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 Czsarea (Belser). See Ho- bart, pp. 42, 43, Knabenbauer zn loco. The word was used of a disease of plants, but Luke, no less than his con- temporary 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 Schirer. 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 Quar- talschrift, p. 252 ff., 2¢ Heft, 1895; for a full examination ; cf. also Nésgen to the same effect, Apostelgeschichte, p. 242, Zahn, Einleitung,ii., 417. Belser should also be consulted as against Krenkel, Fosephus und Lucas, p. 203 ff. It should be noted that Krenkel does not affirm that Luke derived his material from Josephus in xii. 1-23, but only that he was influenced by the Jewish histor- ian, and that with regard to the hapax- legomenon, σκωληκόβρωτος, he can only affirm that Josephus affords us an analo- gous expression, B. ., vii., 8, 7.
Ver. 24. δὲ, marking the contrast, not