Contrary to what many people think, baptism was not a new principle to the Jews of Christ's time. The Jewish baptism is called the Mikvah and involves a similar procedure to Christian baptisms. The unique thing about John is not that he was baptizing, but who he was baptizing. Like in Christian religion, Jewish baptisms where preformed in order to induct the individual into the house of Israel. John was baptizing those who were already Jews. According to their laws they needed no baptism. This is where John's discussion with the Pharisees and Saducees arises. They felt no need to be baptized, because in their mind baptism was part of the process to become a Jew, and they were already Jews; but John's baptism was not meant for that purpose. It instead was meant to cleanse the individual from sin so that they might be ready to accept the Christ when he came.
This is not the only time in history that those already under the covenant where baptized again for repentance. Those baptized in the early days of the church, before its official organization in 1830, where rebaptized after the organization ceremony. Before the organization the church had not existed. As such they had not been baptized into the church. But only for the remission of sins. They were then re baptized as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much the same way that John would baptize them and then the Apostles would baptist them again after Christ organized his church.
According to Talmage the raiment of camel's hair was not made of camel skin, but instead made of woven camel's hair. This is supported by the writings of Josephus. As for his diet of Locust and wild honey, John grew up in the desert. According to Christian tradition dating back to the historian Origen in the 3rd century CE King Heron had tried to kill John as an infant, which makes sense because of the miracles surrounding his birth, but Zechariah knowing of Herod's intentions had sent his wife and son into the desert where Herod could not find them. It is logical to assume that in the wilderness they would have met up with one of the many different Bedouin groups that lived in the Judean wilderness. There he would have been raised on the food available in the wilderness. Locusts are a normal staple of life for the poorer people in the Arab nations to this day. That John ate Locusts would have set him apart as a poorer individual in Jewish society. According to James Tamage in Jesus the Christ there are more wild honeybees in Israel then there are those kept in hives. This it makes sense for John to eat these things.
When Mary came back from visiting with Elizabeth and was found to be pregnant, this didn't mean that she came back and had an ultrasound, she was showing that she was pregnant. People would have noticed a difference. Just as in our day I can imagine that when Joseph chose to marry her, many people would have assumed the child to be his. They would have assumed that they had had sexual relations before they where actually married. How did he get harassed by his peers the way we would today. Was he looked down upon in the community. The scriptural account gives no inclination, but it is not unreasonable that the time of Jesus's conception would have been a hot topic in Nazareth.
In the Jewish culture of the day a betrothal was as binding as a marriage. Once you were betrothed annulling the betrothal was the same as getting divorced. According to the Law of Moses a man who found that his betrothed wife had been unfaithful to him could give her a writ of divorcement and put her away quietly, or he could bring her before the Judges to be judged for adultery. Joseph was a strict observer of the law, and as such would have been in his right to have her stoned before all the community, instead he chose to let it be done quietly with no accusations. This shows that Joseph not only understood the law of justice, but that of mercy as well. He chose to be merciful and not throw around judgement.
It is interesting to note that in chapter one of Matthew Judah, the son of Jacob, is referred to as Judas. We know the text is referring to Judah because it is through Judah that David and later Christ was born. According to Wikipedia the name Judas is actually the Greek equivalent of the name Judah. This is not uncommon in the scriptures. The Apostle Nathaniel is also called Bartholomew in Matthew. The interesting thing about this change is the new symbolic aspect that is brought to the character of Judas Iscariot. Judas's Hebrew name is Judah. Thus Judah (the person) betrayed the lord to the heads of Judah (the people). Thus Judas's betrayal of the lord can also be viewed as a symbol of the peoples betrayal of their lord.