grant them； but did it for the one half of that nation in a few
years afterward； upon fresh complaints made by the Jews against
Archelaus； who； under the more humble name of an ethnarch； which
Augustus only would now allow him； soon took upon him the
insolence and tyranny of his father king Herod； as the remaining
part of this book will inform us； and particularly ch。 13。 sect。
2。
（21） This is not true。 See Antiq。 B。 XIV。 ch。 9。 sect。 3； 4； and
ch。 12。 sect。 2； and ch。 13。 sect。 1； 2。 Antiq。 B。 XV。 ch。 3。
sect。 5； and ch。 10。 sect。 2； 3。 Antiq。 B。 XVI。 ch。 9。 sect。 3。
Since Josephus here informs us that Archelaus had one half of the
kingdom of Herod； and presently informs us further that
Archelaus's annual income； after an abatement of one quarter for
the present； was 600 talents； we may therefore ga ther pretty
nearly what was Herod the Great's yearly income； I mean about
1600 talents； which； at the known value of 3000 shekels to a
talent； and about 2s。 10d。 to a shekel； in the days of Josephus；
see the 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； 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
Pythagoric Dacae； were； it is not easy to determine。 Scaliger
offers no improbable conjecture； that some of these Dacae lived
alone； like monks； in tents or caves； but that others of them
lived together in built cities； and thence were called by such
names as implied the same。
（5） We may here take notice； as well as in the parallel parts of
the books Of the War； B。 II。 ch。 9。 sect。 1； that after the death
of Herod the Great； and the succession of Archclaus； Josephus is
very brief in his accounts of Judea； till near his own time。 I
suppose the reason is； that after the large history of Nicolaus
of Damascus； including the life of Herod； and probably the
succession and first actions of his sons； he had but few good
histories of those times before him。
（6） Numbers 19：11…14。
（7） This citation is now wanting。
（8） These Jews； as they are here called； whose blood Pilate shed
on this occasion； may very well be those very Galilean Jews；
〃whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices；〃 Luke
13：1； 2； these tumults being usually excited at some of the Jews'
great festivals； when they slew abundance of sacrifices； and the
Galileans being commonly much more busy in such tumults than
those of Judea and Jerusalem； as we learn from the history of
Archelaus； Antiq。 B。 XVII。 ch。 9。 sect。 3 and ch。 10。 sect。 2； 9；
though； indeed； Josephus's present copies say not one word of
〃those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell； and slew
them；〃 which the 4th verse of the same 13th chapter of St。 Luke
informs us of。 But since our gospel teaches us； Luke 23：6； 7；
that 〃when Pilate heard of Galilee； he asked whether Jesus were a
Galilean。 And as soon as he knew that he belonged to Herod's
jurisdiction； he sent him to Herod ；〃 and ver。 12； 〃The same day
Pilate and Herod were made friends together for before they had
been at enmity between themselves；〃 take the very probable key of
this matter in the words of the learned Noldius； de Herod。 No。
219： 〃The cause of the enmity between Herod and Pilate （says he）
seems to have been this； that Pilate had intermeddled with the
tetrarch's jurisdiction； and had slain some of his Galilean
subjects； Luke 13：1； and； as he was willing to correct that
error； he sent Christ to Herod at this time。〃
（9） A。D。 33； April 3。
（10） April 5。
（11） Of the banishment of these four thousand Jews into Sardinia
by Tiberius； see Suetonlus in Tiber。 sect。 36。 But as for Mr。
Reland's note here； which supposes that Jews could not；
consistently with their laws； be soldiers； it is contradicted by
one branch of the history before us； and contrary to innumerable
instances of their fighting； and proving excellent soldiers in
war； and indeed many of the best of them； and even under heathen
kings themselves； did so； those； I mean； who allowed them their
rest on the sabbath day； and other solemn festivals； and let them
live according to their own laws； as Alexander the Great and the
Ptolemies of Egypt did。 It is true； they could not always obtain
those privileges； and then they got executed as well as they
could； or sometimes absolutely refused to fight； which seems to
have been the case here； as to the major part of the Jews now
banished； but nothing more。 See several of the Roman decrees in
their favor as to such matters； B。 XIV。 ch。 10。
（12） Since Moses never came himself beyond Jordan； nor
particularly to Mount Gerizzim； and since these Samaritans have a
tradition among them； related here by Dr。 Hudson； from Reland；
who was very skillful in Jewish and Samaritan learning； that in
the days of Uzzi or Ozis the high priest； 1 Chronicles 6：6； the
ark and other sacred vessels were； by God's command； laid up or
hidden in Mount Gerizzim； it is highly probable that this was the
foolish foundation the present Samaritans went upon； in the
sedition here described。
（13） This mention of the high priest's sacred garments received
seven days before a festival； and purified in those days against
a festival； as having been polluted by being in the custody of
heathens； in Josephus； agrees well with the traditions of the
Talmudists； as Reland here observes。 Nor is there any question
but the three feasts here mentioned were the passover； pentecost；
and feast of tabernacl