Chapter 275 of 404

Annas and Caiaphas in the Passion Narrative

Joseph Caiaphas’s involvement with Jesus’ trial makes historical sense.¹²¹ Rome now appointed high priests at will, and Jewish piety was not a primary concern in their appointments. Caiaphas held power for nineteen years (18-36 CE), longer than any other high priest in the first century. His tenure suggests his political acumen in keeping the Romans content.¹²² In the case of potential threats to the political stability of Jerusalem, of course, that would mean dealing with them swiftly and efficiently. And someone who caused a commotion in the Temple in the dangerously crowded period just before Passover would clearly be perceived as a threat to the public order.¹²³ Despite his otherwise high opinion of Caiaphas, Sanders thinks the high priest probably wanted Jesus “dead for the same reason Antipas wanted John dead”: public order.¹²⁴ That Caiaphas and Pilate would have cooperated in the matter is likely; “That is the way the gospels describe the events, and that is the way things really happened, as the numerous stories in Josephus prove.”¹²⁵

This information reinforces the suspicion one gets from other nonpriestly sources concerning the character of much of the high priesthood under Rome: Caiaphas was a skilled but probably often ruthless politician. He kept the public peace in a manner that satisfied both Rome and the populace, and in so doing preserved his own position.¹²⁶ He was well-to-do,¹²⁷ part of the most hellenized elite,¹²⁸ and hence had much at stake personally in keeping the peace. It is reasonable to suppose that, even given the purest of concern for their people’s welfare — on which their own rose or fell — the priestly aristocracy would regard unrest, hence the popularity of Jesus, as a threat.¹²⁹

Annas held power from 6 to 15 CE and retained considerable political influence until his death in 35; he may have dominated the two high priests (his successors included a son-in-law and five sons) who followed him.¹³⁰ Annas appears especially, but plausibly, in John’s passion account. Some writers have charged that John’s use of the name “Annas” reflects Jewish-Christian tradition but lacks historical foundation, since Annas had long since retired from office. ¹³¹ This skepticism, however, reads more into Annas’s “retirement” than the historical evidence warrants; it is likely that he continued to exert power within his household (especially if they privately recognized the biblical tradition concerning the lifelong character of a high priest’s calling), including through his son-in-law Caiaphas, until his death in 35 CE.¹³² In any case, even though it was customary to refer to the entire high priestly family by John’s day as “high priests,”¹³³ John labels only Caiaphas as “high priest,” not Annas. Scholars have offered historically plausible arguments for Annas’s involvement.¹³⁴

↑ Back to top