Acts 12:23

παραχρῆμα, see above, p. 106. ἐπάταξεν, cf. Exod. 11:23, 2Sa 24:17, 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Isaiah 37:36 1Ma 7:41. See p. 188. On the confusion in the reading of Eusebius, H.E., ii., 10, where for the owl whom Josephus describes as appearing to Herod as ἄγγελος κακῶν we have the reading “the angel” of the Acts, the unseen minister of the divine will, see B.D. 1 2, p. 1345, and Eusebius, Schaff and Wace's edition, in loco; see also Bengel's impressive note on this verse on the difference between human history and divine. ἀνθʼ ὧν = ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι, cf. Luke 1:20; Luke 19:44, see also Acts 12:3; only once outside St. Luke's writings in N.T., 2 Thessalonians 2:10; see Simcox, Language of N. T., p. 137; Plummer on Luke 1:20; Luke 12:3; quite classical and several times in LXX. ἔδωκε τὴν δ.: debitum honorem, cf. Isaiah 48:11; Revelation 19:7; article elsewhere omitted (cf. Luke 17:18); a Hebrew phrase. How different the behaviour of St. Peter and of St. Paul, Acts 10:26; Acts 14:14. Josephus expressly says that the king did not rebuke the flatterers or reject their flattery. καὶ γενόμ. σκ.: see below. St. Luke does not say that Herod died on the spot, but simply marks the commencement of the disease, παραχρῆμα; Josephus describes the death as occurring after five days. Wendt (1899 edition) admits that the kind of death described may well have been gradual, although in 1888 edition he held that the ἐξέψυξεν meant that he expired immediately; see also Zöckler and Hackett, as against Weiss. ἐξέψ., see on Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10. σκωλ.: only here in N.T.; no contradiction with Josephus, but a more precise description of the fatal disease, cf. 2Ma 9:5; 2Ma 9:9, with which detailed and strange account the simple statement of the fact here stands in marked contrast. The word cannot be taken metaphorically, cf. Herod., iv., 205: and Jos., Ant., xvii., 6, 5, of the death of Herod the Great. Such a death was regarded as a punishment for pride; so in 2 Macc. and Herod., Farrar, St. Paul. i. 318. The term itself was one which we might expect from a medical man, and St. Luke may easily have learnt the exact nature of the disease during his two years residence in Cæsarea (Belser). See Hobart, pp. 42, 43, Knabenbauer in loco. The word was used of a disease of plants, but Luke, no less than his contemporary Dioscorides, may well have been acquainted with botanical terms (Vogel). To think with Baur and Holtzmann of the gnawing worm of the damned is quite opposed to the whole context. If we place the two narratives, the account given by Josephus and that given by St Luke side by side, it is impossible not to see their general agreement, and none has admitted this more unreservedly than Schürer. On reasons for the silence of Josephus as to the death as a punishment of the king's impiety in contrast with the clear statement of St. Luke; and also on the whole narrative as against the strictures of Spitta, see Belser, Theologische Quartalschrift, p. 252 ff., 2 e Heft, 1895; for a full examination; cf. also Nösgen to the same effect, Apostelgeschichte, p. 242, Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 417. Belser should also be consulted as against Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, p. 203 ff. It should be noted that Krenkel does not affirm that Luke derived his material from Josephus in Acts 12:1-23, but only that he was influenced by the Jewish historian, and that with regard to the hapax-legomenon, σκωληκόβρωτος, he can only affirm that Josephus affords us an analogous expression, B. J., vii., 8, 7.