καὶ 4 διακόνοις " 2. Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν
mous with πρεσβύτερος. Two points are clear from ΝΤ. evideeme: δ The ἐπί- σκοπος is, at least, often the same per- son as the πρεσβύτερος. 2. The ἐπίσκ. is concerned with shepherding the flock of God. Have we any information to corroborate these facts? As to the first there is the strong tradition of the early Church, ¢.g., Jerome, Ep., 69, 3: apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri ; there is the admitted fact that in r Clem. the name πρεσβύτεροι is given to the ἐπί- σκοποι; and Tertullian (Apologet., 39) designates the officials who preside over the congregation probati quique seniores ; see esp. F. Loofs, SK., 1890, pp. 639-641. The second fact mentioned above conflicts with the celebrated theory of Hatch and Harnack (who has, however, greatly modified his standpoint ; see his important review of Loening’s Die Gemeindever- fassung des Urchristenthums in Th, LZ., 1889, coll. 418-429), that the ἐπίσκοποι were distinct finance and cultus officials, who only gradually came into possession of more spiritual functions, But it seems hazardous to narrow down the duties of the ἐπίσκ. No doubt the name may, in certain cases, have been μυ by that of the ἐπίσκοπος or (more com- monly) ἐπιμελητής, who exercised ad- ministrative control over the property of private associations and guilds exist- ing at. that time in the Hellenic world and enforced the rules of such associa- a (see J. Réville, Les Origines de l'Episcopat, Paris, 1894, pp. 160-163). But just as the functions of these persons were left comparatively vague and unde- fined, so we might expect to find the beginnings of local administration in the Christian Church still less clearly marked. An additional reason for this would lie in the pre-eminent authority of the Apostles and the high place assigned to the pos- sessors of ‘‘ gifts”. Accordingly it ap- pears wise to use great caution in makin any distinction between πρεσβυτ. ο Probably the truth lies in the direction of regarding πρεσβ. as a title of status, while ἐπίσκ. is one of function. Probably all ἐπίσκοποι were πρεσβύ- τεροι, while the converse may not be true. The difference of name may point tosome early (and unknown) difference of admin- istration. The ἐπίσκ. may have had some special connexion with the celebra-
2—4.
a a a ‘ af ΄ - , 3. “Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ µου ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ ᾿μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, 4. πάντοτε © ἐν πάσῃ “δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν
Viii. 25; Inscrr. num. exx. in LXX.
1So edd. with NABDcE**KLP, vg. syrr. cop. ημων D*E*FG, d, e, f, g, Ambrst., Cassiod. ‘ Zahn (Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1885, p. 184) would
“ego quidem” already omitted.