Discovered
Who was Caiaphas?
Joseph
Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest from A.D. 18 - 36, appointed by Valerius
Gratus, the Roman governor of Judea who preceded Pontius Pilate.[1] Annas was the high priest
from A.D. 6 – 15 and was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Though deposed, Annas
continued to command great respect and was involved in the case against Jesus.[2] Well known Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus referred to the High Priest as Joseph Caiaphas:
“Valerius Gratus … procurator of Judea
… gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had
possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his
successor.”[3]
Biblical references to Caiaphas
The
books of Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts specifically mention the High Priest
Caiaphas and his role in the plot to crucify Jesus Christ. Mark mentions the
“high priests”, but not Caiaphas specifically.
·
“Then
the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the
court of the high priest, named Caiaphas”
(Matthew 26:3)
·
“Those
who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas,
the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together”
(Matthew 26:57)
·
“So
Annas sent Him [Jesus] bound to Caiaphas
the high priest.” (John 18:24)
·
“Annas
the high priest was there, and Caiaphas
and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.” (Acts 4:6)
But, wasn’t there another high priest?
An
astute biblical scholar may notice that another person is mentioned as the high
priest at that time, Annas. Does this mean the references to Caiaphas are
inaccurate? Is this a contradiction in the Bible? Luke, the consummate
historian, addresses this issue:
“in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to
John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.” (Luke 3:2)
This
verse describes the situation with the high priest during the time of Jesus’
birth. Annas and Caiaphas were both holding that position similar to
co-reagents. John then mentions this at the time of Jesus crucifixion, 33 years
later:
“and led Him to Annas first; for he
was father-in-law of Caiaphas,
who was high priest that year.” (John 18:13)
Eusebius,
writing in The History of the Church,
mentions both Annas and Caiaphas as high priests during the ministry of Jesus.
Translator of this work, G. A. Williamson, makes this observation:
“… though Caiaphas had as a political
expedient been appointed by the Romans to replace him [Annas]. The situation
was exactly the same at the end of our Lord’s life, as we see from John xviii.
13-24, where the writer informs us that He was examined by Annas before being
sent to Caiaphas, and within the compass of five lines refers to each as the
high priest.”[4]
Was this the same
person?
The
Israeli archaeologist who personally was present during the excavation, Zvi
Greenhut, apparently believed these bones are those of Caiaphas, the same
person mentioned in the Bible. Greenhut
described what he saw at the cave and stated, “So it was that we discovered the
final resting place of the Caiaphas family, one of whose priestly members
presided at the trial of Jesus".[5] The priest’s full name was
likely Joseph Caiaphas, who was simply referred to by the latter, as
archaeologist Ronny Reich elaborates:
"A person named Joseph with the
nickname Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 A.D. The
New Testament provides only his nickname in the Greek form: Caiaphas (see
Matthew 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49, 18:13-14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6). Josephus
[the first-century Jewish historian] gives his proper name as well: Joseph
Caiaphas, or elsewhere, 'Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high
priesthood.' In short, we are explicitly told by Josephus that Caiaphas was
indeed a nickname".[6]
Dr.
J. Randall Price, PhD, University of Texas, Austin, has taught Biblical
Archaeology at the University of Texas and has excavated sites in Galilee and
Qumran. Price identified the bones of the 60 year old man found in the ossuary
as “most likely Caiaphas”. He further stated, “Whether or not the place
identified as Caiaphas’s house today in Jerusalem is the actual site, we now
have discovered the actual remains of the high priest in his ossuary within his
family tomb.”[7]
Reasons it may not be the same person
Three primary reasons these bones may
not be those of the High Priest Caiaphas have been enumerated by Dr. Craig A.
Evans, Acadia University. First, the crypt was too plain to have been that of
the son-in-law of Annas, the most influential high priest of the first century.
His true burial chamber would have been more ostentatious. And, the inscription
was poorly etched and not professional, possibly done by a relative who placed
the bones in the box. Second, the Aramaic spelling of Caiaphas may give a
different name if the second letter is a waw
rather than a yod. The “yod and
waw are notoriously difficult to distinguish in the Hebrew script of
this period” and, according to Evans, this second letter is probably a waw. If this is the case, the
inscription would refer to “"Joseph, son of Qopha," or "Joseph,
son of Qupha." It may even be rendered as "Qeypha" or
"Qiypha."[8]
Third, Josephus does not refer to the high priest as “Joseph, son of Caiaphas”, but simply as “Joseph
Caiaphas” and “Joseph called Caiaphas”.
These may be inconsequential differences and Evans concludes by stating, “Although
the high-priestly identification is not conclusively ruled out, the
difficulties are such that it is probably wise to leave the question open.”[9]
The bottom line
Two
key questions need to be asked regarding this discovery: Are the bones those of the same Caiaphas
mentioned in the Bible and, if so, how significant is that. It may be
impossible to determine with complete certitude one way or the other. At the
very least, if these bones belong to another person, the find still validates:
·
the
use of the same name during the time of Jesus
·
the
fact that this person was obviously a prominent and/or wealthy member of Jewish
society, and
·
the
location, very close to Jerusalem, which is consistent with the Biblical
account
At
best, the significance of this find is that it is another in a long line of
discoveries that continue to corroborate the historical accuracy of the Bible. The
Bible is corroborated by outside historical information, such as that of
Josephus, mentioned above. If the Bible is determined to be true regarding
matters that have been verified, then it is more likely to be trustworthy in
those matters that have not yet been verified.
[Biblical
references are from the NASB version.]
[1]J. I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, and
William White, Jr., Nelson’s Illustrated
Encyclopedia of Bible Facts (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995), 172.
[2] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 306-307.
[3]Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIII, Chapter 2,
Paragraph 2.
[4]Eusebius,
The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine, translated by G. A. Williamson, (New York, NY: Dorset Press), p. 62.
[5]"Burial
Cave of the Caiaphas Family," Biblical Archaeological Review, September-October 1992, pp.
29-30, quoted in “The Bible and Archaeology:
Jesus Christ's Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion”, The Good News magazine, by Mario Seiglie, May/June 2000 issue.
[6]Ibid,
p. 41.
[7]Randall
Price, The Stones Cry Out,
(Eugene,OR: Harvest House Publishers,
1997), p. 305.
[8]Craig
A. Evans, “Jesus and the Ossuaries”, Bulletin
for Biblical Research 13.1
(2003), p. 39.
[9]Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment