Divers orders of ministers : an inquiry into the origins and early history of the ministry of the Christian church

Front matter

Exe

ade: Par

: t

Preface

AN apology is perhaps needed for adding another to the many books on the ministry of the Christian Church. The only excuse possible is a claim that it contains something not to be found in any of its predecessors. The writer hopes that this is not altogether untrue in the present instance, and that the essay puts forward many considerations not previously adduced. Indeed, whatever its merits otherwise, it is claimed that it gives in many ways a quite original view of the origins of the Christian ministry, which solves numerous problems, and it is hoped will prove to be not without value for the many discussions imminent at the present time. He would like to express his indebtedness to the many earlier works on the same subject, and particularly to Dr. Gore’s ‘The Church and the Ministry ’ (Longmans, Green & Co.). As arule the translations of the many passages from ancient writers quoted are not original, though in many places for the sake of the argument, or other reasons, it has been necessary, or desirable, to make alterations in the translation employed. For renderings of Jewish documents he is largely dependent on those published by S.P.C.K.: Danby’s ‘Sanhedrin,’ Lukyn-Williams’ ‘Berakoth,’ Oesterley’s ‘Pirke Aboth,’ Greenup’s * Sukkah,’ Levertoff’s ‘ Midrash Sifre’ on Numbers. He has also used Cohen’s Babylonian ‘ Berakoth ’ (Cambridge University Press), Rodkinson’s great translation of the Babylonian Talmud (New Talmud Publishing Company, Boston, vl PREFACE

U.S.A.), Friedlander’s ‘ Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer’ (Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co.), and Danby’s rendering of an extract from ‘Shabbath,’ given in Klausner’s Jesus of Nazareth ’ (George Allen & Unwin, and The Macmillan Company, New York). Much information was also found in the well-known works of John Lightfoot, Edersheim and Shiirer. Whiston’s translation of Josephus has commonly been used. For early Christian writers he is under obligation to Taylor’s ‘Teaching of the Apostles’ (Deighton, Bell & Co.), Charles’s ‘ Ascension of Isaiah’ (S.P.C.K.), Lightfoot’s ‘ Apostolic Fathers ’ for the works of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polyecarp and Hermas (Macmillan & Co.), Keble’s ‘ Irenzeus’ (Parker & Co.), Robinson’s ‘ Apostolic Preaching’ of Irenzeus (S.P.C.K.), Jackson’s ‘ Theodoret,’ Fremantle’s ‘ Jerome,’ Percival’s ‘ Canons of the (cumenical Councils’ (Parker & Co.), and Lawton and Oulton’s ‘ Eusebius’ (S.P.C.K.), each used in varying degrees. To all these, or their representatives, and their publishers, the writer wishes to express his thanks for permission generously given to make quotations, with apologies for any alterations he has been constrained to make for the purposes of the essay. Lastly, he desires to thank the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge for permission kindly given to quote from the Revised Version of the Bible where required, and he accepts entire responsibility for all deviations from it. Sometimes it has been necessary, to bring out a particular point, to make another translation, and sometimes to give a translation of the Septuagint.

Whenever possible the reader is advised to have copies of the original texts before him, full references being given. Otherwise the argument will necessarily be somewhat incomplete.

W. LocxtTon.

EASTER EVEN, April 19, 1980.

- CHAPTER

Prologue

. HicH PRIEST AND PROPHET

. THE ELDERS OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN . . THE ELDERS OF THE LESSER SANHEDRINS . THe RULERS OF THE SYNAGOGUES .

. THE DISCIPLES OF THE WISE .

. THE AUTHORITY OF THE METROPOLIS

. THE TRADITION OF THE SHEKINAH .

Part II In The New Testament

. THE ORGANISATION OF THE NEw KINGDOM oF Gop

. THE SPIRIT AND THE NEW ORGANISATION . . THE ORDER OF DEACONS . THE ORDER OF ELDERS .

54 73 89 95 1038

Vili CHAPTER

VI.

CONTENTS

THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM .

VII. THE MINISTRY IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

VIII.

VIII.

. THe EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . Tue First EPIstte oF St. PETER . . THe EPISTLES oF St. JOHN

. Tue APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN

Part III In The Early Church

. THE DIDACHE . THE EPISTLE OF CLEMENT . THe ‘SHEPHERD’ OF HERMAS.

. Paptas, HEGESIPPUS AND POLYCRATES :

I. PAprias II. HEGESIPPUS III. PotycratTes

. THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS . POLYCARP

. [IRENZUS

METROPOLITICAL CHURCHES : I. RoMeE .

IT. ALEXANDRIA Ill. ANTIOCH EPILOGUE

147 161 176

183 185 189 192 207 214

224 243 245 251

Part I Under The Old Covenant Prologue

‘Ir is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ So begins the Preface to ‘ The form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons, according to the order of the Church of England,’ in the Book of Common Prayer. Is the statement true? At every period in the history of the English church since it was first published in 1550 there have been men, either inside or outside the church, who have denied its truth, and never have they been more numerous, or more insistent in their negations than to-day. It may be well, therefore, to examine afresh the whole question from the beginning, if possible from a new point of view.

What was the scheme of organisation of the Christian church in its earliest days, in the time of the Apostles ? If we are to answer this question, we must first of all have a clear grasp of the organisation of the Jewish church in the time of our Lord. It is only in the light

B of knowledge of the organisation of the people of God under the old covenant that we can understand the significance of the different ranks of ministers in that of the new people of God under the new covenant.

For our inquiry we have three chief sources of information : the books of the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha, the writings of Josephus, and the tractates of the Talmud. The last can be used only with caution, for on many points the information given is true only of the period after the fall of Jerusalem, when the centre of the Jewish church was elsewhere than at Jerusalem. Critical views of the Old and New Testaments are not without their value, but we have to remember that the interpretations of passages of the Old Testament, which were regarded as authoritative by both Jewish and Christian writers, were not necessarily those of twentieth-century critics, even on points where there can be little doubt but that modern scholars are correct.

Chapter I High Priest And Prophet

WE will begin our inquiry with an extract from Josephus : ‘Let there be seven men to act as magistrates in each city, men exercised already both in virtue and in zeal for righteousness ; and to each magistracy let two men of the tribe of Levi be assigned as officers. And let those that are chosen to judge in the cities be held in the highest honour . . . for justice is the power of God. . . . But if these judges kriow not how to decide on matters submitted to them... let them send up the case undetermined to the holy city, and there let the high priest and the prophet and the senate come together, and decide what seems good to them.’ +

It will be useful to consider the last words first. The reference to ‘ the high priest and the prophet ’ has given rise to considerable discussion, and some have supposed that a duumvirate, of which however there is no other real evidence, is intended, and a lay assessor to the high priest is postulated, ‘ the judge ’ as well as ‘ the priest ’ being mentioned in Deuteronomy (xvii. 9, 12). Rather, it would seem, the high priest is himself the prophet. He is mentioned in his double capacity. The prophetic office was, indeed, the primary office of the Jewish high priest. The special prerogative of the priesthood was the possession of the Urim and Thummim. In the blessing of Moses we read, ‘ And of Levi he said, Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy godly one... . They shall teach Jacob thy judgements, and Israel thy

1 Ant. Iv. viii. 14.

law’ (Deut. xxxiii. 8, 10). Of Joshua it is said, ‘He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgement of the Urim before the Lord : at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation ’ (Num. xxvii. 21). The clearest example of the use of Urim and Thummim is to be found in the story of Saul who asked counsel of God by the priest Ahijah. The Hebrew text has been mutilated, but in Lucian’s recension we read, ‘ And Saul said, O Lord, the God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urim; and if thou sayest thus: The iniquity is in the people, give Thummim. And the lot fell upon Saul and Jonathan, and the people escaped. And Saul said: Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son, and on whomsoever the Lord shall cause the lot to fall, let him die’ (I. Sam. xiv. 41-42).

The use of Urim and Thummim was akin to the method of casting the lot which was employed when the land was divided among the tribes, Joshua and Eleazar acting together. ‘And these are the inheritances which the children of Israel took in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed unto them, by the lot of their inheritance, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses’ (Jos. xiv. 1-2). The same method of the lot was used when the twenty-four courses of priests were arranged. ‘And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron ; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. ... Of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses ; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight. Thus were they divided by lot,

ne sort with another’ (I. Chron. xxiv. 1, 4-5). According to the Talmud the same method was adopted when

HIGH PRIEST AND PROPHET 8 the four courses which returned from the captivity were divided into twenty-four. ‘Four courses of service came back from the exile, namely, Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer. . . . Then the prophets that were among them arose and made twenty-four lots, and put them into an urn. And Jedaiah came and drew five lots... .’1 We notice that those in charge of the lot are called prophets.

At one time we are told God refused to answer by the sacred lot. ‘ And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets’ (I. Sam. xxviii. 6). The use of Urim and Thummim was an official act of prophecy limited to the high priest. After the captivity Urim and Thummim were among the things absent from the second temple, so that the fulness of the high priestly office was impaired. We read in Ezra (ii. 63), and also in Nehemiah (vil. 65), ‘And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim’ (cf. I. Esd. v. 40). In the first book of the Maccabees instead of the high priest with Urim and Thummim we read of his equivalent the prophet. * And they pulled down the altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the house in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to give an answer concerning them’ (iv. 45-46). ‘The Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet ’ (xiv. 41).

The high priest with Urim and Thummim is a prophet. Yet the word has a wider significance. We carry our thoughts back to a period before the institution of the Aaronic priesthood. ‘The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken’ (Deut. xviii. 15). Moses was a prophet and

1 Jer. Taanith, iv. fol. 68.

more than a prophet. ‘If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all mine house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of the Lord shall he behold ’ (Num. xii. 6-8). ‘ Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp, afar off from the camp ; and he called it, The tent of meeting. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tent of meeting, which was without the camp. ... And it came to pass, when Moses entered into the tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the tent, and the Lord spake with Moses. . . . And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend ’ (Exod. xxxiii. 7,9, 11). The glory before the Lord is identical with the glory of mount Sinai. ‘ And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face sent forth beams by reason of his speaking with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face sent forth beams; and they were afraid to come nigh him... . And when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out; and he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded; and the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face sent forth beams: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him ’ (Exod. xxxiv. 29-30, 33-35).

To hold communion with God is the highest privilege of priesthood, and so Moses is not only a prophet but a priest. ‘Moses and Aaron among his priests... . They called upon the Lord, and he answered them’

HIGH PRIEST AND PROPHET 7

(Ps. xcix.6). It is Moses who performed the priestly act at the covenant sacrifice of Sinai. ‘ And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar’ (Exod. xxiv. 6). A teaching ascribed to the child Samuel in the Babylonian Talmud says, ‘It is written, The priests shall present the blood (Lev. i. 5). From the receiving of the blood onwards is the function of the priesthood.’4 Not only Aaron but Moses also founded a line of priests, ‘ And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land ’ (Jud. xviii. 30). The priesthood of Moses was original; the priesthood of Aaron was derived, delegated from Moses. At first the people inquired of God at the tent by Moses, not by Aaron or Eleazar. The Urim and Thummim belong originally to Moses, and he gives them to Aaron. ‘ And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgement the Urim and the Thummim’ (Exod. xxviii. 30). ‘And he placed the breastplate upon him: and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim’ (Lev. viii. 8). When Moses came out from the presence of God we are told that his face was horned with light (Exod. xxxiv. 29-85). Aaron, too, according to the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, was girded about ‘ with the horns of glory’ (xlv. 7). The priesthood of Aaron is to be regarded as a delegation and continuation of that of Moses, isolated from the other functions which Moses had been called to perform. When in later days Simon became ‘leader and high priest ’ (I. Mac. xiv. 41), there was a recombination of the functions of Moses and Aaron.

The prophecy of Deuteronomy was, ‘ The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye _ shall hearken ’ (xviii. 15). The reference must be to a prophet-priest, among other things the founder of a new nae priestly dynasty in virtue of his prophetic

powers, and privilege of communion with God. In the message of the man of God to Eli we find a similar prophecy to that of Deuteronomy. ‘And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind ’ (I. Sam. ii. 85). If we read the account of sacrificial customs at Shiloh, and compare the enactments of Deuteronomy xviii., we notice an affinity, and they cannot well be entirely independent. It is commonly supposed that the story of Samuel has been worked over at a later date by a Deuteronomist, but it would seem to be equally true that the writer of Deuteronomy xviii. had I. Samuel ii. in mind, and presumably before the Deuteronomist had converted the prophecy of a faithful priest, which must originally have been intended to refer to Samuel, into a prophecy relating to Zadok and his house (11. 35b; ef. ii. 10b).

Samuel certainly performed priestly functions. Three times we are told that as a child he ministered before, or unto the Lord (ii. 11, 18, ili. 1), and the verb is that commonly used of the service of the priests in the temple. He offers sacrifice (vii. 9-10), and leads in worship (xv. 30-31), he anoints both Saul (x. 1) and David (xvi. 13) king. Yet he is certainly a prophet, and is recognised as such from childhood. ‘And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was found faithful to be a prophet of the Lord ’ (iii. 20). He is both faithful priest and faithful prophet. Both prophecies are fulfilled in him. ‘I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind’ (ii. 35). ‘I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him’ (Deut. xviii. 18).

At a later period another fulfilment of the two prophecies is to be found in Elijah, another prophet-priest to whom the word of the Lord came (I. Kings

HIGH PRIEST AND PROPHET 9 xviii. 1), who offers sacrifice (xvill. 32-83, 36-38) and anoints kings (xix. 15-16) and restores the worship of Jehovah (xviii. 19-40).

Now we understand the statements of the first book of the Maccabees. ‘And they pulled down the altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the house in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to give an answer concerning them’ (iv. 45-46). ‘The Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet’ (xiv. 41). The disposal of the stones of the altar and the settlement of the high priesthood in the family of Simon were only provisional, until a prophet-priest like Moses, like Samuel and Elijah, should arise, who by virtue of a special revelation would reform the worship of Jehovah and set up a new high priestly dynasty. The connexion between the prophetic and high priestly office is intimate. A member of the Aaronic line is a prophet by virtue of his priesthood. Certain of the prophets were priests by virtue of the gift of prophecy.

The connexion between the high priesthood and prophecy is found in each period of Jewish history. In the gospel of St. John we read, ‘ Now this he said not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation’ (xi. 51). In the tractate ‘Shebuoth’ we read, ‘ Extensions are added to both city and courtyard (of the temple) only in the presence of a king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, and of the great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one, two thankofferings and the chorus.’! The high priest was not included in the Sanhedrin, for we are told, ‘ A tribe, - a false prophet, or a high priest can only be tried by a court of seventy-one judges.’? ‘ Urim and Thummim ’ cannot here be used as a synonym for the high priest, for, when distinguished, the high priest takes precedence of a prophet. ‘A high priest has the preference to a

1 ji. 1, 2 Sanhedrin, i. 5, prophet: And let Zadok the priest with Nathan the prophet (I. Kings 1. 34); hence the priest precedes the prophet.’1 Again we are told, ‘ Abba Saul said, There were two valleys on the olive mountain, an upper and a lower one; the lower one was sanctified strictly in the manner prescribed by the Mishnah, while the upper one was sanctified only by the ascendants from the exile, in the absence of both king and Urim and Thummim.’? Urim and Thummim were certainly absent after the captivity (Ezra ii. 68; Neh. vii. 65), but not the high priest, so that again one cannot stand for the other. The ‘ prophet,’ therefore, must be the person who bears the Urim and Thummim, and so must be identical with the high priest. If this be true in the Talmud, it is not improbably true in the passage from Josephus, ‘ Let the high priest and the prophet and the senate come together, and decide what seems good to them.’? ‘The high priest’ is ‘ the prophet,’ and ‘ the high priest and the prophet’ refers only to one man in his two capacities.

1 Bab. Horayoth, iii. 6, ed. Rodkinson, p. 25. 2 Shebuoth, ii. 1, p. 21; Sanh., T. iii. 4. 3 Ant. Iv. viii. 14.

Chapter II The Elders Of The Great Sanhedrin

At this point Josephus does not say how many judges are included in the senate. Yet when he was appointed governor of Galilee he appoints a council of seventy, imitating presumably the sanhedrin of Jerusalem. * He chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee, as he chose seven judges in every city to hear the lesser quarrels; for as to the greater causes, and those wherein life and death were concerned, he enjoined they should be brought to him and the seventy elders.’1 In his ‘ Life’ he says, ‘So I was willing to have the principal of the Galileeans, in all seventy, as hostages for their fidelity, but still under the notion of friendship. Accordingly I made them my friends and companions as I journeyed, and set them to judge causes ; and with their approbation it was that I gave my sentences.’* The Zealots likewise set up a similar tribunal. ‘ And now these Zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose. . .. So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men ~ of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. ... Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict, that the person accused was not guilty.’ ®

As early as the first years of the Babylonian captivity Ezekiel speaks of ‘seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel’ at Jerusalem (viii. 11). Seventy was the favourite number among the Jews for the members of a council or similar body, presumably as possessing special divine sanction. The great sanhedrin of Jerusalem consisted of seventy or seventy-one members. The tractate ‘Sanhedrin’ says, ‘The great sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, and the lesser of twenty-three. Whence do we know that the great sanhedrin should consist of seventy-one ? It is written, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel (Num. xi. 16). These with Moses make seventy-one. R. Jehuda holds that there should be seventy only.’ 1} The reference is to the appointment of the seventy elders by Moses in the wilderness. ‘* And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them. . . . And he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent. And the Lord came down in the cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders ’ (Num. xi. 16, 24-25).

A similar number, we remember, was selected, according to the tradition, for the translation of the Old Testament into Greek. In the letter of Demetrius to Ptolemy we read, ‘If then it please thee, O king, thou mayest write to the high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are most skilful in the laws.’? So likewise in the letter of Ptolemy to Eleazar, ‘ Thou wilt therefore do well to choose out and send to me men of a good character, who are now elders in age, and six in number out of every tribe. These by their age must be skilful in the laws, and of abilities to make an accurate interpretation ofthem.’* So, too, Kleazar wrote to Ptolemy :

1 Sanh. i, 6. 2 Josephus, Ant. xu. ii. 4. MIS 1G

‘We have chosen six elders out of every tribe, whom we have sent, and the law with them.’! Yet Josephus speaks of them as seventy only: * It does not seem to me to be necessary to set down the names of the seventy elders who were sent by Eleazar.’? ‘And Ptolemy heard that they were come, and that the seventy elders were come also.’

In our Lord’s time the sanhedrin consisted of high priests, elders and scribes. According to Josephus the high priests were the actual high priest, ex-high priests, and other members of the high priestly families. A passage in the ‘ Wars of the Jews’ makes it plain that sons of high priests are themselves also called high priests: ‘Some also there were who, watching for a proper opportunity when they might quietly get away, fled to the Romans, of whom were the high priests Joseph and Jesus, and of the sons of the high priests three, whose father was Ishmael, who was beheaded in Cyrene, and four sons of Matthias, as also one son of the other Matthias, who ran away after his father’s death, and whose father was slain by Simon, the son of Gioras, with three of his sons, as I have already related : many also of the other nobility went over to the Romans, together with the high priests.’* This view is confirmed by Acts: ‘And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest ’ (iv. 5-6). A little later they are summarised as ‘ the high priests and the elders ’ (iv. 28).

The court which tried the apostles, we are told, was no local sanhedrin, but the great sanhedrin of the nation. ‘The high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, even all the senate of the children of Israel’ (v. 21). Ina speech attributed to St. Paul, St. Luke uses the term

‘presbytery,’ meaning apparently the whole council, and not merely those whom he calls elders: ‘ The high priest doth bear me witness, and all the presbytery ’ (Acts xxii. 5). The same thought, presumably, was in his mind when he began a sentence in the gospel, though afterwards, realising that the word might be taken in a more restricted sense, as referring to ‘ elders’ only, he adds a reference to ‘the chief priests and _ scribes.’ ‘The presbytery of the people was gathered together, and the chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council’ (Luke xxi. 66). The chief priests and scribes, being members of the presbytery in the wider sense, are properly speaking elders, as follows also from the precedent for the sanhedrin adopted in the Talmud, the seventy elders appointed by Moses in the wilderness. Yet they are not explicitly called ‘ elders’ in the New Testament, the designation being limited to those members of the sanhedrin who are neither chief priests nor scribes. Frequently all three groups of members are mentioned: ‘the elders and chief priests and scribes ’ (Matt. xvi. 21; Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22), ‘the chief priests and the elders and the scribes ’ (Mark xiv. 58, xv. 1). St. Luke speaks also of the ‘ principal men’ instead of the ‘elders,’ ‘ the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people ’ (xix. 47). Sometimes only two of the three groups are named: ‘the chief priests and the elders of the people’ (Matt. xxi. 23, xxvi. 3, 47, xxvii. 1), ‘the chief priests and the elders of the Jews ’ (Acts xxv. 15), ‘the chief priests and elders’ (Matt. xxvii. 3, 12, 20, XXvill. 11-12; Acts iv. 23, xxiii. 14), ‘ the chief priests and principal men of the Jews’ (Acts xxv. 2), ‘the chief priests and scribes of the people’ (Matt. ii. 4). Clearly, however, the whole council is not intended in every instance.