reans and of his other subjects, should take offence at the Tyrians and Sidonians, whose interests interfered with theirs. (See Ranisch Comment. de Lucæ et Josephi in morte Herodis Agrippæ consensu on Acts 12, 19., and Joseph. Ant. 19, 7. p. 7.) Now, since the territory subject to these cities was far too limited to be able to supply such a population with food, they were necessitated to import a considerable quantity from Judæa, Galilee, and other provinces of Herod. See 1 Kings 5, 9. Ez. 27, 17. and Michaelis on this passage. Agrippa was, it seems, highly offended from some cause or other, and having it in his power to straiten and vex these cities, had, perhaps, threatened to do so. In order, therefore, to conciliate this king, they send ambassadors to him. while he was, opportunely, sojourning in their neigh

bourhood.

Of this embassy Josephus says nothing, but only relates that Herod celebrated solemn games at Cæsarea. Nor does he make mention of this misunderstanding with the Tyrians, since it did not seem of consequence enough to deserve recording; especially as the celebration of the games formed the principal object of his journey; whereas Luke, whose intention it was to show how signal a punishment God inflicted on Agrippa, and what was the cause of it, relates only the oration, because it was that which brought on the punishment, and therefore premised a reference to this affair of the Tyrians. (See Ranisch. p. 9.) (Kuin.) Nearly the same view of the subject is taken by almost all the recent Commentators, to whose opinion I must accede.* At the same time I would compare Luke 14, 32. #geoβείαν ἀποστείλας ἐρωτᾷ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην. Wetstein,

* Markland, however, thinks the expression rovvτo eipývyv seems to imply something more, and that they had been at war: and he cites Plutarch in Demetr. p. 898 n. ovdèv åžiov Xóyoν πратτων ὁ Δημήτριος, ὅμως ἐθυμομαχει πρὸς αὐτοὺς, ὅτι, &c. He would therefore translate ἦν θυμομαχῶν Τυρίοις, &c. “ was at war with the Tyrians and Sidonians out of some pique."

too, aptly cites Servius on Virg. Æn. 1, 39. Moris erat, ut de publicâ pecuniâ Phoenices, misso a rege auro de peregrinis frumenta coëmerent. Dido autem a Pygmalione ad hunc usum paratas naves abstulerat. Urbs erat magna, regio exigua. See also Bp Pearce in loc.

66

20. ὁμοθυμαδόν, conjointly, i. e. both Tyrians and Sidonians. Καὶ πείσαντες βλάστον, &c. Πείθω is here a vox prægnans, and signifies having persuaded Blastus to be their friend in the business." It often, as here, denotes to attach to one's interest, either by entreaties or gifts. See the note on Matt. 28, 14. and Elsner on Gal. 1, 10. On βλάστος the reader may consult Wetstein and Schl. Lex. 20. τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτώνος. Subaud ὢν or τεταγμένος ; as in 8, 27. ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς γάζης. It stands for κοιτωνίστης, cubicularius, chamberlain. See Wessel on Diodor. Sic. 1, 457.

20. ̓Απὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς. Subaud χώρας, which had just preceded. So Thucyd. 8, 46. ἐν τῇ βασιλέως. The complete phrase occurs in 8, 58. ἡ χώρα ἡ βασιλέως. See Raphel in loc.

21, ταυτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ, i. e. “ on the day appointed for the formally giving audience to the ambassadors." Οὗτος, it must be observed, is often used with words of time. (See Wets.)

It was the second day of the games which were then celebrating in honour of Claudius Cæsar. So Joseph. Αnt. 19, 7, 2. δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν θεωριῶν ἡμέρᾳ στολὴν ἐνδυσάμενος ἐξ ἀργυρίου πεποιημένην πᾶσαν, ὡς θαυμάσιον ὑφὴν εἶναι, παρῆλθεν εἰς θέατρον ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας· ἔνθα ταῖς πρώταις τῶν ἡλιακῶν ἀκτίνων ἐπιβολαῖς ὁ ἄργυρος καταυγασθεὶς θαυμασίως ἀπέστιλβε, μαρμαίρων τι φοβερὸν καὶ τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν ἀτενίζουσι φρικώδες.

The stole was a robe reaching to the heels, worn by Oriental Kings. See the note on Mark 12, 38. (Kuin.)

21. καὶ καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος. By βῆμα is here meant, not tribunal (as in Matt. 27, 19.), but a raisedl suggestus, presenting the appearance of a throne, in

the theatre at Cæsarea, from which Herod both viewed the games, and delivered the oration. Indeed, Bua often, as here, denotes a suggestus oratorius for Kings, magistrates, or orators. See Isocr. de Pace 1, 366. (Batt.), and Xen. Mem. 3, 6, 1. It may be observed, too, that the custom of holding orations in the theatre was a Greek one. See Cic. de Flacco. C. 7., Demosth. pro Coron. C. 53., and Acts 19, 29. (Kuin.)

21. εδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτοῦς. Glass, Ranisch, and Markland would refer pòs aurous to the people, because they are just afterwards mentioned. But this is a harsh, and, indeed, inadmissible mode of interpretation, being neither permitted by propriety of language, nor by the context. Anunyoper has here, as often in the later Greek writers, not the original sense, "address a speech to the people," but simply to harangue, "deliver an oration." See Munthe, who cites Diodor. Sic. 332 D., 289 c., and Herodian 6, 3, 5. 2, 8, 2.

22. ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει, "the people made acclamation." By the people Grotius would understand the courtiers and other flatterers, set on for the purpose. And, indeed, some of the numerous citations brought forward by Wetstein seem to countenance this; especially a passage of Josephus. Elsner, however, is of opinion that by duos are meant the ambassadors and their companions, including other Gentiles, of whom great multitudes inhabited Cæ

sarea.

21. Θεοῦ φωνὴ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου. It was the evil customs of those times for kings and emperors to be called Dii, not only after death, but while yet alive.*

* In illustration of this Wetstein produces numerous passages, of which the following are the most apposite. Virg. Æn. 1, 331. Namque haud tibi vultus mortalis, nec vox hominem sonat, o Dea certe and 5, 647. Tacit. An. 14, 15. Hi dies et noctes plausibus personare, formam principis, vocemque Deum vocabulis appellantes. Hom. Od. δ. 160. τοῦ νῶι, θεοῦ ὡς, τερπομεθ ̓ αὐῇ. Aristid. Plat. 1. p. 25. ὡς δὲ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς Πύλου πρὸς τὸν ἔτερον ῥήτορα καὶ βασιλέα τὸν Μενέλαον, ὁ μὲν Τελέμαχος ὡς θεοῦ φησὶν ἀκούων

It is plain, from Josephus, that these persons (who were probably of both the classes above mentioned, but certainly not Jews,) did here profess to regard Herod as a god. So Joseph. 1, 1. (cited by Kuin.) εὐθὺς δὲ οἱ κόλακες τὰς οὐδὲ ἐκείνῳ πρὸς ἀγαθου, ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν φωνὰς ἀνεβόων, Θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες, εὐμενὴς τε εἴης, ἐπιλέγοντες, εἰ καὶ μέχρι νῦν ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἐφοβήθημεν, ἀλλὰ τούντεῦθεν κρείττονά σε θνητῆς φύσεως ομολογοῦμεν. Krebs, Ranisch, and Kuinoel observe that, though Josephus seems to attribute their hyperbolical expressions of admiration to the sight of the splendid robe, and Luke to the eloquence of the orator, yet there is, in fact, no discrepancy, since both causes doubtless operated, and in such cases historians select and dwell upon whatever is most suitable to their purpose.

23. παραχρῆμα δὲ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἄγγελος Κυρίου. By struck is here meant "struck him with a mortal disease.” The word is often, in the New Testament, used of striking with death, or a violent malady. See Schl. Lex. Josephus (ubi supra) makes no mention of the angel, but proceeds thus : ἀνακύψας δ ̓ οὖν μετ ̓ ὀλίγον, τὸν βουβῶνα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ κεφαλῆς ὑπερκαθεζό μενον εἶδεν ἐπὶ σχοινίου τινὸς ἄγγελόν τε τοῦτον εὐθὺς ἐνόησεν κακῶν εἶναι, τὸν καὶ πότε τῶν ἀγαθῶν γενόμενον καὶ διακάρδιον ἔσχεν ὀδύνην· ἄθρουν δὲ αὐτῷ τῆς κοιλίας προσέφυσεν ἄλγημα μετὰ σφοδρότητος ἀρξάμενον. "An owl, it seems (says Kuin.), was observed upon the

τέρπεσθαι τοῦ Μενελάου. Dio Cass. p. 174 & 158. Plin. Paneg. Trajan. 2. Plut. 2, 45 F. Eunap. Proær. p. 146. τὰ στέρνα του σοφιστου περιλιχμησάμενοι καθάπερ ἀγάλματος ἐνθέου πάντες οἱ παρόντες, οἱ μὲν πόδας, οἱ δὲ καὶ χεῖρας προσεκύνουν· οἱ δὲ θεὸν ἔφασαν, οἱ δὲ Ἑρμοῦ λογίο κτύπον. I add, Pseudo-Eu ripides in Rheso, 297. ὁρῶ δὲ Ῥήσον, ὥστε δαίμονα, έστωτ', &c. Eunap. Proæres. p. 120. καὶ τὸ θεάτρον βοῶν τε ἀῤῥήγνυτο. καὶ οὐ δεὶς ἂν ὃς οὔχι Θέον ὑπελάμβανε. See also Eunap. p. 163. sub init. Appian. I. 635, 77. speaks of Antiochus as having given him by the Milesians the surname of The God. And that he commonly received this appellation we may infer from the commencement of an Epistle to him from the Samaritans, preserved in Josephus, Ant. p. 533. Βασιλεῖ ̓Αντιόχω, Θέῳ Επιφανει. See also Athen. 213 c.

rope * above the suggestus, which soon settled on the king's head. Now the prodigy mentioned by Josephus in 1. c. corresponds to what is related in Ant. 18, 18. All this is, with reason, thought by Heumann, Michaelis, Morus, and others, to savour of fable; yet there are no grounds for thinking it fabricated by Josephus, who is a favourer of Agrippa, but rather by the Jews, who were incensed with Herod for receiving the adulatory acclamation.† Josephus has, however, brought it forward (together with some other facts of this kind), in order to court the favour of the superstitious [which, however, seems doing injustice to the motives of the illustrious historian. Edit.], and because the fable was in the mouths of all. It is therefore useless labour to endeavour to reconcile the narration of Luke with that of Josephus, by supposing, as some do (from Euseb. H. E. 2, 10.), that Josephus indicated the angel of death as sent under the form of an owl, or (as others) that the owl, as the angel of God, was the author of the death (see Wolf), or (with others) that Josephus has narrated what fell under the view of men, but that Luke has followed the mode of thinking and speaking usual among the Jews. Nay, indeed, the historical faith of Luke is exceedingly confirmed by his making no mention of this fable. (Kuin.)

As to the cause of Herod's death, many recent Commentators, as Eichhorn, Heinrichs, and Kui

*This rope (as Ranisch remarks) was one of those by which the vela were stretched out over the heads of the spectators, during the heat of the day. See Lucret. 4, 73. and Plin. H. N. 19, 1.

That the Jews thought his disease was brought on by his impiety in receiving Divine honours, is plain from Joseph. 766, 10. (edit. Hudson): καὶ γὰρ δὴ διὰ τὴν τόλμαν αὐτῶν, παρ' ἃ διηγόρευεν ὁ νόμος, τῆς ποιήσεως, τά τε ἄλλα αὐτῳ συντυχεῖν οἱ επαρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου διετρίβη, καὶ δὴ καὶ τὴν νόσον. And 763, 17. ἐλέγετο οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν θειαζόντων, καὶ οἷς ταῦτα προαποφθέγγεσθαι σοφίᾳ προύκειτο, ποινὴν τοῦ πολλοῦ δυσσεβῶς ταύτην ὁ Θεὸς εἰσπάσε σεσθαι παρά τοῦ βασιλέως.

So Ovid. Met. 5, 549. (speaking of the owl): Volucrem venturi nuntium luctus, dirum inortalibus omen,