us, and Judas
differ but little. See Archbishop Usher's Annals at A.M. 4001. However,
since Josephus does not pretend to reckon up the heads of all those ten
thousand disorders in Judea, which he tells us were then abroad, see
sect. 4 and 8, the Theudas of the Acts might be at the head of one of
those seditions, though not particularly named by him. Thus he informs
us here, sect. 6, and Of the War, B. II. ch. 4. Sect. 2, that certain
of the seditious came and burnt the royal palace at Amsthus, or
Betharamphta, upon the river Jordan. Perhaps their leader, who is not
named by Josephus, might be this Theudas.

[17] See Of the War, B. II. ch. 2. sect. 3.

[18] See the note, Of the War, B. II. ch. 6. sect. 1.

[19] He was tetrarch afterward.

[20] If any one compare that Divine prediction concerning the tyrannical
power which Jewish kings would exercise over them, if they would be so
foolish as to prefer it before their ancient theocracy or aristocracy,
1 Samuel 8:1-22; Antiq. B. VI. ch. 4. sect. 4, he will soon find that it
was superabundantly fulfilled in the days of Herod, and that to such a
degree, that the nation now at last seem sorely to repent of such their
ancient choice, in opposition to God's better choice for them, and
had much rather be subject to even a pagan Roman government, and their
deputies, than to be any longer under the oppression of the family of
Herod; which request of theirs Augustus did not now 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 t