

Truth. 

The fraudulent high priesthood depended on a bronze plaque, initially favoring the Hasmoneans. It was given by the Pontifex Maximus, the chief of all pagan religions of the Roman Empire. When asked about giving tribute to Rome, Jesus asked for a coin of Tiberius, bearing his effigy and title as Pontifex Maximus. 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's' was his reply, Mat 22:21. All the Universe belongs to God, the Supreme Sovereign and Creator.  Jesus, James, Joseph, p325. 

Jesus said he was come to bear witness of the truth. After extracting the forensic facts, Pilate asked 'What is truth?' John 19:37-8. Surely, factual truth was vital in judgement.

Jesus could prove his genealogy as a king from David. He could prove his fitness as Chief Priest from Aaron. What the fraudulent high priests and the Roman governor decided was based on politics.

They thought their politics would save the day.

They were wrong.

Truth is eternal.  Truth saves. 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life' John 14:6.

       

What was Joseph's reaction to the news of Mary's pregnancy?

The answer will depend on whether you follow later “Church Fathers” and medieval myth or read the Bible as a historic document in its original Hebrew and Greek for the Jewish audience it was originally intended for. The Gentile Church after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE interpreted the NT in a way to conform to Hellenistic and semi-pagan culture. This took for granted that demi-gods were the product of gods like Zeus descending on 15 year old virgins and producing demi-gods. 

Dionysus, alleged son of Zeus and Persephone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demigods

Jerome was obsessed with virginity and the Virgins of Rome. (Rome would disappear if there were no more Vestal Virgins.) He said both Joseph and Mary were perpetual virgins. He made matters worse with mistranslations from Greek to Latin in his Vulgate NT.

How would a Jew, a believer in Jesus Christ, read the Greek NT?
1. He would understand Hebrew marriage was different from Roman marriage or modern marriage. Genealogy dominated all society among the 12 tribes. That is why the NT starts with Christ’s pedigree and the Hebrew scriptures in their order ends with Chronicles. The Messiah had to be a lineal descendent of David, John 7:42 and as Paul says Romans 1:3.

2. Parents therefore arranged marriages of their young children. When they reached their teens and first maturity the girl and boy could agree and they were ‘betrothed’ by a ceremony of qiddushin or erusin. This meant they were married in the sense that only a divorce ( a ‘get’) could break the bond. (Far different from present day ‘engagement’). The girl still lived at her father’s house until the bridegroom had built a home for her and was ready to assume all duties of its head of household. Then he called for her and the community to celebrate the wedding in a ceremony called nisu’in, the ‘home-coming’ or ‘coming together’ mentioned several times in the NT in Matt 25, Revelation etc.

3. When the NT says Joseph and Mary (Mariam in the Greek) were betrothed it means they were married according to the Hebrew custom. Once the girl/ woman left her father’s home the couple could enjoy their marriage and man became fully her husband. The nisu’in was an extra ceremony. For Joseph it was not normally possible to bring Mariam to Bethlehem, because as the hereditary home of King David it had been destroyed by Herod, who saw all Davidic descendants as enemies to his claim as king under the Romans. The NT says there was ‘no place’ there. Only shepherds were allowed there. Then Herod used the Roman registration decree to get Davidic claimants to register in Bethlehem. It was highly dangerous for Joseph. More so for Mariam who was both old and pregnant, Luke 1:36. God, through an angel, told Joseph ‘not to be afraid to take your wife with you,’ Mt 1:20, because the child was conceived according to God’s plan.

4. Matt ch 1:18 says: (a) they were betrothed, that is married in our sense. (b) Before their ‘coming together’ Mariam was found to be pregnant by God’s grace of his spiritual action. The term ‘coming together’ refers to nisu’in the celebration of the community at the bridegroom’s home. It is used both in Hebrew and Greek secular literature to mean the ceremony of a bridegroom taking his new wife to his home and the community coming together to celebrate it. The next verse has nothing to do with divorce. The Greek word means putting aside, that is putting her in a safe place and avoiding a long journey during pregnancy and possible death by Herod’s men.

5. To create the virgin conception myth, v 25 was distorted or misunderstood by the early Gentile church. It was ripped out of the chronological sequence. They ignored the Jewish and Christian culture.

And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son.

Read the context. Mariam was already pregnant. Jewish purity law forbade intercourse with a pregnant woman. If this occurred the legalists could say the child was not pure. This was especially important for Joseph and Mariam and any claim to priesthood and royalty of their offspring. Early Christian/Nazarene writings take the same view about forbidding intercourse once the wife is pregnant.

6. Joseph and Mariam would clearly be both shocked and delighted that they were to have a child as they were both in their old age, Luke 1:36, and it was a miracle as was the child Isaac of Abraham and Sarah and many other faithful couple in the Bible. Children in old age is a sign of God’s hand. In Jewish law a woman is considered a virgin before she menstruates. An old woman who is past her menopause is also considered to be a virgin for the purposes of her fulfilling the laws of purity called Niddah described in Leviticus 12 (=Luke 2:22) and Lev 15:19ff.

7. The semi-pagan Roman-instituted church of Constantine wanted nothing to do with the Jews. Medieval followers of Jerome etc confused the NT history with that of Hellenistic deities and hang-ups about virgins because the Greek and especially Hebrew scriptures were forbidden. The Latin Vulgate was gibberish to many priests and their parishioners. Hebrew scrolls were burnt. Translations into local languages were forbidden on pain of death. Ignorance reigned.

8. The Bible is quite clear about the two spheres of begettal. One is that of humans in marriage. Christ explained that a spiritual, second begettal was possible through the Spirit of God, John 3, to Nicodemus. The confusion caused by the pagans who claimed to be Christians has hidden this greatest truth from present-day, would-be followers of the Eternal God. The authentic documents are recorded more fully at "Jesus, James, Joseph and the past and future Temple" N54final version and in the paper version.

Did Jesus know John the Baptist?

Did Jesus know John the Baptist before and after the baptism?

Jesus and John were relatives. Their mothers were cousins. Jesus was baptised at the Jordan River, where John had suddenly appeared dressed in a camel-hair garment. This was an event that brought people from far and wide, including the Jerusalem elite.

Did Jesus know John before this event? How much did they meet afterwards? Both suffered violent deaths.

What is the background to this relationship in the turbulent times of Israel?

Context is important. This includes religious history, dates and politics. 1. Dating So it is important, vital, to understand the priestly and political events of the time and also the dates of the writings. Luke’s gospel was clearly written during the period of the high-priesthood of Theophilus, son of Annas, son of Seth. He reigned from 37 to 41. Luke addresses him as ‘kratiste,’ Most Excellent, using the title applied to governors etc. Theophilus was then in office. As high priest recognized by Rome, Theophilus was the ethnarch, ruler of the people. When Luke wrote the book of Acts for him, he was no longer in office and therefore not called ‘Most Excellent’, as this would be a slur and even be seen as a treasonous act to the high priest then in office. Luke reminds Theophilus of the facts. John had a miraculous birth as his mother was ‘in old age’, beyond the age of normal childbirth. Miriam the mother of Jesus was ALSO post-menstrual, Luke 1:36. Furthermore Jesus rose from the dead and there were many witnesses of it including Romans, Luke 1:1. See Jesus, James, Joseph and the Temple on academia.edu/43233588 2. Why the shock of John? John’s appearance on Jordan was a shock event for the priestly dynastic family of Annas. The Jerusalem elite came to the banks of the Jordan. It brought up the nightmare, earlier events of the past, of which they were clearly guilty. What was the scandal? John and Jesus were born at the end of Herod’s despotic life. Two political events are important here. First, two scholars made an attempt to purify the Temple in anticipation of the prophesied coming of the Messiah. They pulled down a pagan eagle at the entrance to the Temple. It glorified the goddess Victory and the Roman legions. Then came a broader revolt which ended in armed Roman intervention and the bloody War of Varus. Thousands of the faithful were crucified. Sepphoris, the reclaimed northern capital in Galilee, was burnt and its inhabitants sold into slavery. 3. Murder in the Temple The Seth dynasty of priests seized power and supplanted the Boethusean priesthood by force and bloodshed. John’s father, Zacharias, was probably killed then ‘between the altar and the Holy Place.’ A subservient high priesthood was set up in Jerusalem as the Roman controller to keep a lid on religious revolt. Then Annas and the other sons of Seth changed some of the festival calendar and introduced other foreign Temple customs. 4. What’s in a name? The mothers of John and Jesus knew each other. Their fathers too. Troubles began with a religious dispute, escalated to civil war then bloody Roman destruction. How were John and Jesus affected by this bloody war and what were religious backgrounds of John and Jesus? History shows they left Israel in two different directions. Why? Safety and to provide double security for continuing the priestly line. Both John and Jesus derived their priestly prominence because of their high Aaronic pedigree. The names of their mothers show it. They were cousins and both ‘daughters of Aaron’ Luke 1:5. John’s mother was named Elizabeth (Hebrew Elisheva, the same as the name of Aaron’s wife) and Jesus’s Mariam in NT Greek (Hebrew Miriam, the name of the prophetess and sister of Aaron and Moses). Names were not, as today, chosen at random. They recalled verified genealogy. The women were cousins descended directly from Aaron (Luke 1:5). When the son was named Jechoniah and not Zacharias like his father, it caused shock and surprise. 'Fear came on all that dwelt round about' Jerusalem and Judea, Lk 1:65. Why? because it reflected back to the genealogy of Elisheva’s line, recalling Onias, the high priest in Jerusalem who fled to Egypt for safety when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple, Josephus War, bk 1. Onias built a duplicate of the Temple at Heliopolis and taught priests the rituals so they would not be lost. John’s birth and naming revealed many secrets and exposed the guilty.

5. Herod initially tried to control the priesthood Note that, when Herod took power, there was no true Aaronic priest in office. Initially Herod, an enthusiastic pagan, had put into priestly office those without genealogical right to the Holy Place, says Josephus. The male Aaronic line had been killed off. But a son of a ‘daughter of Aaron’ could claim office because the grandfather was an Aaronic priest. When the NT stresses that Elizabeth and Mariam were both ‘daughters of Aaron’ it casts a slur on the genuineness of the priests that had seized office (Joshua son of Seth and Annas of Seth). It also implies that all the authentic sons of Aaron had been killed or were in hiding. 6. What family, what person was the last true Aaronic priest? Go back further. Two decades before their birth, Caesar Augustus had agreed to a peace treaty with its main enemy, Parthia, which was ruled by the Hebrew-speaking Arsacid dynasty, favourable to Israel and the Jews. It insisted on religious restoration too, including that of the high-priest dynasty. That treaty reshaped the world, till then divided in two. Parthia had trading relations as far as China and controlled parts of India. Under this historic pact, Rome agreed on the reconstruction of the Temple under the legitimate Aaronic priesthood of Sim(e)on Boethus. Herod was forced to concur. Simon returned from Egyptian exile to the shock of the nation. Simon had authenticated Aaronic pedigree. He wasn’t rich but he became the lever that broke Herod’s grip on power. Herod had married into the previous priestly dynasty, the Hasmoneans, hoping this would ensure loyalty of the population. He had forced a marriage to the daughter of that previous priestly house, even though priestly daughters were forbidden to marry outside the tribes of Israel. The Hasmonean priestly line had died out. The last one, Aristobulus, was killed by Herod’s Gauls. Herod put in place people who had no genealogical right to the office. The contrast was stark. Now it was clear that these fraudulent priesthoods had nothing to show compared to Simon’s. It was also obvious that they had become corrupt and Hellenised. Herod divorced this wife, Mariamne I, the last daughter from the Hasmonean/ Maccabee dynasty. Herod forced a further marriage. The daughter of Simon became his queen, Mariamne II. Who were these legitimate Boethusean priests who had taken shelter in Egypt during the wars and syncretic paganisation of the Maccabees? John’s naming showed he was part of the family. 7. Simon Boethus Simon remained high priest and reconstructed the Temple until he was retired by Herod just before the birth of Jesus. Boethus is probably not a name but the crude Greek version of his dynastic claim. It was also useful for this not to be too obvious as the priests that got killed first were those with the most authentic genealogy. What does Boethus signify? It is probably the Greek for Beth Yesse. That would imply that the Simonian priesthood were intermarried with the Davidic line. David was the son of Yesse. 8. Where did the child, Jesus, go? Forty days after his birth Jesus was presented in the Temple where he was received by Sim(e)on. He is described as righteous, the term used often for the authentic high-priestly family. He prophesies. Simeon praises God for the coming deliverance of the country through this child as Savior. Simon met the family in the Temple at the time of their purification ceremony and no doubt recorded the genealogical details in the archives as we see it in Matt 1 (Greek and Hebrew). The beginning of Matthew’s gospel dates from this time. Having disclosed in Bethlehem that he was of the family of David and heir to his throne, Joseph could no longer stay in Israel. Herod was becoming more and more crazed with acute disease, conspiracies and killing potential rivals. Jesus was taken to the same place where Simon had found safety against persecution. His father and mother took him to Egypt when he was a toddler, paidion. 9. Where did John go? What happened to John? Luke tells us diplomatically that he went East and 'dwelt in the desert' Lk 1:80. Matthew is more specific. At thirty he returned from exile dressed in the costume of that country. He wore a camel-hair garment and Hebrew Matthew adds a black leather belt (Roman leather was brown). See Why did John wear a camel-hair garment and a black belt? academia.edu/44001253. Parthia, the super-power in the East, had vast resources of camels and horses. They often went into battle with multiple thousand camels, the general himself having a baggage train of a thousand, according to Plutarch: Crassus #21 in Rawlinson’s Parthia. John’s dress implies he came directly from Parthia. (Hebrew Matthew is more specific.) It is unlikely that he previously met Jesus though he would obviously know of his relatives, equally under death threat, especially on the important topic of priestly succession. Jesus clearly came from a senior branch of Aaronic priests, although he was younger. ‘It behoves him (Jesus) to increase, but me to decrease,’ Jn 3:30. It was a matter of precedence and prophecy. 10. Why did John’s appearance on the Jordan make such an impact? Firstly he came out of exile from Rome’s hereditary enemy. Secondly he denounced the pro-Roman Quisling priesthood that displaced by force and bloodshed that of Simon the righteous. Thirdly, his own father Zacharias was probably killed by this clique, Matt 23:35. Fourthly, he preached repentance not revenge. He led the people to baptism as a sign of their already changed lives to virtue: burial of the past in the waters. Josephus Antiq 18,5,2 (117). Baptism signifies burial and resurrection to a new spiritual life. This was like the mikva a personal process in front of witnesses, not a dunking by a preacher to wash away sins. It is possible therefore that this was the first meeting of Jesus with his cousin since infancy. Their parallel lives came to the same conclusions and similar actions, reinforcing that God’s covenant with Israel demanded virtue and obedience to his laws. 11. Only 2 Rabbis in NT. In the Hebrew Yosippon – which may reflect the Hebrew version that Josephus says he sent to Parthia and Scythia before writing the Greek ‘Jewish War’ – John is called ‘Rabbi John the Baptist High Priest’. Yes, high priest.

He had right to this office through Elizabeth/ Elisheva not his father Zacharias. John is also called ‘Rabbi’ in the NT but it did not mean leader of a synagogue in the first century. All the documents and epigraphical remains of the period call the leader of the synagogue an archisynagogos or archon, as does the NT. ‘Rabbi’ means ‘anointed’ in Aramaic. Jesus is the only other person called Rabbi in first century literature. He is referred to more than a dozen times as priest or high priest in the book of Hebrews. He is also called Great Priest, Faithful High Priest (= Chief Priest) and Teacher, that is, the despotes of the Temple. The teacher was the controller of the Temple and it was off limits to Romans and non-Israelites. The Teacher is teaching high priests. He catechized priests like Theophilus in the Temple, Luke 1:4 Gk, katechethes. After his resurrection, James / Jacob, his brother, was in control of the Temple rituals. All early writers, like Hegesippus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, confirm that James as Sagan or Teacher was permitted to enter the Holy Place and pray there for Israel on a daily basis. 12. John as Family Defender, Goel. When Herod the Tetrarch seduced the wife of Herod (Philip) the son of Mariamne II, John risked and lost his life to defend the honor of the family. This incident is described in Josephus Antiq 18.5 (109) and in the NT in Matt 14. It was the duty of the goel, or Redeemer, as head of the family to right the wrongs of relatives and if necessary buy back a relative from slavery. In this case, Herod imprisoned him. The wife is named Herodias and Josephus names the daughter who requested the head of John the Baptist on a charger as Salome. This incident shows that John was indeed a high priest and related to Mariamne II, the daughter of Simon Boethus. 13. Seniority Thus we have two high priests of the authentic Aaronic family, John and Jesus, who grew up separately. John was raised in Parthia. Jesus in Egypt where Simon Boethus retained the true faith. He was then in Nazareth – the genealogical center of northern Israel, the Yeshana of Sepphoris. Why did John cede to Jesus? Firstly Jesus was anointed possibly by Simon in the Temple after his birth when Simeon declared he was the Messiah, then by John at the baptism with the heavenly signs and divine voice, Hebrew: bat kol. Secondly, Jesus had both high priestly pedigree through his mother and his father, and also royal blood through Joseph as the genealogy of Matt 1 shows. A king has the right over a high priest, for example, to dismiss him. 14. The ‘Essene’ incident Did John and Jesus meet much after the baptism event? There is little to say they did. The incident of Mt 11 where John in prison sends two disciples to enquire whether Jesus was definitely the Messiah, ‘the one to come’, suggests that they did not meet previously to discuss this. Jesus replies that the sick were being healed; the blind were given back their sight; lepers are cleansed, deaf hear and the dead are raised. That seems an extraordinary list ending with the dead being raised. But it does not end there. Jesus adds what to materialists may seem incongruous: ‘the poor have the Gospel preached to them.’ This is clearly more important than all the rest. It speaks of the coming Kingdom of God. What is also remarkable is that this unusual order of events is repeated in what is considered an Essean document among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q521 called ‘Redemption and Resurrection.’ It says ‘The Eternal shall do glorious things that have not been done, just as he said. For he shall heal the critically wounded. He shall revive the dead. He shall send good news to the afflicted.’ This implies that both were in communication through this group who represented the combined royal line and priestly line in Israel.

Why did Matthew write that Jesus was called Nazarene and thus fulfilled prophecy?

The Gospel of Matthew says that Joseph, Mariam and Jesus came to live in Nazareth. That fulfilled the words spoken by the prophets that 'He shall be called a Nazarene (Nazarean, Greek: nazooraios).'  So says Matt 2:23. 

What was the prophecy and where is it? Bible sceptics say that nowhere in the Bible is there such a prophecy written. They say that shows Matthew made up false stories. But these sceptics do not tend to point out that Matthew says the prophecy was spoken, not written.

But there is another grave error, a humongous one. In fact the prophecy encompasses more or less every prophecy ever written or spoken by Israelite prophets. 

How? 

There is a key factor that such commentators willingly leave out. They are too often microscopically concentrated on not only the letters of the text, (not even the meaning of the words). They become victims of unsubstantiated theories about how and when the gospel of Matthew was written. 

Let's first deal with the historical facts.    

Despotism

What most commentators leave out is the historical context – Herodian despotism. Herod killed his own sons because he merely suspected them of disloyalty. How do you think he would react to everyone calling Jesus: Jesus the Messiah, the king, the rightful son of David, and only legitimate heir to rule Israel? 

Herod's Massacre of the Innocents (Kerold)

Herod's record was as clear as red blood on a white linen cloth. When it came to Jewish pretenders to what he considered his throne, given him by Rome, he wiped from the face of the earth anyone who could claim Davidic heritage. 

He burned the family archives and the city of Bethlehem. 

When Parthian Magi announced that the Davidic Messiah was born he ordered a baby genocide. He killed all children under two in an area from Bethlehem in the south to the northern suburbs of Jerusalem.

No one even dared to name a child David in Herod’s time.  

Joseph, Jacob, Simon, Judas, yes. 

David absolutely not.

What has this to do with Nazareth?

Imagine someone who supported the Czar in the time of Stalin’s USSR. Would they call the group, the ‘Czarist’ group? Would they proclaim: ‘I am a Czarist’?

They would be dead men. 

Subtly and truth are required. The prophets referred to in Matt 2 most obviously include those such as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Micah that refer to the Davidic Messiah – the Branch (Netzer) of David.

Why is Nazareth mentioned frequently in the NT and Nazarene describes the followers of Christ? The answer is the same to the question: why is the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, not mentioned at all? 

Nazareth in Ceasarea inscription
of priestly courses

Sepphoris became a pagan Roman town. Nazareth was a suburb of the capital. The name of the town, Nazareth, was found on a stone tablet in Caesarea in 1962. It lists the priestly courses or mishmarot and their geographical assembly points. It is clear from the spelling Nazareth has nothing to do with the Nasarites of Num 6. 

Nazareth was holy. Sepphoris was unholy and Roman.  It was previously a center of rebellion. It had been the center of Israelites and Jews reclaiming their hereditary land after the return from Babylonian captivity. In a revolt against Roman oppression of their religious beliefs, the population had been slaughtered or sent into slavery. It had been rebuilt. Now it was ultra loyal to Herodian Rome.

Jews and Israelites still returned. According to Josephus, millions of the faithful attended the annual festivals in Jerusalem. Only those who could prove that they were legitimate Israelites with proven genealogy could attend. 

Talmudic sources say the genealogical history of all legitimate Israelites (and a few non-Israelites too) was found in the archives of the Depository (Jeshana) of Sepphoris.  It had pedigree records (copies or originals) of material Herod tried to destroy in the family archives in Jerusalem to assure his dominance. 

For priests and Israelites, 

             ‘If his father’s name was found in the archives at Sepphoris, no further inquiry was made.’ 

Evidently this vital history of Israel and material for its future was not in the city center where pagan riots could burn them. It was on a defendable hill as the NT describes for Nazareth. 

Israel a society ruled by pedigree.

It is no coincidence that the first words of the New Testament are a genealogical listing of Jesus Christ's family back to Abraham. In the Hebrew Scriptures the last book is that of Chronicles, which lists the genealogies of kings and priests.

Proof of genealogical pedigree was essential in all levels of Israelite society. Israel was probably the strictest and most prominent genealogically-centered society on earth. 

It was impossible to enter the Temple without proof of descent – legitimate descent reinforced at least by 2 or 3 honest witnesses– from one of the twelve tribes. 

Priestly pedigree had even stricter rules. They had to marry virgins from a tribe of Israel. Israelites were allowed to marry virgins of converted gentiles.

Thus protecting the identity of an authentic descendant of David from Herod required subtlety and ruse. Hence the term 'Nazarene' was used. It meant the Messiah who fulfilled the Tanakh prophetic promises from Genesis to Chronicles. 

But it was camouflage for Romans and Herodians. To foreigners and gentiles it meant a man from a small town near the Rome-loyal city of Sepphoris. That is evident in the varieties of describing a man from Nazareth. How did these Nazarene variations arise and by whom?

There are variations of the term of Nazarene: nazooraios or nazarinos. The town of Nazareth itself is spelt in several ways, ending with -a, -ath, -eth or -et. These may be due to local use or in the case of non-believers like the servant girl who accused Peter as understanding it to refer to a geographical location of a suburb of the Galilean capital Sepphoris.  ‘His speech betrays him.’

For the faithful Hebrew-speakers the name Nazareth could mean the city of Genealogies or Branches. The Hebrew word 'Netzer' means branch or off-shoot or descendant. 

Jesus the Nazarene means Jesus of the Branch of David. It encompasses the main prophecies of the whole Bible. 

Centuries of Regicide

The term ‘Nazarene’ derives from Netzer, an off-shoot or branch, someone who was a legitimate Davidic descendant or part of this Davidic group. That is Hebrew. Few gentiles knew Hebrew and even less had access to the records. 

In Herod’s time anyone saying ‘I can prove I am a Son of David’ outside the Temple (where gentiles were not allowed) would be killed by Herod’s men. Nazarene or ‘Branchist’ implied a Davidic descent without being overt. 

The Helenistic Syrians under the Seleucids did their level best to eradicate the Davidic line. The Maccabees or Hasmoneans liberated the land from this pagan oppression. But they did not want a Davidic king to replace their military power based on their high priests. Instead they claimed to be 'ethnarchs' or rulers of the people. And then they succumbed to self-pride and made themselves kings. 

The Hasmoneans were not able to resist the intrusion of Roman power. But in the Roman civil wars they allied themselves to Julius Caesar and won recognition 'for ever' as rulers of Israel. They had no interest in seeing a Davidic king. Then Rome decided to make Herod king of Judea. The high priest was demoted to be a Quisling of Roman power. Herod was ruthless in wiping out any opposition.

Herod the Great Despot

In all these centuries of the post-exile world up till Joseph, father of Jesus, the identity and even the existence of the Davidic line was obscured to the point of its assumed non-existence. The rigidly enforced Herodian/ Roman ‘registration’ of the Bethlehem property forced Joseph to courageously step forward and reveal his royal lineage. He had been able previously to distract attention because he also held priestly (Levitical) lineage.

There was one place on earth were Herod's men could not enter. That was the Temple.

The danger without

Jesus would be killed, if, outside the Temple, he openly proclaimed that he was the Son of David. But the death sentence would also apply to those who Herod thought would support this assertion. Outside the Temple the people took their life in their hands to call Jesus, Son of David. That would be deadly for Jesus and anyone who was seen concurring with the title. He told people bluntly not to say this title.

Desperate people sometimes make desperate moves. 

In Matt 9:27 two blind men cried out: Son of David, have mercy on us! 

He asked them whether they believed he could heal them and did so. Then he charged them: 'See that no man know it.' v30. It was dangerous for the newly sighted men and anyone who agreed with them. Later other blind people used the same psychological technique to be cured because they knew he could heal them, Matt 20:30. In Mk 10:47, Bartimeus, after regaining his sight, stuck with him as the safest place. In Luke 18:39 the crowds rebuked the blind man, for crying out, Son of David, -- before he was healed. 

After the Resurrection

After the Resurrection, it was different. It was witnessed and affirmed officially by Romans.  

In the 60s, decades after the Resurrection, believers were all normally referred to as Nazarenes. Paul was called a Nazarene in Acts 24:5. It was proof of Christ's future active kingship of the planet. 

He wrote: 

Jesus Christ (=Jesus the anointed king) came from the seed of David according to the flesh.’ Rom 1:1-3. 

When, in John 1:46-9, Nathanael acclaims ‘Jesus the son of Joseph who is from Nazareth’ to be ‘Son of God and king of Israel’ it was completely verified in the most authentic genealogical archives of Israel and unchallengeable.

The early ekklesia was Nazarene, not Christian

Paul was not a Christian. He was a Nazarene. 

Once Jesus had proved his Messiahship, by the resurrection and the Romans acknowledged it, it was more easy to overtly identify as Nazarene followers, like Paul and the early ekklesia.  

The Hebrew term, Nazarene, was the normal name for Christ’s followers. 

Around the time of Caligula in 41 CE, when he was trying to destroy all Judaism, the term ‘Christian’ was first invented. It was used as an insult by gentile Greeks of Antioch, Acts 11:26. This belittles the prophetic resonance of Nazarene, the legitimate Davidic King, destined to rule the world, to a mere leader of a movement. The significance of holy oil and anointing was lost on pagans. ‘Christian’ became the official term for the imperial Roman syncretic religion. 

The faithful Nazarenes were excluded and persecuted.

Further Proof that Nazarene meant Davidic genealogy 

The Messiah fulfilled genealogical prophecies. He was to be the Son of David, however unlikely that appeared to be in the early first century. There was no movement called the Davidics. The three main groups, according to Josephus were the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. The NT speaks a lot about the first two groups and condemns many of their practices. It does not condemn any practice of the Essenes. Why? It does not even mention them by name! That too was a camouflage name.

The other deadly exposure of linguistic Davidism was also relieved after the resurrection. Those who supported Davidic legitimacy and purity across all Israel were known as Essenes or more correctly Esseans. Josephus uses both terms. 

Essene comes from the Latin usage. Where does the term Essean come from? It relates to Yesse or Jesse, the father of David. As late as the 400s CE Epiphanius, the bishop of Constantia of the imperial church, a converted Jew who knew Hebrew, wrote a list of the origin and beliefs of early Christian groups. He wanted them eliminated.  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5819-epiphanius

On the Nazarenes he said: 

‘These people did not give themselves the name of Christ or Jesus’ own name, but that of Nazoreans. They also came to be called ‘Jesseans’ for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch. But they were called Jesseans because of Jesse, I suppose, since David was descended from Jesse…’ Panarion 2.29.

This shows that 'Nazarene' relates directly to the genealogical prophecies of the whole Bible. The parallel name of Esseans is also of genealogical origin. Both have significance for the prophecies of the Messiah made over the many centuries of Israel’s history. 

The real meaning of Nazarene is a topic of no trivial importance but a major one in the history of the world. It uncovers the prophetic nature of the coming of God's Messiah or Christ. It also describes those, like Paul before Agrippa, who were convinced by Christ to follow him, even to death. 

It encapsulates the truth of God Christ revealed by his resurrection to Jew and Gentile, the entire world.