history, of the civil and sacred history of his country, and is generally allowed to be an accurate writer. He has expressly mentioned two epochs of the commencement of Herod's reign, and has given us an account of his death, and the duration of his government: he has written the history of the whole reign of this prince: he has related the series of events, and the succession of the princes and governors of Judea before and after Herod: he has put down the years of the Olympiads, and the names of the consuls, when some of the most remarkable of these events happened. Nor have all Roman and Greek historians been silent about Herod or his descendants, and the Jewish affairs, near this time; not to mention Talmudical, or other Jewish authors. And yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, whether through prejudice, or want of sufficient light, it has happened, that learned men have differed widely about the time of Herod's death, and are not yet come to a full agreement.

CHAP. IV.

OF ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS.

I. The difficulty relating to their being both high-priests at the same time considered. 11. Of Caiaphas being highpriest that year, in which Jesus was crucified.

I. WE have another objection against the account St. Luke gives of the government Judea was under, when John the Baptist began to preach. Ch. iii. 1, 2, "Now in the fif teenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judæa, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee;--Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests, the word of God came unto John.”

It is objected, that it appears from the books of the Old Testament, the writings of Josephus and other Jews, that there was but one high-priest among the Jews at a time: St. Luke therefore has been mistaken in saying, that Annas and Caiaphas were both high-priests.

Much has been written upon this subject, and learned

men have been of divers opinions. I hope I may be excused, if in this place I depart from the method I usually take in considering these objections, and do not set down all the sentiments of writers upon this point.

I shall here therefore do little more than deliver my own sentiments concerning this matter in a few particulars; which, I hope, will contain a sufficient answer to the objection.

1. It would be extremely unreasonable to impute to St. Luke so great a mistake, as the supposing, that there were properly two high-priests among the Jews at the same time. He appears in the rest of his history well acquainted with Jewish affairs. It is plain, that he knew very well there was one who was in the office of high-priest; ch. xxii. 50, "And one of them smote the servant of the highpriest."-54," Then took they him and led him, and brought him to the high-priest's house."

6

2. It is likely, that the power which the Jewish people were possessed of under the Romans, was lodged chiefly in the hands of two persons; and it may be supposed the Jews chose to have it so. When they had resolved upon the war with the Romans, Josephus says: They assembled in the temple, and appointed several generals; and Joseph the 'son of Gorion, and the high-priest Ananus, were chosen to be supreme governors of all things in the city.' I have not observed this passage quoted by any upon this occasion: whether it be material or not the reader will judge; but it has inclined me to suppose, that about this time there were usually among the Jews two persons, to whom the government was chiefly committed. I must however advertise the reader, that Ananus, here called high-priest, was not then in the office of the priesthood.

3. Since Caiaphas was now properly high-priest, and Annas had been so if the latter was now in some post of authority, they might be both said very properly to be highpriests at this time. Josephus often calls Saturninus and Volumnius presidents or governors of Syria, though Satur

b

C

a Vid. Baron. Ann. A. D. 31. num. 8.--Casaubon in Baron. Exerc. xiii. num. 5. Selden. de Success. in Pontif. lib. i. cap. 12. Hammond. Annot. cum multis aliis. Και συναθροισθεντες εις το ίερον, τρατηγός απεδειξαν τε πολεμε πλείονας ήρεθη δε Ιώσηπος υἱος Γωρίωνος, και ο αρχιερευς Ανανος, των τε κατα την πολιν άπαντων αυτοκράτορες, και μαλισα τα τείχη της πόλεως ανεγείρειν. De Bell. lib. ii. c. 20. sect. 3.

• Πολλακις μεν επι Σατορνίνον ελθοντα και Ουολεμνιον της Συρίας ἡγεμονας. Ant. lib. xvi. cap. 10. p. 741. v. 1, 2. Tog Kaιoupoç йyeμooiv Zareoνινῳ τε και Ουολεμνιῳ, ,επι τε Σατορνίνε και Ουολεμνιό των Συρίας επιτα THPTW ib. cap. 9. p. 734. v. 25, et 37.

ninus only was president, and Volumnius the emperor's procurator, that is, the officer that took care of the revenue.

6

There happened a disturbance between the Jews and the Samaritans in the reign of Claudius: Cumanus the procurator of Judea was not able to compose it; appeals were made to Quadratus president of Syria. He having punished several, sent two others of the most powerful men of the Jews, as also the high-priests Jonathan and Ananias, and Ananus the son of this last-mentioned person, and some ' other considerable men, to Cæsar.' I take this passage of Josephus (which has been often cited by learned men) to be very near parallel with St. Luke's.

Jonathan had been high-priest, but had been put out long before now by Vitellius: Ananias was now highpriest. In like manner, in the case in question, Annas had formerly been high-priest, but Caiaphas was now in that office.

I am the more inclined to think Josephus's style here parallel with St. Luke's, because it appears from another place, where Josephus mentions this affair, that Ananus, the third person named, was then captain of the temple. From whence I conclude, that the three persons here mentioned, were then in the three chief posts of the Jewish civil and sacred government. He speaks indeed of two others, whom he calls the most powerful of the Jews; but I apprehend they were so only in respect of their influence: it is reasonable to suppose, that the persons named were in the most eminent stations.

There is another particular in which these two passages are parallel: Jonathan, who had been high-priest, is named before Ananias, then in office: the two names stand in the same order in St. Luke. I suppose, that these propositions may afford a clear solution of this difficulty.

The learned Selden conjectures, that Annas and Caiaphas are not mentioned in this place by St. Luke, on account of any sacred function they discharged, but as they were the two persons who had then the chief authority under the Romans in the civil administration of the Jewish affairs: that Annas was now prince of the sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the father of it; and that therefore Annas is first named, as being in the more honourable station in the civil govern

4 Δυο δε έτερες των δυνατωτατων, και τες αρχιερεις Ιωνήθην και Ανανίαν, τον τε τοτε παιδα Ανανον,-ανεπεμψεν επι Καισαρα. De Bell. lib. ii. cap. XII. sect. 6. e Aut. lib. xviii. cap. 6. sect. 3. Ib. lib. xx. cap.

Ib. lib. xx. cap. 4. p. 886. v. 41. 5. p. 889. v. 36.

ment. He supposes, that these two posts might then be annual; that Annas was prince of the sanhedrim when John the Baptist began his ministry, and that Caiaphas was prince when our Saviour was crucified. And therefore St. John says particularly, ch. xi. 49, 51, that Caiaphas 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 deemed 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 Romans:

Hinc, si conjecturæ venia detur, existimârim, Annam et Caiapham pontifices simul a D. Lucâ 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 erat 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 hence, 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 high-priest, he would have also given us their names: we should also, in all probability, have met with some accounts, in his history, of the putting out of these officers by the Roman governors, when they did not behave to satisfaction. And indeed Josephus seems to me expressly to say, that the high-priest was the chief person in the Jewish nation 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 committed to the high-priests.'

6

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 first, inasmuch as he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and was past the priesthood.

II. 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-priest' that 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

i Και τινες μεν αυτών επολιτεύσαντο επι τε Ἡρωδε βασιλευοντος, και επι Αρχέλας το παιδος αυτο μετα δε την τέτων τελευτην, αρισοκρατία μεν ην ἡ πολιτεία, την δε προςασίαν το εθνες οἱ αρχιερείς πεπισεύοντο. Joseph. Antiq. 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. Παρέλαβε την βασιληίην Καμβυσης, Κυρά των παις και Κασσανδάνης ταύτης δε της γυναικός των παις και Kupa Kaußvons. Euterp. init. Josephus says, Herod had two sons by a Samaritan woman, namely, Antipas and Archelaus. Soon after Archelaus is mentioned first, ην δε κακ το Σαμαρέων εθνες μια, και παίδες αυτή Αντίπας και Αρχέλαος - Αρχέλαος δε και Αντιπας επι Ρωμης παρα τινι ιδιωτῇ τροφας exov. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 1. sect. 3. Josephus says again, that Herod called to the council at Berytus, Salome and Pheroras, De Bell. 1. 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.

1 Αρχιερευς ων τε ενιαυτό εκείνω.