d
referred to as such, Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51. See Authent. Rec. Part.
II. p. 883--885.

[17] This form was so known and frequent among the Romans, as Dr. Hudson
here tells us from the great Selden, that it used to be thus represented
at the bottom of their edicts by the initial letters only, U. D. P. R.
L. P, Unde De Plano Recte Lege Possit; "Whence it may be plainly read
from the ground."

[18] Josephus shows, both here and ch. 7. sect. 3, that he had a much
greater opinion of king Agrippa I. than Simon the learned Rabbi, than
the people of Cesarea and Sebaste, ch. 7. sect. 4; and ch. 9. sect. 1;
and indeed than his double-dealing between the senate and Claudius, ch.
4. sect. 2, than his slaughter of James the brother of John, and his
imprisonment of Peter, or his vain-glorious behavior before he died,
both in Acts 12:13; and here, ch. 4. sect. 1, will justify or allow.
Josephus's character was probably taken from his son Agrippa, junior.

[19] This treasury-chamber seems to have been the very same in which our
Savior taught, and where the people offered their charity money for the
repairs or other uses of the temple, Mark 12:41, etc.; Luke 22:1; John
8:20.

[20] A strange number of condemned criminals to be under the sentence of
death at once; no fewer, it seems, than one thousand four hundred!

[21] We have a mighty cry made here by some critics, as the great
Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of Josephus, so as to
make it agree with the parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles,
because the present copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eceles. B. II.
ch. 10., omit the words an owl--on a certain rope, which Josephus's
present copies retain, and only have the explicatory word or angel; as
if he meant that angel of the Lord which St. Luke mentions as smiting
Herod, Acts 12:23, and not that owl which Josephus called an angel
or messenger, formerly of good, but now of bad news, to Agrippa. This
accusation is a somewhat strange one in the case of the great Eusebius,
who is known to have so accurately and faithfully produced a vast number
of other ancient records, and particularly not a few out of our Josephus
also, without any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how
uncertain we are whether Josephus's and Eusebius's copies of the fourth
century were just like the present in this clause, which we have no
distinct evidence of, the following words, preserved still in Eusebius,
will not admit