Page images

ment. He supposes, that these two posts might then be annual ; that Annas was prince of the sanbedrim when Jobu the Baptist began bis ministry, and that Caiaphas was prince when our Saviour was crucified. And therefore St. Jolin says particularly, ch. xi. 49, 51, that Caiaplas was highpriest “ that same year :" but that afterwards, when Peter and John were called before the council, Annas, who is first named, [Acts iv. 6.] was prince, and Caiaphas father of the sanhedrim.h

Selden offers these thoughts as conjectures only. I hope, therefore, it will not be deemned presumption to be of another mind, or to offer some different thoughts upon this subject.

As Caiaphas was now in the office of the priesthood, when John the Baptist began his ministry, I suppose that Caiaphas is mentioned by St. Luke on account of the highpriesthood, and the civil authority joined with it; and that the Jewish government being at this time under the Romans aristocratical, Annas is mentioned, together with Caiaphas, as being the other chief person in the Jewish administration : but I am of opinion, that we have not sufficient light at present to determine what post of honour Annas was in, though that of prince of the sanhedrim be as likely as any. However, I cannot easily persuade myself, that during the Jews' subjection to the Romans, the prince of the sanhedrim, or any other Jew not in the high-priesthood, was equal, much less superior to him who enjoyed that office; unless when there was some Jewish prince appointed governor of the temple by the Roman emperor. If Josephus's authority be sufficient to decide this matter, it is plain the high-priest had the chief power in the Jewish nation under the Roinans:

• Hinc, si conjecturæ venia detur, existimârim, Annam et Caiapham pontifices simul a D. Lucà dictos, non quâ sacræ functionis dignitas illo nomine denotatur, sed quâ civilis eorum administratio, ut et cæterorum quibuscum conjunguntur, ad ipsum annum, de quo verba ibi fiunt, indicandum denotaretur. Scilicet Annam tunc fuisse synedrii principem, Caiapham vero ejusdem patrem. Ita demum cur Caiaphas, quem sacram dignitatem ipsam, velut Aharonis successorem, gessisse intervallo illo ex Josepho docemur, Annæ postponatur, ratio non inepta reddi potest. Etenim principi synedrii pater synedrii

semper secundarius. Sed vero nec principis nec patris synedrii munus semper perpetuum erat, sed ab alio ad alium, pro re natà translatum. Quod ex titulo Talmudico Horaijoth, cap. iii. aliisque magistrorum commentariis elicitur. Et forsan tunc temporis annuum erat. Atque illinc forsan altera illa quæstio de Caiaphæ pontificatu suo anno apud D. Joannem designato solvenda. Adeo ut anno Tiberii xv. seu in loco D. Lucæ, Annas esset princeps synedrii, Caiphas pater, anno vero passionis Annas pater, Caiaphas princeps; postmodum vero Annas, inter suos utpote eminentissimus, itidem princeps, et Caiaphas pater, ut in Actorum quarto. Selden, de Suc. in Pontif. lib. i. cap. 12.



this may be concluded from bence, that he has preserved the succession of the high-priests, and of them only, to the destruction of the temple. But if there had been, after the removal of Archelaus, any persons in an office of superior authority to the bigh-priest, be would have also given us their names : we should also, in all probability, have inet with some accounts, in his history, of the putting out of these officers by the Roman governors, when they did not belave to satisfaction. And indeed Josephus seems to me expressly to say, that the high-priest was the chief person in the Jewish vation under the Romans. Having at the conclusion of his Antiquities reckoned up the Jewish highpriests, he says : Some of these administered affairs under

Herod the king, and his son Archelaus : after their death • the administration was aristocratical, but the president• ship of the nation was conmitted to the high-priests."

Farther, I apprehend no mystery at all in the order in which these two persons are named by St. Luke. Ancient writers seem not to be very solicitous about the order in which they name persons who are near equal." I suppose that Caiaphas was at this time chief in dignity and authority in the government: but that nevertheless, there is no absurdity or impropriety in naming Annas tirst, inasmuch as he was father-in-law to Caiapbas, and was past the priesthood.

Il. It will perhaps be expected I should here say somewhat to a text of St. John, which has a relation to this matter, and which does appear at first to be a very difficult place. John xi. 49–52, “ And one of them named Caiaphas, being high-priestthat same year, said unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the

[ocr errors]

Και τινες μεν αυτων επολιτευσαντο επι τε Ηρωδε βασιλευοντος, και επι Αρχελας τα παιδος αυτό μετα δε την τατων τελευτην, αριστοκρατια μεν ην η πολιτεια, την δε προσασιαν το εθνες οι αρχιερεις πεπιςευοντο. Joseph. Αntig. lib. xx. cap. 9. fin.

Thus Herodotus says, that Cambyses was the son of Cyrus and Cassandana; and presently after, that he was son of this woman and Cyrus. Παρελαβε την βασιληϊην Καμβυσης, Κυρι εων παις και Κασσανδανης-ταυτης δε της γυναικος εων παις και Kups Kaußuons. Euterp. init. Josephus says, Herod had two sons by a Samaritan woman, namely, Antipas and Archelaus. Soon after Archelaus is mentioned first, ην δε και τα Σαμαρεων εθνος μια, και παιδες αυτη Αντιπας και Αρχέλαος-Αρχελαος δε και Αντιπας επι Ρωμης παρα τινι ιδιωτη τροφας Elyov. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 1. sect. 3. Josephus says again, that Herod called to the council at Berytus, Salome and Pheroras, De Bell

. I. i. c. 27. sect. 3. Afterwards Tero the old soldier complains to Herod, that he hearkened to Pheroras and Salome against his own sons, ib. sect. 4. Αρχιερευς ων το ενιαυτο εκεινη.



whole nation perish not. And this spake he, not of himself: but being high-priest that year, he prophesied, that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

There are here two things which need to be explained ; first, why Caiaphas is said to be high-priest “ that same year :" and secondly, what is meant by his “prophesying," being “ high-priest.

Some have thought, that the phrase, “ being high-priest that year,” implies that St. John supposed the high-priesthood' was annual; and upon this account they have been willing to charge him with a great mistake: for Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea ten years, and Caiaphas was put into the priesthood by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and continued in it till after Pilate's removal.' Sel. den thought, that by high-priest, is meant the chief man of that nation, and particularly the prince of the sanhedrim, which post might be at that time annual. For my own part, I think, “ that year" (as it ought to have been rendered, and as the same phrase is rendered, ver. 51, and not " that same year”) denotes no more than " at that time.” It is very common to put' years' and · days' in the plural number, for time. Ezek. xxxviii. 8, “ After many days thou shalt be visited : in the latter years thou shalt come into the Jand that is brought back from the sword,” &c. Mal. iii. 4, " Then shall the offerings of Judah be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in the former years." There are other texts perhaps more apposite to our purpose. Deut. xxvi. 3, “ And thou shalt go unto the priest that shall be in those days." Josh. xx. 6, “ And he 'shall dwell in that city, until the death of the bigh-priest that shall be in those days.Philo uses the word day in the singular number, in the same manner: speaking of the trial of jealousy, he says, the man and the woman shall go up to the temple, • and the man standing before the altar shall declare the • cause of his jealousy in the presence of him who is priest • at that" day.' All that St. John says therefore is, that Caiaphas was high-priest at that time, or the high-priest of that time. And if we ought to suppose any thing emphatical in the expression, [which yet I cannot see,] I apprehend it arises from the distance between the time of the event and the writing. St. Jobu writing his gospel a con

η Αλλα αρχιερευς ων το ενιαυτο εκεινα, προεφητευσεν.

η Και ο μεν ανηρ σας αντικρυ το βωμα, παροντος το κατ' εκεινην την ημερας ιερωμενο, δηλατω την υπονοιαν αμα. κ. λ. De Legibus Special. p. 785. C.

siderable time after the crucifixion of Jesus, when many might be supposed to be ignorant who was then high-priest; and there having been under the Romans frequent removals made in that office; it was natural enough for him to express this circumstance with some peculiar emphasis, or to inention it more than once,

The other difficulty to be considered lies in the words, “ being high-priest that year be prophesied.” Here I cannot perceive the sense of this observation, supposing, with Selden, high-priest to stand for prince of the saphedrim. By prophesying I understand in this place, declaring the event; which it was in a peculiar manner the office of the priest to do, when he was inquired of, or when God was inquired of° by him, concerning any important matters under deliberation. Thus Josepbus says: But the Philis' tines, when they heard that the Hebrews had made David • king, brought forth their army against him.—But the king P

of the Jews (for he allowed not himself to do any thing • without prophesy, and the command of God, and

assurance • of the event from him) required the high-priest to foretell • him, what was the will of God, and what would be the

issue of the battle. When he had prophesied victory and power, he led out his forces against the Philistines.' . And presently after, · The king of the Israelites inquiring again

of God, concerning the event of the battle, the high-priest • prophesied,' that he should do so and so, and then would have a sure and easy victory; referring to the story told 2 Sam. v. 22–25.

Let us now apply these remarks in a general paraphrase of this text of St. Jobn. Some of the council, of a different opinion from those whose words are recorded, ver. 48, having, as may be supposed, from considerations taken from the dispositions of the people, the temper of the Roinan gover

• " Then the king sent to call Abimelech the priest the son of Ahitub. And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse,--and hast inquired of God for him?" 1 Sam. xxii. 11-13. “ And David said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, ---Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard ? And the Lord said, he will come down," i Sam. xxiii. 9—11. “ And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets,” ch. xxviii. 6. Ρ ο δε των Ιεδαιων βασιλευς" εδεν γαρ ανευ προφητειας, και τα κελευσαι τον θεον, και περι των εσομενων λαβειν εγγυητην εκεινον, εαυτω ποιειν επετρεπεν, εκελευσε τον αρχιερεα, τι δοκει τω θεώ, και ποδαπον εσαι το της μαχης τελος, προλεγειν αυτή προφητευσαντος δε νικης και κρατος, εξαγει την δυναμιν επι τας Παλαισινες. Αnt. lib. vii. cap. 4. sect. 1.

9 Παλιν δε το βασιλεως των Ισραηλιτων ερομενε τον θεον, περι την μαχην εξοδε, προφητευει ο αρχιερευς, κ. λ. ibid.

[ocr errors]

nor, and other circumstances of their affairs, expressed some doubts about the success of a prosecution of Jesus, and the consequences of taking away his life: Caiapbas, who was * the high-priest at that time, when it came to his turn to • deliver bis opinion, said, You have hitherto talked very • weakly and ignorantly; you may proceed in the case be'fore you without hesitation. The taking away the life • of this man will be so far from being ruinous to the whole • nation in this couutry and in other parts, as some of you • fear, that it will be much for the advantage of the people • of God every where. This however he said, not inerely

of himself, but being then high-priest, he foretold the is• sue and event of their counsels, and of the death of Jesus : • and that its would come to pass that Jesus would die for • that nation, and not for that nation only, but that through • his death, he would also gather together in one the chil• dren of God which were scattered abroad.'




I COME now to consider the difficulty binted above, arising from the different names given by the evangelists and Josephus to the first busband of Herodias ; whom they call Philip, Josephus, Herod. I need not transcribe here the passages of the gospels, Matt. xiv, 3; Mark vi, 17; Luke iii. 19, or of Josephus, relating to this affair. If the reader will be pleased to look back b he will find what is sufficient for the purpose.

As Josephus, speaking of this unlawful marriage of Herod the tetrarch and Herodias, calls her first husband Herod; so it is certain, that according to him, Philip, whom St. Luke, ch. iii. 1, styles " tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis,” could not be the person : for Josephus says, that Herodias's daughter Salome was married to Philip,

Γ Υμεις οιδατε εδεν εδε διαλογιζεσθε ότι συμφερει υμιν, ίνα εις ανθρωπος αποθανη υπερ το λαό, και μη όλον το εθνος απoληται.

Προεφητευσεν ότι εμελλεν ο Ιησες αποθνησκειν υπερ το εθνους, κ. λ. a P. 19. note (Y).

b P. 19-21.


« PreviousContinue »