The Expository Times http://ext.sagepub.

com/

Caiaphas: Reflections on a High Priest

Helen K. Bond The Expository Times 2002 113: 183 DOI: 10.1177/001452460211300602 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ext.sagepub.com/content/113/6/183.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Expository Times can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ext.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

I83

Caiaphas: Reflections on a High Priest

By DR HELEN K. BOND University of Edinburgh, Scotland

four gospels agree that Jesus was interrogated twice: first in the house of the JL Jewish High Priest and subsequently at the headquarters of the Roman prefect. Despite the
historical difficulties with these accounts - and there are plenty of them! - most scholars are confident that two men were involved in the fateful events which led up to the first Good Friday: the Jewish High Priest Joseph Caiaphas and the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. Of these two men it is Pontius Pilate who has
1

shadowy figure? To find an answer we need to turn to the rhetoric of the synoptic gospels.
Caiaphas in the Gospels
Vlriting at the time when Judaism and Christianity

beginning to emerge as separate faiths, the gospels reflect the pain, anger and bitterness between the two groups. Although most of his congregation were now Gentile Christians, Marks Jewish trial narrative still mirrors this hostility. With great literary and dramatic flair, the evangelist constructs
were
an elaborate courtroom scene in which represennatives of the entire Jeyish leadership are gathered to try Jesus: chief priests, elders, scribes, the whole council (r4:55~ 64; 15:1). But it is a kangaroo court in which every rule of justice is broken and the judges turn out to be corrupt, base men (rq.:53, 65). The scene is heavily ironic: when Jesus openly affirms that he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, he is immediately condemned by the whole council. The Jewish leadership rejects Gods Messiah and, in so doing, sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to its own rejection (i2.:i-i2.). Mark gives this terrible scene an almost timeless quality. As far as he and his church were concerned, official Jewish rejection did not come to an end with the death of Jesus but continued into their own day. For Mark, it is the Jewish leadership in its entirety which is to be rejected by God. It is perfectly in keeping with this that the gospel never once gives Caiaphas name, but refers to him only by his function as High Priest. (The abrupt way in which he introduces Pilate in the next chapter shows that his readers were well aware of the dramatis personae). Marks High Priest represents all High Priests, all official Jewish opposition to the new faith. Luke condensed Marks courtroom drama quite considerably. He knew Caiaphas name,3 but chose not to single out the High Priest for special mention

captured popular imagination. All down the ages from the apocryphal writers of antiquity, through early Christian artists, mediaeval folklorists and dramatists, to modern novelists and politicians Pilates struggle with the Truth has spoken to every generation. While Eastern Christianity has tended to be sympathetic towards Pilate, focusing on his attempt to acquit Jesus, and elevating him (in the Coptic church) to sainthood, Western Christianity judged him harshly, blaming him for his weakness, and delighting in devising gruesome accounts of his untimely demise. Even today the memory of Pilate lives on when we routinely speak of washing our
hands of a difficult matter. But what about Jesus other judge, Caiaphas? Although he achieved some notoriety in the mediaeval passion plays, Christian artists were slow to portray Caiaphas and writers of apocalyptic works had little interest in speculating on his later life. Today, few people outside church circles would even recognize his name. Vlhy is it that the Roman knight has excited a great deal of interest while the oriental priest has not? Why has Caiaphas become such a

exception is, of course, J. D. Crossan who passion narratives as Christian reflections on their Scriptures. See, most recently, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (I996). This claim, however, has been one
I

A notable

the Hebrew
sees

of the most contested aspects of his work. On the historical Pilate see H. K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (1998); for later traditions see A. Wroe, Pilate: The Biography of an Invented Man (I999).
2

3 3:1, Acts 4:6 - though both these references seem to imply that Luke erroneously thought that Annas was the High

Priest.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

I84

during the trial. Instead, Jesus is condemned by an assembly of the people ... both chief priests and scribes (zz:66). Matthew, on the other hand, did name the High Priest as Caiaphas within his trial narrative {z6:3, 57); but he made another addition
the story which was to have terrible consequences. In response to Pilates declaration of his own
to

a boy, Caiaphas would have been educated in Jewish scriptures: he would have learnt to read and write in Hebrew, committed large portions of the sacred text to memory, and learnt the principles of Sadducean interpretation.6 The mastery of Greek

As

the

innocence, all the people accept responsibility for

Jesus death with the cry: his blood be on us and on our children (2.7:2.~). Matthews account subtly
diverts responsibility from the Jewish leadership to the Jewish people. As far as the Synoptic writers were concerned, the precise identity of the High Priest was irrelevant: those who passed Jesus over to Rome were the Jews. Later Christian speculation took its lead from the gospels and revelled in seeing the destruction of Jerusalem as the punishment of the Jews&dquo;. This process, of course, had disastrous results for subsequent generations of Jews, but it also meant that interest in Caiaphas as an individual was lost.

Caiaphas the mall

What do we know about this man, Joseph Caiaphas? And what did he have against Jesus? It is well to admit at the outset that our sources for any aspect of first-century history are relatively scanty. Flavius Josephus, archaeology, and rabbinic literature all offer clues which together help us to build up some kind of outline of Caiaphas life. Yet, inevitably, large gaps remain, gaps which can only be filled through informed guesswork, speculation and, when all else

fails, imagination. Joseph Caiaphas was born some time during the long reign of Herod 1 (37-4 BCE). Tradition maintains that he
was

from Beth

Meqoshesh, a village in

essential element in the training of a from a good family in first-century Jerusalem. He would have been brought up with a strong sense of his position in society, and an awareness of the honour and status that such a position demanded. Yet education, then as now, was not confined to books and the young mans studies would have been furthered by observing political events around him. He had first hand experience of the reign of Herod I. Whatever his excesses, paranoia, and iron control, Herods pro-Roman policies had at least kept Judaea free from Roman troops. To that degree, at least, it could be said to have been a success. But the old Kings death plunged the country into chaos in 4 BCE, and revolt reared its head again after Archelaus deposition in 6 CE. Both times were characterized not only by the emergence of rebels and brigands, but also by messianic agitators, stirring the people with apocalyptic hopes of Gods deliverance of their land from the hated Gentiles. Caiaphas would have seen the brutality of Rome, heard of the devastation wrought by the legions in Galilee, and experienced at first hand the threat of Roman troops marching into the Jerusalem Temple.7 All these experiences were sure to have left their mark on the young mans political outlook as he took his first hesitant steps in the world of public life and diplomacy. At some point in his career, Caiaphas entered into an advantageous marriage. His father-in-law was one of the most prominent and respected men of his
was

also

an

young

man

vicinity of Jerusalem.4 We dont know anything more about the origins of his family, though it is clear that by the first century it was wealthy, aristocratic, and - we can assume - intensely proud of its High Priestly lineage.5
I:I0. See further D. Flusser, Caiaphas Testament, Atiqot 2I(I992), 8I-87 and R. Reich, Ossuary Inscriptions from the "Caiaphas Tomb", Atiqot 2I (I992), 72-77.
4

the

Tosefta Yevamot

in the New

Antiquities 20.247 is often cited as evidence, but is really a lament by the pro-Hasmonaean Josephus that Herod no longer appointed Hasmonaeans to the High Priesthood. Herods first appointment was a Zadokite ( Antiquities I5.40) and, in the absence of any other evidence, it is quite possible that the others were too. See G. Baumbach, The Sadducees in Josephus in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. L. Feldman and G. Hata),
pp. I73-I95. 6 No ancient writer

specifically

links

Caiaphas with the

Although the standard reference works all assert that the High Priests appointed by Rome were non-Zadokite, there is actually no evidence for this assumption. Criticisms of the illegality of the priesthood from Qumran are all directed at the Hasmonaean incumbents who were clearly not Zadokites.
5

Sadducees, but Josephus tells us his brother-in-law Ananus was a Sadducee (Antiquities 20.I99) and it is reasonable to
suppose that the whole clan of Annas
was
7

(including Caiaphas)

of a Sadducean outlook. See Josephus, War 2.39-II8,

Antiquities I7.200-I8.I0.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

I85
Annas of the New the first High Priest appointed by Rome in 6 CE. He held office for nine years himself and was succeeded by five of his sons

day - Ananus

son

of Sethi
was

(the

Testament). Annas

and perhaps his grandson (Antiquities 20.197). In the first phase of direct Roman rule (6-41 CE) his family held a virtual monopoly on the High Priesthood. Even when he was no longer High Priest, Annas seems to have been a formidable power to be reckoned with, and was perhaps instrumental in securing the High Priesthood for Caiaphas in i81i9 CE.

highest national leader and the supreme head of the Jewish cult. Herod did not lay claim to the High Priesthood but, perhaps sensing that the post had acquired a certain amount of political clout during the Hasmonaean era, took pains to keep it firmly
under his thumb. He took it upon himself to appoint and depose High Priests at will; favoured little known Diaspora families; and kept the sacred High Priestly vestments under his own control in the Antonia Fortress. Rome, however, took a less restrictive approach, and over the course of the next few decades many of Herods innovations were gradually eroded, allowing Jewish authorities greater autonomy over religious affairs.&dquo; The High Priesthood was still adapting to the new political situation when Caiaphas was appointed. His first duty was to make sure that the Temple cult ran smoothly and efficiently, and that the delicate compromise by which Rome allowed the vast Temple complex to run unhindered was maintained. He might well have also engaged in politics, particularly when issues concerning the Temple were at stake. In such cases his authority made him the natural spokesman for the rest of the nobility. He was, however, under no compulsion to be politically active, and the office itself did not automatically bestow leadership on its incumbent.,,, Some High Priests were presumably more interested, or better able, to engage in leadership roles than others. History has judged these Sadducean High Priests

Caiaphas the High Priest The early first century must have been a challenging time for a newly appointed High Priest. The Romans chose to make their headquarters not in the holy city of Jerusalem but in Caesarea on Sea in the far MV of the province. (The citys Gentile character and close connections with major transport routes made it more congenial to the governor.) The dayto-day running of the province and mediation between the governor and the people was left in the hands of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem. These men were drawn from a variety of backgrounds - the lay nobility, aristocratic priestly families, and a group known as the chief priests (consisting of former High Priests and their families). What role a fixed council (known as the Sanhedrin or Boule) played in
Jewish
government is highly disputed.9 In practice, members of the nobility seem to have acted through ad hoc coalitions and alliances. In keeping with the spirit of the age, disputes were settled and deals were made through diplomacy, negotiation and compromise. To qualify for such a task, a man had to be able to command - and maintain - the respect of both Rome and the Jewish people.10 Of central importance in this aristocracy was the High Priesthood, a post which had changed a great deal over the last few decades. Under the Hasmonaeans, the High Priesthood had been combined with Kingship: one man acted as both the
8

extremely harshly. They are routinely labelled as collaborators, self-seeking quislings, and assumed to have been lacking in any true religious sentiment.13
for this caricature is presumably wariness of the priesthood and an abhorrence of the sacrificial cult which was these mens raison ditre.
Part of the a modern
reason

(especially Protestant)

John I8:I3

is the

only evidence for this connection, but it

is not

improbable. Luke also assumes a close link between the

two men.
9 The existence of this institution is doubted by a number of scholars. See, for example, M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea (1987), pp. II3-II8, and E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE-66 CE (I992), pp. 472-490. On the composition and workings of this aristocracy see J. S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine (I99I).
I0

II For example, the High Priestly vestments were given back into Jewish custody in 37 CE, and Herodian rulers were allowed to appoint their own High Priests from 4 I onwards. Rome also appears to have allowed Jewish authorities to punish Gentile trespassers in the Temple, and exempted the Jewish tax convoys from the usual restrictions (Philo, Legatio 3 II3I6; Cicero, Pro Flacco 26.67). On the Roman separation of state and religion see D. R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish

Background of Christianity (I992). D. W. Rooke, Zadoks Heirs (zooo), J. S. McLaren, Power and Politics, p. 203. I3 See in particular, P. Gaechter, The Hatred of the House of Annas, TS 8 (1947), pp. 3-34.
I2

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

I86

Another reason for their bad press is perhaps that the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, have no modern successors with an interest in rehabilitating them. We do not have any written records from the

It is within this framework that

we

need

to see

Sadduccees, only negative parodies penned by outsiders who charge them with being rude, arrogant, harsh in judgement, and conservative.4 Their own words might have told a different story. They might have told us that for the Sadducees the most important thing was to maintain the purity of Yahwehs holy Temple in Jerusalem and the regular running of His cult. Perhaps the Sadducees hated Gentile domination as much as anyone else, but the lessons of Herods reign and the anarchy which
followed it would have shown them that the

Caiaphas treatment of Jesus. Speaking or acting against the Temple could get people into trouble but a great deal depended on the location and timing of such criticisms. Later in the century, a number of apocalyptic prophets led large crowds of people out of Jerusalem, promising that God would
reveal himself to them in the wilderness.&dquo; This amounted to a criticism of the Temple, or at least a declaration that true holiness was no longer to be found in the Temple, but the priests do not appear to have taken any action. In fact, all of these movements went completely unchecked until they became out of hand and the governor intervened with his troops. Jesus was different because he brought his message right to the very heart of the Temple, and because he attracted a large crowd at Passover. At the very least, his followers might disrupt the festival; at worst, he could bring about Roman intervention and pollution of the Holy Place (John I I :48). It was safer all round to hand him over to Pilate before the festival on a charge of claiming to be the King of the Jews.19 Was self-interest involved? We will never know Caiaphas exact motives, but there is no reason to believe that he acted out of anything other than genuine concern for the Temple. Caiaphas went on to be the longest serving High Priest of the first century. He was deposed by Vitellius, the Legate of Syria, in 37 CE after a tenure

only

way to maintain Temple worship was by tolerating the new regime. Rome could have the land as long

the priests were left to guard the Temple cult unhindered. Revolutionaries periodically took a stand against Rome, but they were all routinely rounded up and executed. The only practical way forward was through compromise. Of course, not everyone in the first century would have agreed with the Sadducean High Priests. One of the many effects of Hellenism was the rise of religious groups and parties, each with their own ideas of what it meant to be Jewish.Is Those of a
as more

nationalist persuasion might have sneered

at

the Sadducean compromise. Others may well have thought that certain High Priests compromised their strict purity requirements by their involvement in administrative matters, and criticized aspects of the cult. Some may have argued that the true Temple was to be found within their own group (the Qumran sectarians and perhaps the early followers of Jesus fit here). But there is no evidence of a widespread disaffection with the Temple and its priesthood. ,6 Throughout the first century, both institutions continued to be vibrant, essential and highly esteemed elements of Jewish devotion.
I4 For example, Josephus summaries in War 2.I65-6 and Antiquities I8.I6-I7. I5 See S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (I999). I6

nearly twenty years (Antiquities 18.90-95). Josephus brief narrative gives no reasons for his deposition: there is no hint that it was due to unpopularity (as is often supposed); perhaps he was retired due to old age or infirmity. The year of Caiaphas death, like that of his birth, is no longer known. It is tempting to believe that the first-century tomb found outside Jerusalem in
Compare the strong reactions against Jeremiah (26:I-I5; War 6.30I) when they spoke 38:I-5) and Jesus ben Ananias (
I7

of

E. P. Sanders rightly notes that many of the texts commonly cited as criticisms of the first-century High Priests (e.g.

Habakkuk Commentary, Damascus Document, Manual of

Discipline, Testament of Levi 14, 17, Testament of Moses 5, 6, and possibly 7, and the Psalms of Solomon 5) actually refer to the Hasmonaean Priest-Kings. Judaism: Practice and Belief,
pp. 3I9-332.

against the Temple. Antiquities 20.97-9 (Theudas); War 2.258-60 (deceivers and imposters). I9 Scholars who are well acquainted with the Jewish background to the Gospels tend to regard the chain of events in Johns passion narrative as the most historically plausible; see F. G. B. Millar, Reflections on the Trial of Jesus in P. R. Davies and R. T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes (1990), pp. 355-38I; R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah
out
I8

(1994).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

187
1991 and inscribed with the
name

Joseph

bar

Qaipha/Qapha placed
0

was

the old priests final resting

reports on this tomb can be found in For a strong argument against the identification of the tomb with Caiaphas, see W. Horbury, The &dquo;Caiaphas&dquo; Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas, PEQ m6

Archaeologists
2r

Atiqot

{rg9z).

II994)~ pp. 32-48.

Some readers may be rather disturbed at this of Caiaphas as a devout, religious man, striving to protect the Temple and its sacred cult. It is natural for Christians to want to cast Jesus enemies as corrupt, self-serving and depraved. Yet it is perhaps part of the tragedy of the events of Good Friday that the opponents of Jesus were not incarnations of evil, but men trying to do what they believed to be right.
assessment

Stones

Crying

Out

(Luke I9:40)

By PROFESSOR J. DUNCAN M. DERRETT, DD Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England

f these (shouters) be silent the stones will cry out. Luke knew (i) the biblical scenario (Zech. ~:7) and its midrashic potential, and (ii) popular ideas about stones. He has been too much for the commentators.2 The paradox is said to be proverbial, but no parallel has been found.3 Greek and Latin allusions to stones taciturnity are not apposite.4 Stones may betray their owners thefts (Hab. 2.:ii Targum), as did leprous stones.5 Habakkuk 2:II (the stone will cry out from the wall ...) may reprehend secret sins.6 From objects observers detect guilt or richest But this is irrelevant. Our stones would cry out when people failed to. Vlhy should they do it, and how? First, Jesus entry is foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.8 In this passage, the Headstone is received with

~ IT

shouts, Hurrah! Hurrah!. The stone will be recognized as the Messiah himself, according to a row of midrashim,9 receiving the crowds plaudits; but the words can equally mean, It shall have shoutings, &dquo;Grace, Grace!&dquo;, the stone itself providing the
noise.T Divines

Second, stones can speak.&dquo; The Assembly of (1651) noticed Joshua a4:z7; ~~Tetstenius and so did Thomas Scott (ed. Symington, agreed; I S4I ). They were right. The Kabbalist, R. Isaac

I See n. 9 below.
2 From I920 to 1996 no commentary avails us. J. Nolland, Luke I8:35-24:53 (Word Books, 1993, 927) discards Habakkuk 2:IIand admits nature participates in Gods
concerns
3

Luria (r53~-7a) found a stone in the wall of a Palestinian rabbis Academy which cried out to him that I should pray on its behalf (Hab. z:II).i It had heard endless jejunities. Talmudical Judaism tends to ignore Metempsychosis.13 But even Seadyah Gaon (88z-94z) knew of the idea which, some say, figures at Daniel 4:33. Luria, a great authority, relied on popular belief and Joshua 24:a7. Both Gilgirl, the revolving of souls through births, and Ibbirr, the passing of a soul into anothers

(Hos. 2:2I-22).
on

Cf. S. T. Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary

the New

Jeremias

at

TWNT

IV,

277

(3-16);

A.

Edersheim, Life
II, 735;

Testament (Hoboken, 1987), 346. 4 Philo, Quod Omnis 96; Plato, Symp . I98C; Hippias M. 292D; Propertius 1.18, 4; J. J. Wetstenius, Novum TestamentumGraece (Amsterdam, I75I), I, 788. 5 J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament V (Brill,

and Times
I0

of Jesus

the Messiah (London, I906)

Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 483. Genesius 6 (bα); Brown-Driver-Briggs 5b.

II 2 Esdras 5:5; Vit.Proph. I0:I0. I2 Cf. M. H. Harris, Hebraic Literature (New York: Tudor,

I989), 96-II3, at p. 99. 6 Babylonian Talmud, Hag I6a (Socino trans., I04; Streane, 1891, 94); Taan. IIa (Socino, 480. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 253). 7 Cf. Job 3I:38; Juvenal IX.I04. Hebrews 5:4. 8 See TWNT IV, 577; VI, 883; IX, 37I.

I946), 275; Enc.Jud. X. 549. Philostratus, Vita Ap. 5.42. I3 E. Müller, Seelenwanderung, Jüdisches Lexicon V.327 (Adam); ERE XII, I92I, 425-440; G. Scholem, Ency.Jud. VII, 573-577; R. J. Z. Werblowsky, Ency.Rel. XV, 1987, 2I-26 (bibliography). For Kabbala, see Ency.Brit. I Ith edition, XV,
62I.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013