and Josephus four several times,
once here, sect. 6; and B. XX. ch. 5. sect. 2; Of the War, B. II. ch.
8. sect. 1; and ch. 17. sect. 8, calls this Judas, who was the pestilent
author of that seditious doctrine and temper which brought the Jewish
nation to utter destruction, a Galilean; but here [sect. 1] Josephus
calls him a Gaulonite, of the city of Gamala; it is a great question
where this Judas was born, whether in Galilee on the west side, or in
Gaulonitis on the east side, of the river Jordan; while, in the place
just now cited out of the Antiquities, B. XX. ch. 5. sect. 2, he is
not only called a Galilean, but it is added to his story, "as I have
signified in the books that go before these," as if he had still
called him a Galilean in those Antiquities before, as well as in that
particular place, as Dean Aldrich observes, Of the War, B. II. ch.
8. sect. 1. Nor can one well imagine why he should here call him a
Gaulonite, when in the 6th sect. following here, as well as twice Of the
War, he still calls him a Galilean. As for the city of Gamala, whence
this Judas was derived, it determines nothing, since there were two of
that name, the one in Gaulonitis, the other in Galilee. See Reland on
the city or town of that name.

[2] It seems not very improbable to me that this Sadduc, the Pharisee,
was the very same man of whom the Rabbins speak, as the unhappy, but
undesigning, occasion of the impiety or infidelity of the Sadducees; nor
perhaps had the men this name of Sadducees till this very time, though
they were a distinct sect long before. See the note on B. XIII. ch. 10.
sect 5; and Dean Prideaux, as there quoted. Nor do we, that I know
of, find the least footsteps of such impiety or infidelity of these
Sadducees before this time, the Recognitions assuring us that they began
about the days of John the Baptist; B. 1. ch. 54. See note above.

[3] It seems by what Josephus says here, and Philo himself elsewhere,
Op. p. 679, that these Essens did not use to go to the Jewish festivals
at Jerusalem, or to offer sacrifices there, which may be one great
occasion why they are never mentioned in the ordinary books of the New
Testament; though, in the Apostolical Constitutions, they are mentioned
as those that observed the customs of their forefathers, and that
without any such ill character laid upon them as is there laid upon the
other sects among that people.

[4] Who these Polistae in Josephus, or in Strabo, among the Py