The Bible Commentaries and Others: Caiaphas

Caiaphas

CAIAPHAS (PERSON) [Gk Kaiaphas (Καιαφας)]. There is not unanimity but rather a consensus among the Gospels that the high priest at the time of Jesus’ death was named Caiaphas, and that he played an active role in the proceedings. Each of the presentations amounts to a nuanced portrayal of the events leading up to Jesus’ death, and each should be appreciated in its own right before any general statement in respect of Caiaphas may be made. In Matthew, the notice of a conspiratorial meeting of high priests and elders is located in the courtyard of Caiaphas’ house (26:3) at the commencement of the passion narrative. In Mark and Luke, there is no such reference to location, and less detail in the description of the conspiracy. The second (and final) reference to Caiaphas in Matthew has scribes and elders gathered with Caiaphas, to whom Jesus, having been arrested, is brought (26:57). The reference marks the success of the conspiracy. The conspirators had “taken counsel, that they might arrest Jesus by stealth, and kill him” (26:4); in 26:57 the “crowd” from the high priests, scribes, and elders (26:47) have succeeded in the arrest, and it is Caiaphas’ question and Jesus’ response (26:63b–64) which will bring the verdict of blasphemy, and a condemnation to death (26:65, 66). The grounds on which Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy is a vexed question, since no profanation of the divine name appears to be involved (Lev 24:15, 16; Sanh. 7:5). But Caiaphas’ tearing of his garments in 26:65 (again, cf. Sanh. 7:5) supports the reading that a judicial finding is involved.

Matthew’s Caiaphas is not explicitly provided with any motivation. Indeed, he is not even named as an active agent of the conspiracy in 26:3. The mention of the courtyard may be more important cartographically than for its owner: in the same place, Peter denies Jesus at the close of the chapter (26:69–75; cf. 57, 58). At the crucial moment of his question, Caiaphas is simply identified as “the high priest” (26:59, 62, 63), the chief representative of “the high priests” generally (26:3, 14, 47, 59), who are primary instigators of Jesus’ judgment, and also of his death (27:1, 3, 6, 12, 20, 41, 62). The reference to a plurality of high priests is technically incorrect, although common enough in the Gospels, and presumably is used in respect of the leading families from which the high priest was chosen. The picture of an elite, familial group, intimately associated with hierarchical authority, is supported by Acts 4:6, where Annas is named as high priest, and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander are referred to, along with all who were of high priestly lineage. Matthew’s picture, then, is of deadly opposition from those most intimately involved with the temple. Caiaphas is emblematic of the opposition without being an instigator of it. Mark achieves much the same effect with a comparable pattern of diction (particularly “high priest(s)”), but without naming Caiaphas.

Luke does name Caiaphas, but in a peculiar manner (3:2). The ministry of John the Baptist is introduced with what at first sight seems chronological exactitude (3:1), but there is then reference to the time of the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (v 2; Acts 4:6). Because the office was not jointly held, the statement constitutes a puzzle, and one which is complicated by the close relationship between Annas and Caiaphas, as documented by Josephus. Ant 18.2.2; 18.4.3 has it that Joseph Caiaphas was appointed high priest around the year 18 by Valerius Gratus and removed from office around the year 36 by Vitellius. Annas was appointed by Quirinius around a.d. 6 and deposed by Valerius Gratus in a.d. 15 (Ant 18.2.1, 2). Luke 3:2, and especially Acts 4:6, therefore appear to confuse two quite distinct high priesthoods. S. Sandmel has in fact argued that Luke-Acts mistakenly recognizes only Annas as high priest, and that a careless use of sources caused the name of Caiaphas to intrude (Sandmel, IDB 1: 482). But the close relationship between Annas and Caiaphas has simply not been taken into account by Sandmel: Annas’ influence survived far beyond his high priesthood, in that five of his sons were to serve in the office (Ant 20.9.1), and Caiaphas was perhaps his son-in-law (John 18:13). The fact remains, however, that to single out Annas as high priest after a.d. 15 appears to be an error (Catchpole 1971: 170).

D. R. Catchpole is sufficiently convinced by the tenacity of the Lukan confusion that he understands the reference to the house and courtyard of the high priest in Luke 22:54, 55 in respect of Annas, rather than of Caiaphas (Catchpole 1971: 171). Such an exegesis construes Luke in such a way as to accord strikingly with John, and disrupts any exact parallel with Matt 26:57, 58. Substantially, however, the analogy with Matthew is difficult to explain away, and the latter identifies the house specifically as that of Caiaphas. There are, however, rather clear indications that the Lukan approach to Jesus’ condemnation is to focus on “the high priests” as a group. Except for 3:2; 22:50, 54, the noun always appears in the plural in Luke, in order to speak of a judicial proceeding against Jesus (9:22; 19:47; 22:2, 4, 52, 66; 23:4, 10, 13; 24:20). The effect of that pattern is to emphasize the nature and source of opposition to Jesus; the usage of 22:66–71 even puts the fateful question of Jesus’ identity in the mouth of the “high priests” generally. Likewise, Luke alone of all the Gospels refers to the stratêgoi in 22:4, 52 in connection with Jesus’ arrest. The evident reference is to the police of the temple (Jeremias 1969: 180), but Luke uses a word in the plural which appears both in Josephus and Acts as a singular, referring to the “captain” of the temple (Ant 20.6.2; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26). It may be that Lukan usage is somewhat loose at this point; Acts 16:20, 22, 35, 36, 38 employs the plural noun, in respect of magistrates in Philippi. The inference may be drawn that the description of Jesus’ arrest and prosecution has been shaped to accommodate a Lukan scheme. Within that scheme, Caiaphas as a personality, or even as an active agent of conspiracy, is not in view. Annas also is little more than a cipher of priestly opposition. What is emphasized is the organization of the prosecuting authorities and their link with the temple.

Caiaphas emerges most clearly as a personality in John, in close association with Jesus’ passion, but he does not emerge as an active or willing agent of Jesus’ execution. John 11:47–53 presents a gathering of “high priests” and Pharisees, in which Jesus’ “many signs,” most notably the raising of Lazarus (vv 1–46), provokes the fear that “the Romans will come, and destroy both our place and our nation” (v 48). But Caiaphas is said to have prophesied Jesus’ death, being high priest of that year, by pronouncing the dictum that it was expedient for one man to perish for the people, that the whole nation might not be destroyed (vv 49–51). The result is, as in the Synoptics (but not in the context of Lazarus’ raising), that counsel is taken to kill Jesus (v 53). Notably, no malice is ascribed to Caiaphas; his prophecy is said to derive from his high priestly office. The reference to “that year” has been taken to mean that, within the Johannine scheme, Caiaphas alternated years in service with Annas. Such a reading is an exegetically desperate maneuver, designed to explain the prominent role of Annas in chap. 18: a less strained understanding would take “that year” as the year in which Jesus died (E. Jacquier DB 2/1: 45). Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Johannine portrait of Caiaphas is, so far, respectful of the man and his office.

The 18th chap. of John presents an account of Jesus’ arrest and trial which differs substantially from that of the Synoptics. Although Caiaphas is again called high priest of that year (v 13c), the combined forces of “the cohort and the officer and the servants of the Jews” (v 12) take Jesus to Annas first (v 13a). Caiaphas’ marital relationship to Annas is also mentioned (v 13b), but that scarcely motivates the session at Annas’ house, which is the scene that follows (vv 15–24). Caiaphas until this point is a bystander to the action, and the Johannine presentation heightens the contrast with Annas’ activism, by recalling Caiaphas’ prophecy in 11:49–52; cf. 18:14. He is more moved by events than he influences them. Consistently, the account of the session at Annas’ is punctuated with references to him as the high priest; at one point, his status as such causes Jesus to be struck by a servant for his insolence (v 22; cf. vv 15, 16, 19). Caiaphas, by contrast, is a cipher within the text: Jesus is brought to him in v 24, a final scene of Petrine denial unfolds in vv 25–27, and Jesus is immediately led away from Caiaphas to the praetorium in v 28; cf. 35. Concomitant with this truncation of Caiaphas’ role, which denies him any dramatic place in the action, we are left in John with no equivalent to the Synoptic dispute, which involves the temple and Jesus’ messianic status. Annas interrogates him regarding his disciples and his teaching (v 19); how the issue comes to be Jesus’ royal pretensions, in his confrontation with Pilate (vv 33–38), is not explained. Although Sandmel’s theory, that reference to Caiaphas was made in an attempt to clean up Johannine chronology, may be invoked here, it does not actually explain why so very little involvement is attributed to Caiaphas. A possibly more satisfactory explanation is that John’s gospel is written on the supposition that the Synoptic catechesis has already been appropriated.

The most striking feature of consensus among the Gospels and Josephus in respect to Caiaphas is his close relationship with the Roman administration. Cordial relations are implicit in his long tenure (some eighteen years) as high priest. Between Herod’s appointment of Ananel and the destruction of the temple, Josephus counts twenty-eight high priests (Eppstein 1964: 52; Ant 20.10; and Jacquier DB 2/1: 44), so that the duration of Caiaphas’ high priesthood was exceptional. Removed by Vitellus ca. 36, Caiaphas’ exercise of office included the period of Pilate’s tenure. The latter was infamous for his insults to the national and religious identity of Judaism, and Caiaphas is notable for his absence from the pages of Josephus which describe objections and rebellions against Pilate’s activity (Jacquier DB 2/1: 44; Ant 18.3.1, 2; JW 2.9.24). The same Vitellus who dismissed Pilate also released the high priestly vestments from custody in the Antonia (Jeremias 1969: 149, n.4 and Ant 18.4.3), a custody with which Caiaphas had apparently complied. The close cooperation between Caiaphas and the Roman authorities is implicit within the passion narratives of all four gospels. For all the differences between the Synoptics and John, there is a consensus that, following a hearing and high priestly interrogation, it was resolved to dispatch Jesus to Pilate (Matt 27:1–2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28). The Johannine version of events may even hint at Roman complicity as early as Jesus’ arrest: it speaks of a cohort and an officer in addition to a force associated with the high priesthood (18:1, 12). Catchpole (1971: 149; also Jeremias 1969: 210) rightly points out that “cohort” (speira) and “officer” (chiliarchos) might refer to a band sent from the Jewish authorities, but probability is against that reading. Both the passages in John speak of the cohort and “servants” of the Jewish authorities; the identity of the two groups does not seem to be implied. Within the NT itself, both “cohort” and “officer” refer straightforwardly to Roman military arrangements. If that usage is also to be understood in the case of John, then the fourth gospel does intensify the portrait of high priestly connivance with the Romans, which is independently attested in the Synoptics and (implicitly) in Josephus.

A single, symbolic, and physical center provided the focus of Roman and high priestly cooperation—the temple. The establishment of a police force to guard the purity of the temple is widely attested, in Mishnah, Philo, and Josephus (Jeremias 1969: 209–10 and HJP² 1: 366). From the point of view of successive Roman administrations, the sacrificial cult of the temple was valuable, not merely tolerable, because sacrifices in the emperor’s behalf were offered there (JW 2.10.4; HJP² 1: 379–80; 2/1: 311–12). Custody of high priestly garments, the maintenance of a credibly deterrent force in the Antonia (JW 5.6.8), and acceptance of a death penalty against desecrating the temple (HJP² 1: 378; 2: 80, 222 n.85, 284–85), together make sense as a coherent policy on the part of the Romans. Provided the cult of the temple proceeded under Roman permission and protection, the Jewish refusal to sacrifice to the emperor’s image could be overlooked, and Judaism could be seen as a licit society. The formal outbreak of war with Rome in a.d. 66 is, precisely for that reason, signaled by a refusal to offer sacrifice on the emperor’s behalf (JW 2.17.2).

Caiaphas would have occupied an important position within this delicate settlement. His interrogation of Jesus, following a series of questions concerning the latter’s statement in respect of the temple (Matt 26:57–66; Mark 14:53–64; cf. Luke 22:54–71, which is entirely christological in focus) is quite plausible. Likewise, the suggestion of O. Betz, that Caiaphas’ counsel in John 11:49–50 suits a Sadducean theology reflected in Josephus (Betz ANRW 2/25/1: 596–98), is speculative but defensible. Josephus calls Caiaphas “Joseph Caiaphas”; attempts to explain the surname have abounded from antiquity until the recent past. The results have been inconclusive, although they eloquently attest the attitudes of the scholars who propose them (cf. HJP² 2: 230; Jacquier DB, 44; and Jerome’s verdict, “investigator vel sagax, sed melius vomens ore,” discussed in Kraus JEnc 1: 493). No judgment of Caiaphas’ character or motivation can make any serious claim on our attention, except as an imaginative exercise. Historically speaking, the available evidence will not permit conclusions of that sort. Nonetheless, Caiaphas’ obvious, necessary, and essential link with the temple remains.

A Talmudic tradition has it that, forty years prior to the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of hewn stone in the Jerusalem temple to Hanuth (˓Abod. Zar. 8b; Šabb. 15a; Sanh. 41a; Jeremias 1969: 210; Eppstein 1964: 48). That momentous reform is naturally placed during the pontificate of Caiaphas, and Eppstein suggests that another innovation should also be attributed to him: the permission for vendors of offerings to set up shop within the precincts of the temple (Eppstein 1964: 55). Eppstein’s elaborate reconstruction of a struggle for power between Caiaphas and the “Sanhedrin” (itself a problematic designation) is a tissue of speculation, but he has pointed to what may have been a crucial issue between Caiaphas and Jesus. Within the Gospels, Jesus’ expulsion of such vendors and money-changers from the temple is a pivotal event (Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46; John 2:13–17). The money-changers are easily presented as villains, but the fact is they served a useful purpose, in that Roman coin, the currency of oppression, was scarcely apposite to achieve atonement. The ancient Tyrean shekel was used instead, and the rate of exchange appears to have been controlled (Eppstein 1964: 43, n.10; Šeqal. 1.6, 7). Eppstein suggests that the tables of exchange were knocked over by Jesus in the melee concerning the vendors (Eppstein 1964: 57). That anything accidental or inadvertent can have taken place with furniture as massive as was used in the temple is quite implausible (Šeqal. 2.1; 6.5). More probably, the quotation from Jer 7:11 led to the reference to money-changers, whose existence Jesus (or any other Jew of the period) would have taken for granted (Šeqal. 1.3). What does stand out as an oddity, however, is that the vendors of animals are placed at the site of the temple instead of at Hanuth.

Naturally, the possibility must be faced, that the reference to both the money-changers and the vendors is the result of a misreading of sacrificial arrangements by Christians who had lost touch with their Judaic heritage. On such an understanding, reflection upon Jer 7:11 alone produced the story as we can read it today in the Synoptics. The fatal flaw in that reconstruction is that Jer 7:11 alone is not what is ascribed to Jesus: rather, a mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 is attributed to him. A mixing of scriptural elements in that manner is characteristic of Jesus, not of those who shaped the tradition after him (Chilton 1984). It is theoretically possible that a mixed citation, correctly attributed to Jesus, was then attached arbitrarily to the narrative of the vendors, as it was to that of the money-changers. But the fact is that the vendors appear in the best witnesses of Luke 19:45, without a mention of the money-changers, so that the former appear a more stable element in the narrative than the latter. Moreover, the scriptural citation in John 2:17 (Ps 69:9) is quite unlike the Synoptic allusion (and is not attributed to Jesus), so that the story of Jesus’ occupation of the temple does not appear to be a simple expansion of a favorite text into the form of a narrative. As a matter of fact, Jesus would by no means be unique among rabbis in objecting to commercial arrangements related to the cult; Simeon ben Gamaliel is said to have intervened in the matter of pricing doves (Ker. 1.7). More generally, complaints of high priestly rapacity are found in Pesaḥ. 57a. Even Vitellius, at the time he restored custody of vestments to the temple, also remitted certain taxes; a criticism of financial arrangements during the period of Pilate and Caiaphas may have been implicit in his action (Ant 18.4.3). On balance, it would appear that Caiaphas did engineer the installation of vendors in the temple, that Jesus reacted with force, and that the collision of the two was finally adjudicated by Pilate, Caiaphas’ protector (Chilton 1984: 18).

Bibliography

Catchpole, D. R. 1971. The Trial of Jesus. SPB 12. Leiden.

Chilton, B. D. 1984. A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible. GNS 8. Wilmington.

Eppstein, V. 1964. The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple. ZNW 55: 42–58.

Jeremias, J. 1969. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave. London.

Bruce Chilton

Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1:803). New York: Doubleday.

CAIAPHAS AND ANNAS Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas were high priests of the Jerusalem Temple in the time of Jesus (John 18; Luke 3:2; cf. Josephus Ant. 20.9.1). The family of Annas was evidently notorious for corruption, the chief source of its wealth coming apparently from the sale of requisites for sacrifice in four booths on the Mount of Olives; hence the talmudic curse, “Woe to the family of Annas!” (Pesaḥ. 57a) and, most likely, the occasion of Jesus’ anger with what he called “a den of robbers” (Mark 11:15–19). While Caiaphas seems to have been titular head of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, Annas was the real power. Jesus was brought to him first (John 18:19–23), then sent bound to Caiaphas (v. 24). Annas was present at the defense of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin after Pentecost (Acts 4:6).

Caiaphas and Annas attract surprisingly little attention in patristic exegesis. As actors in the Passion story, especially in medieval plays and semidramatic representations, they offer a means of dramatizing the Old Law which cannot see Jesus except as a threat: in the Towneley “Coliphizacio” they incite the torturers and prove astonishingly literal-minded—incapable of discerning the metaphorical language in Jesus’ replies (73-78). Farcically overdrawn, they exhibit a commitment to law rather than service or stewardship (160-62, 204-05, 211, 229, 244). “Anna” is represented as the elder here, having to check the more extravagant ire of Caiaphas lest it cause a loss of privilege with the Romans or indeed disrespect for the Old Law itself. A 13th-cent. Franciscan dramatic sermon for the Palm Sunday procession, probably at Wells, is entirely enunciated by the preacher in the person of “Cayface, bisshop of þe olde lawe” (MS Sloan 2478), who uses the emphasis on Old Law justice to make clear the need for New Law mercy to his hearers.

Subsequently Caiaphas becomes a type: Milton refers to his opponent in An Apology for Smectymnuus as “as perfect a hypocrite as Caiaphas,” and in the Tetrachordon complains that modern interpreters are on the verge of turning St. Paul into a prophet like Caiaphas, one who speaks the word without thinking. In Blake’s wry The Everlasting Gospel, such reflexive self-assurance is to be expected:

… Caiaphas was in his own Mind

A benefactor to Mankind:

Both read the Bible day and night.

But thou read’st black where I read white. (2a)

David Jones still refers to “bishop” Caiaphas (Anathemata, 5.157). Caiaphas is credited with the counsel that “it was expedient that one man should die for the people” (John 18:14), a position echoed by the “bullnecked English chaplain” in G. B. Shaw’s St. Joan: “Let her not infect the whole flock. It is expedient that one woman die for the people” (4.53); a 19th-cent. variant is in Tennyson’s Queen Mary, where Father Cole applies the same phrase as a justification before the burning of Archbishop Cranmer. In E. A. Robinson’s “Nicodemus,” Caiaphas is the Machiavellian superior to whom the almost-persuaded Nicodemus is obliged to report after his visit with Jesus.

Bibliography. Brown, C. “Caiaphas as a Palm Sunday Prophet.” Anniversary Papers Presented to G. L. Kittredge (1913), 105-17; Jeffrey, D. L. “St. Francis and Medieval Theatre.” FranS 43 (1983), 321-46.

Jeffrey, D. L. (1992). A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Caiaphas — the Jewish high priest (A.D. 27-36) at the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry, in the reign of Tiberius (Luke 3:2), and also at the time of his condemnation and crucifixion (Matt. 26:3,57; John 11:49; 18:13, 14). He held this office during the whole of Pilate’s administration. His wife was the daughter of Annas, who had formerly been high priest, and was probably the vicar or deputy (Heb. sagan) of Caiaphas. He was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), and was a member of the council when he gave his opinion that Jesus should be put to death “for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). In these words he unconsciously uttered a prophecy. “Like Saul, he was a prophet in spite of himself.” Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, and therefore Jesus was sent to Pilate, the Roman governor, that he might duly pronounce the sentence against him (Matt. 27:2; John 18:28). At a later period his hostility to the gospel is still manifest (Acts 4:6). (See ANNAS.)

Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

CAIAPHAS High priest during the life and ministry of Jesus. As official head of the Jewish state, Caiaphas presided over the council, or Sanhedrin—its highest court. Next to the Roman governor, he was the most powerful man in Judea and was responsible to the Romans for the conduct of the nation. Caiaphas was, therefore, especially concerned about the popular enthusiasm and political unrest centering on the ministry of Jesus and about its implications for the revolutionary sentiment of the time. The activities of the Zealots were increasing and were destined to break out soon into open revolt.

A huge stir among the people, caused by the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11), brought matters to a head. Alarmed lest the activities of those seeking a political messiah should lead the Romans to intervene with armed force, Caiaphas advised that Jesus should be put to death (Jn 11:48–50). The Gospel writer John pointed out that, in so doing, Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied concerning the atoning nature of Jesus’ death (Jn 11:51–52).

Caiaphas played a chief role in Jesus’ arrest and trial. The leaders laid their plans in his palace (Mt 26:3–5); it was there also that part of Jesus’ preliminary trial took place with Caiaphas presiding (vv 57–68). That was after Jesus had first been taken before Annas, Caiaphas’s father-in-law (Jn 18:13). Matthew, Mark, and Luke omit the visit to Annas, and Mark and Luke do not refer to Caiaphas by name. Upon Jesus’ admission that he was “the Christ, the Son of God,” Caiaphas tore his robes and charged him with blasphemy (Mt 26:63–66). After Pentecost, he, along with other Jewish leaders, presided over the trial of Peter and John when the council attempted to stop the preaching of the apostles (Acts 4:5–6).

Annas, who had held the office of high priest before Caiaphas, remained influential in the affairs of the nation. That explains why Luke, in his Gospel, set the ministry of John the Baptist “in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Lk 3:2), and in Acts called Annas the high priest (Acts 4:6). John’s account of Jesus’ visit to Annas makes plain that Annas was still popularly referred to as “high priest” (Jn 18:22).

The historian Josephus records that Caiaphas was appointed to his office about ad 18 and ruled until he was deposed about ad 36. The high priest held office at the whim of the Romans, so Caiaphas’s unusually long term indicates that he was a man of considerable political skill. Caiaphas was removed from his position by the proconsul Vitellus, and nothing more is known of him.

Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (248). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

CA´IAPHAS (kaʹya-fas). A surname, the original name being Joseph (Josephus Ant. 18.2.2); but, the surname becoming his ordinary and official designation, it was used for the name itself. Caiaphas was the high priest of the Jews in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, at the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry (Luke 3:2) and also at the time of His condemnation and crucifixion (Matt. 26:3, 57; etc.). He was appointed to this dignity through the curator Valerius Gratus (probably a.u.c. 770–88 or 789, Meyer, Com., on Luke) and held it during the whole procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, but was deposed by the proconsul Vitellus, a.d. about 38. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, with whom he is coupled by Luke (see below). His wife was the daughter of Annas, or Ananus, who had formerly been high priest and who still possessed great influence and control in sacerdotal matters.

After the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead Caiaphas advocated putting Jesus to death. His language on this occasion was prophetic, though not so designed: “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:49–50). After Christ was arrested He was taken before Annas, who sent Him to Caiaphas, probably living in the same house. An effort was made to produce false testimony sufficient for His condemnation. This expedient failed; for, though two persons appeared to testify, they did not agree, and at last Caiaphas put our Savior Himself upon oath that He should say whether He was indeed the Christ, the Son of God, or not. The answer was, of course, in the affirmative, and was accompanied with a declaration of His divine power and majesty. The high priest pretended to be greatly grieved at what he considered our Savior’s blasphemous pretensions, and appealed to His enraged enemies to say if this was not enough. They answered at once that He deserved to die, but, as Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, Christ was taken to Pilate, the Roman governor, that His execution might be duly ordered (Matt. 26:3, 57; John 18:13, 28). The bigoted fury of Caiaphas exhibited itself also against the first efforts of the apostles (Acts 4:6–21). What became of Caiaphas after his deposition is not known.

The expression in Luke 3:2, “In the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,” has led some to maintain that Annas and Caiaphas then discharged the functions of the high priesthood by turns; but this is not reconcilable with the statement of Josephus. Others think that Caiaphas is called high priest because he then actually exercised the functions of the office, and that Annas is so called because he formerly filled the position. But it does not thus appear why, of those who held the priesthood before Caiaphas, Annas in particular should be named, and not others who had served the office more recently than Annas. Meyer (Com., ad loc.) says: “Annas retained withal very weighty influence (John 18:12, sq.), so that not only did he continue to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the functions of high priest.” Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus, 1:264): “The conjunction of the two names of Annas and Caiaphas probably indicates that, although Annas was deprived of the pontificate, he still continued to preside over the Sanhedrin” (cf. Acts 4:6).

bibliography: F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1954), pp. 97–98; W. Hendricksen, Gospel of John, New Testament Commentary (1954), 2:162–65, 384–98; C. J. Barber, Searching for Identity (1975), pp. 108–19; C. K. Barrett, Gospel According to John (1978), pp. 404ff., 483–92, 515–51.

Unger, M. F., Harrison, R. K., Vos, H. F., Barber, C. J., & Unger, M. F. (1988). The new Unger's Bible dictionary. Revision of: Unger's Bible dictionary. 3rd ed. c1966. (Rev. and updated ed.). Chicago: Moody Press.

CAIAPHAS. Joseph Caiaphas was high priest from ad 18 to 36. He was son-in-law to Annas (Jn. 18:13). Caiaphas interrogated Jesus and handed him over to Pilate (Mt. 26:57–68; Jn. 11:49). An ossuary of the Second Temple Period, inscribed ‘Yosef bar Qayafa’, perhaps Caiaphas, has been found in a family tomb in the Peace Forest near Jerusalem (BAR 18, 1992, pp. 28–45).

Biography. Z. Greenhut et al., ‘The Caiaphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem’, Atiqot, 21,1992, pp. 63–87. d.j.w.

Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary. Includes index. (electronic ed. of 3rd ed.) (155). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Caiaphas (kayʹuh-fuhs), Joseph, son-in-law and eventual successor of Annas as high priest, attaining the position in a.d. 18 and holding it until he was deposed by Vitellius, Pontius Pilate’s successor, in the year 36-37. He was, therefore, high priest at the time of the trial of Jesus (Matt. 26:3, 57; John 18:13, 24). On the other hand, Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 raise a difficult problem regarding his relation to Annas. John 11:49-52 and 18:14 ascribe to him the judgment that it was ‘expedient…that one man should die for the people,’ with reference to Jesus. See also Annas; Pilate, Pontius; Priests; Trial of Jesus, The. F.O.G.

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (149). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Caiaphas (Gk. Kaɩ̈áphas)

Most frequently described as the high priest involved in the Jewish trial of Jesus.

Luke’s statements are confusing. He uses only the plural form “high priests” in the Passion narrative without providing their names. In contrast, in both places where he names Caiaphas Luke joins him with Annas as the high priest. Luke 3:2 locates John the Baptist’s wilderness appearance at the time of the high priesthood of Annas and of Caiaphas. This phrase is difficult to interpret because never more than one person served that office at a time. In Acts 4:6 Luke ascribes the title “high priest” to Annas but lists Caiaphas as one of the high priest’s family. According to Josephus, however, Annas was high priest roughly between 6 and 15 c.e., and Caiaphas between 18 and 36 (Ant. 18.2.1–2; 18.4.3). If Josephus is correct, it was not Annas but Caiaphas who was high priest both at the time of John the Baptist and during the early Christian period. Most probably, Luke’s confusing statements reflect the contemporary custom to use the office title even after the term is over.

Both Matthew and John seem to be historically more accurate. Matthew names only Caiaphas as high priest. Jewish leaders conspire to arrest Jesus at the palace of “the high priest, who was called Caiaphas” (Matt. 26:3), and after his arrest Jesus is led to “Caiaphas the high priest” (v. 57). John mentions both Annas and Caiaphas by name but never uses the title “the high priest” for Annas. Caiaphas is designated as “the high priest that year” (John 11:49, 51; 18:13) or simply as “the high priest” (18:24), and Annas as “the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year” (v. 13). According to John, after the arrest Jesus was sent first to Annas, then to Caiaphas (John 18:13, 24).

Bibliography. R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York, 1994), 1:404–11; W. Horbury, “The ‘Caiaphas’ Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas,” PEQ 126 (1994): 32–48.

Seung Ai Yang

Freedman, D. N., Myers, A. C., & Beck, A. B. (2000). Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (208). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.