he note on Antiq. B. III. ch. 8. sect. 2, amounts to
680,000 sterling per annum; which income, though great in itself,
bearing no proportion to his vast expenses every where visible in
Josephus, and to the vast sums he left behind him in his will, ch. 8.
sect. 1, and ch. 12. sect. 1, the rest must have arisen either from his
confiscation of those great men's estates whom he put to death, or made
to pay fine for the saving of their lives, or from some other heavy
methods of oppression which such savage tyrants usually exercise upon
their miserable subjects; or rather from these several methods not
together, all which yet seem very much too small for his expenses, being
drawn from no larger a nation than that of the Jews, which was very
populous, but without the advantage of trade to bring them riches; so
that I cannot but strongly suspect that no small part of this his wealth
arose from another source; I mean from some vast sums he took out of
David's sepulcher, but concealed from the people. See the note on Antiq.
B. VII. ch. 15. sect. 3.

[22] Take here a very useful note of Grotias, on Luke 3:1, here quoted
by Dr. Hudson: "When Josephus says that some part of the house [or
possession] of Zenodorus [i.e. Abilene] was allotted to Philip, he
thereby declares that the larger part of it belonged to another.
This other was Lysanias, whom Luke mentions, of the posterity of that
Lysanias who was possessed of the same country called Abilene, from the
city Abila, and by others Chalcidene, from the city Chaleis, when the
government of the East was under Antonius, and this after Ptolemy, the
son of Menneus; from which Lysanias this country came to be commonly
called the Country of Lysanias; and as, after the death of the former
Lyanias, it was called the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, so, after the death
of Zenodorus, or when the time for which he hired it was ended when
another Lysanias, of the same name with the former, was possessed of the
same country, it began to be called the Tetrarchy of Lysanias."
However, since Josephus elsewhere [Antiq. B. XX. ch. 7. sect. 1] clearly
distinguishes Abilene from Cilalcidcue, Groius must be here so far
mistaken.

[23] Spanheim seasonably observes here, that it was forbidden the
Jews to marry their brother's wife when she had children by her first
husband, and that Zonaras [cites, or] interprets the clause before us
accordingly.

BOOK 18 FOOTNOTES

[1] Since St. Luke once, Acts 5:37,