Most reading this blog probably never heard of Epaphroditus. He is mentioned twice in Paul''s Philippians and by Josephus - who dedicates his Antiquities to him - and by other Roman historians of the time. Josephus makes it clear he was his patron, but to understand his importance, one should probably start with the interesting series of events leading up to and after the death of ''Jesus'''' "brother" James presumably in 62 CE, three and a half years before the outbreak of the Uprising against Rome (Daniel 12:7-13''s sequentiality?), which help illumine this period.

Actually, one should probably start in the previous generation with the confrontation in Caesarea over barring foreigners from the Temple - in this instance, including what we should probably always refer to as "Herodians" - between someone Josephus calls "Simon the Head of an Assembly (or "Church") of his of his own in Jerusalem" (the Gospels'' "Simon Peter"?) and Agrippa I (36-44 CE). Agrippa, being an "Herodian" - even though his grandfather "Herod" (37 BC-4 CE) was largely responsible for building this Temple - was for this "Simon" obviously to be considered "a foreigner" too.

This first "Agrippa" was a grandson of Herod''s Maccabean wife "Mariamme" (the first of the many "Mary"s?) - who died under mysterious circumstances in 44 CE (referred to in both Acts and Josephus - probably poisoned) - and the scion of the only line "Jews" might have considered "legitimate", because of his "Jewish" ancestry. For his part, Agrippa treated ths "Simon" with "his own Assembly in Jerusalem", who wanted to "bar him from the Temple", kindly and sent him away with gifts (Josephus actually denotes "Agrippa", "chrestos"/"gentle"). For these purposes, we should always remember Agrippa I and Agrippa II were different.

This episode has as its counterpart in the next generation the erection of a high wall in the Temple (often referred to as "The Temple Wall Affair"). The purpose of this wall was pointedly, not simply to bar his son Agrippa II (c. 49-93) from the Temple; but to bar the latter''s view of the sacrifices altogether as he reclined on his terrace presumably with guests (probably including "foreigners") overlooking the Temple Inner Court.

I have identified this as the probable immediate impetus and real cause behind the stoning of this "James" above who, according to all early Christian texts was very popular and called "the Zaddik" or "Just One by all" and, as such, was probably the spiritual Leader, around whom all these "Opposition" Groups (making trouble for "Herodians" in the Temple and over the issue of "gifts from foreigners" there generally - the stopping of which by them "on behalf of the Emperor" in 66 CE being the actual trigger leading to the Uprising against Rome) revolved. This is indicative of the real atmosphere in Palestine in this period - Gospel portraiture of a pastoral ''Galilean'' countryside notwithstanding - and overseas it would have been perceived, no doubt, as the epitome of recalcitrant malevolence.

This kind of intolerant ''zeal'' (Acts 21:21, for instance, identifies the majority of this "James"'' followers in Jerusalem - and this in the later, more reliable "We" section, we shall have cause to explain below - as "Zealots for the Law"; and, in Paul''s own Galatians 2:12, they are called, most irreverently, "the Party of the Circumcision") is reversed in - what scholars call - the ''Pauline'' Letter to the Ephesians, which not only contains the doctrine of "Jesus as Temple" (enunciated by Paul, as well, in 1 Corinthians 3:10 and 12:27), but also the contrary position that there should "no longer be strangers or foreign visitors" (Ephesians 2:19).

For it and for Paul, all are "fellow citizens in the Household" or "Temple of God", of which "Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone" (2:20-22). This is also the picture in the Gospels. Noble sentiments, to be sure, with wide appeal; but, in a Palestinian framework, historically inaccurate as the Dead Sea Scrolls most definitely confirm - as did the Temple warning blocks threatening death for strangers or foreigners entering the central area around the Temple even inadvertently (this, something like the area around Mecca relating to non-Muslims even to this day).

After this confrontation in Caesarea in the early 40''s (and those that follow between Greeks and Jews throughout the next decade), comes the assassination of "the High Priest Jonathan" in the 50''s, accompanied by Josephus'' first introduction of "the Sicarii" whom he accuses of being responsible for it. This "Jonathan", it should be appreciated, was the brother of that "Ananus" ("Ananus ben Ananus" - the second "Ananus" above) responsible for the death of James, as Josephus describes it; and it is their father "Annas" (sic) whom, the Gospel of John 18:13-24, pictures as interviewing Jesus before sending him bound to "Caiaphas".

It is at this point that John has Peter either "standing at the door" or "standing" by the fire outside Ananus'' or Caiaphas'' "court" - "standing" being a very important usage in this period (as one might see in my books), particularly in that document known as the "Pseudoclementine Recognitions" - it now appearing five times in just this one passage from John.

Here Peter denies the accusation of the "kinsman of the Servant of the Hight Priest", "whose ear he had cut off" ("cut off" too being another very important usage in this period, as one might appreciate from Paul''s scurrilous and derogatory use of it to allude to "circumcision" - and probably ostracization - in Galatians 5:12, to say nothing of several times in "The Damascus Document" and elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls which, as just implied, Paul is probably ''playing off'' here as well), that he was one of Jesus'' "Disciples" (18:10 and 26).

For the Synoptics, this scene at "the High Priest Caiaphas'' House" turns into a midnight session of the entire Sanhedrin of High Priests, Elders, and Scribes - and this supposedly on Passover eve (how believable is this?) - where the "blasphemy" charge is made against "Jesus", though it is impossible to say for what reason. In the Synoptics, too, not only is there no mention of a preliminary interview with Ananus, but Peter is now "sitting" by the fire, not "standing" - in fact, Luke never mentions the word "standing" at all and the other two, only once. For them, what Peter is denying is, rather, the point that he either knows "Jesus the Nazorean" or that he is "a Galilean" (Luke 22:54-62 and pars. - "Galilean", of course also possibly carrying the meaning of "a Disciple" of "Judas the Galilean").

For its part, though, the Gospel of John accurately portrays Caiaphas as the son-in-law of Ananus (18:13), which makes the "Ananus" responsible for James'' death (along with Agrippa II whom, Josephus tells us, had specifically appointed him while the Roman Governor was in transition - to accomplish this purpose?) this "Caiaphas"'' brother-in-law. For this second "Ananus" personally too, doubtlessly, there was also the issue of the assassination of his brother - that "Jonathan" slain by the "Sicarii" offshoots of "Judas the Galilean"''s original "Zealot Movement".

Josephus rails against the assassination of this Jonathan and the bloodshed that followed as "polluting" both city and Temple. In his discussion of these "Sicarii" (n.b., the title of "Judas Iscariot" in the Gospels and my discussions in all my works of "Sicarii Essenes" and the Roman legislation known as the "Lex Cornelius de Sicarius" related to them, considering "circumcision" a species of bodily mutilation and forbidding it), whom he calls "Robbers" (Lestai); he seemingly purposefully reverses the "Piety" language - in use among just such "Essenes" and in the Scrolls - of "loving God":

"This is the reason why, in my opinion, even God himself, out of hatred for their Impiety, turned away from our city and, because He deemed the Temple to be no longer a clean dwelling place for Him, brought the Romans upon us and purified our city by fire, while inflicting slavery upon us together with our wives and children; for He wished to chasten us by these calamities."

Not only is this a frightening accusation, but the "slavery" Josephus is speaking about here reverberates with the "bondage" or "slavery" language Paul uses in Galatians 4:21-31, when he describes the Jews as the descendants of Hagar ("who is Mount Sinai in Arabia" - thus) while his followers are "the Children of the freeborn Sarah" - in the process, using Philo-like allegorical interpretation to imply "freedom from Mosaic Law". Moreover, this is a different kind of "mea culpa" confession from those one gets in the New Testament Gospels generally which are, nevertheless, but a variation of it too.

According to the chronology we are following here, this is followed by the unlawful Sanhedrin trial, Ananus "pursued" (to use the language of the Scrolls'' "Habakkuk Pesher" at this point) against James at his new "House" of sitting (what this document might or does call "his Beit-Galuto"), succeeded by James'' stoning, which clearly indicate that James was identified as the center of agitation in the Temple giving rise to many of these things. That this "blasphemy" trial was undoubtedly trumped up by the "Herodian" Authorities in conjunction with the Temple Establishment they sponsored and that both Agrippa II and Ananus joined forces in it, further connects James to the source of both "the Temple Wall Affair", directed against Agrippa II and, in their minds anyhow, the assassination of Ananus'' brother - Caiaphas'' brother-in-law - "the High Priest Jonathan" as well.

This, in turn, is probably not completely unrelated to the fire in Rome at approximately this time, which Nero blamed on so-called "Christians". More sympathetic sources, however - perhaps prompted by ''Christian'' friends in high places, we shall hear more about below (not the least of whom being the Pseudoclementines'' "Clement"''s counterpart in Titus Caesar''s brother Domitian''s own household, "Flavius Clemens"), put the blame rather on Nero himself.

Whatever the mechanism, Nero clearly seems at this point to have decided to rid himself of Jews and Jewish agitation generally. Therefore, he sends another Governor, Florus (64-66 CE), out to Judea who - by Josephus'' own testimony - seems intentionally to goad the population into revolt. At the same time, Nero kicks his wife Poppea - Josephus'' patron, whom he described as "a worshipper of God" (in other words, "a God-Fearer") - to death, presumably agitated by concerns over her interest in causes of this kind, not to mention her pregnancy.

In the midst of the war in Judea, Nero is assassinated. Among those accused of having a hand in this would appear to be our Epaphroditus, Paul''s associate and the focus of our discussion, whom he calls in Philippians 2:25: his "brother, co-worker, and fellow soldier",his (not "Jesus"'') "Apostle" - a man (Josephus tells us in his dedication to The Antiquities), who "participated in many important events". Though some might object to this tripartite identification, not only do Suetonius and others affirm that Epaphroditus was Nero''s secretary - which would make Paul''s intimations in Philippians 4:18 about "Saints in the household of Caesar" (which is just where Paul says he is sending him) all the more accurate - but this same "Epaphroditus" re-emerges, survivor that he seems to have been, in the early 80''s as Domitian (81-96 CE)''s secretary as well.

Not long before Domitian, too, was assassinated in 96 CE, Epaphroditus (it is hard to separate the two, since he is working in the same capacity for both Emperors and being "Secretary for Greek Letters" gave him no mean writing skill) appears to have run afoul of him too - purportedly over his behaviour at the time of Nero''s assassination which Domitian seems to have used as a pretext to execute him, complaining that he (Epaphroditus) had dared to raise his hand against an Emperor! This is most peculiar, indeed, coming from a man like Domitian and there would appear to be more behind these events than appears on the surface.

Not only was this about the time that Domitian was supposed to have been "rounding up all those of the family of David" and possibly the real year James'' successor and possible third "brother", "Simeon bar Cleophas", was executed; 96 CE was also the year "Flavia Domitilla", the wife or niece of the "Flavius Clemens" above (one of the consuls that year and Domitian''s Co-Ruler - "Flavian" being the name of Vespasian''s Imperial Family - therefore too "Flavius Josephus"), was, according to Eusebius, exiled for "her testimony to Christ".

In fact, she was Domitian''s niece too and "Flavius Clemens" ("Clement"?) was Domitian''s cousin and the oldest and most important "Christian Catacomb" to this day - "the Domitilla Catacomb" - is named for her, since is was founded on her property. Domitian, who was apparently childless, had designated their two sons his heirs and renamed them "Vespasian" and "Flavius", that is, before he had "Flavius Clemens" executed the same year as he had Epaphroditus. Perhaps just as significantly, Domitian was, in turn, himself assassinated - an event Suetonius describes most vividly - by Flavia Domitilla''s own steward, one "Stephanos" or "Stephen" (for those who know their Scripture, an all too familiar name).

Suetonius, too, an individual who cannot be described as particularly philo-Semitic, delineates Domitian''s hatred or at least cruelty towards Jews, attesting that he "levied the tax against them" with the utmost vigor, even prosecuting those who, while not publicly acknowledging the Faith, yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origins and did not pay the tribute levied against their People. One such prosecution - a man "ninety years old", Suetonius himself acknowledges having witnessed as a boy, "was examined before the Procurator to see whether he was circumcised". How familiar is this - not very different from our own purportedly modern world!

Not only does this Epaphroditus appear to be the same individual Josephus dedicate hisAntiquities and Vita to, his words regarding him in the former - "a lover of all kinds of learning, but principally delighted by the study of history" - are both thoroughly modern and attest to how little things have changed since. Nor, he adds, had Epaphroditus not encouraged him, would he have made the effort "to overcome his sloth" and pour out The Antiquities.

Though his relationship to Domitian''s Epaphroditus is contested - to say nothing of Paul''s companion by that name sent "to the Saints" in Nero''s household - and some suggest there may have been two Epaphrodituses, father and son; still, for Josephus, Epaphroditus was a man who had experienced many important political events. Nor is the latter very likely, since Domitian himself - in charging him with complicity in Nero''s murder - definitely affirms they are the same person!

Paul's 'Comrade-in-Arms' Epaphroditus and the First Gospels