High Priest Anna is the “gray eminence” of Jerusalem. The trial of Jesus Christ by the high priests. (Chapter from the “Law of God” by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodsky)

One of the most sinister and repulsive figures in the New Testament is the high priest Caiaphas. At that cruel time, many resorted to bribery and violence to achieve their goals. But few people knew how, like this man, to do evil with the appearance of piety and holiness.

Caiaphas was high priest of the Jerusalem Temple for 18 years, from 18 to 37. He was appointed to this post by the Roman procurator Valerius Grat, Pilate's predecessor.

Caiaphas was a Sadducee ( approx. - the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead), son-in-law of the high priest Anna (Hannan), and an obedient instrument in the hands of his father-in-law. Even after leaving his post and not officially occupying the high priestly chair, Anna actually remained an “invisible, shadow power.” He continued to hold power tenaciously in his hands and, in fact, had sole control over temple positions and the treasury. According to some historians, it was Anna, through his son-in-law, who made the decision to execute Jesus Christ.

Initially, the Sadducees were not as angry with Christ as the Pharisees. But after the resurrection Four-day Lazarus, and they became alarmed. After all, they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Pursuing so-called science, they came to the conclusion that it was impossible to bring the dead back to life. However, Christ overthrew their dogmas, showing that they knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.Christ demonstrated His power over death. This great miracle was the most convincing evidence that God sent His Son into the world to save people. This miracle was enough to convince every reasonable, open-minded person. This miracle prompted many witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus to believe in Jesus. But the priests hated Him even more. They rejected all the less significant evidence of His Divinity, and from this new miracle they only became furious... The dead man rose in broad daylight, in front of a crowd of witnesses... The resurrection of Lazarus could not be denied, and how to downplay the significance of this miracle, the priests did not knew. Until now, the Sadducees had not supported plans to kill Christ, but after the resurrection of Lazarus, they decided that only His death would put an end to fearless revelations.They were more determined than ever to put an end to the work of Christ. The Pharisees and Sadducees became close to each other. Until now there had been no agreement between them, but now they were united by hatred of Christ. But first it was necessary to find a charge. So far this has not been possible.

Therefore, Caiaphas did everything in his power to destroy Christ. Caiaphas owed his position to Roman power and valued his personal interests above all else; therefore, he acted as an ardent enemy of Christ, in whom he saw a dangerous rebel. He was the first to give advice to sacrifice Jesus Christ so that “the whole people would not perish,” that is, so that there would be no indignation that would entail brutal reprisal from the Romans (John 11:49-50).

Even if Jesus was innocent, the priests believed, they needed to get rid of Him. He causes a lot of trouble, attracts the people to Himself and weakens the power of the elders. And we are talking about just one Person. So wouldn’t it be better for Him to die than for the power of the elders to weaken? If the people lose confidence in their leaders, then national power will come to an end. Caiaphas argued that after the miracle of Lazarus, the followers of Jesus would certainly rebel, and then the Romans would come, he said, close the temple, abolish our laws, and as a nation we would perish. So what is the life of this Galilean worth compared to the life of the entire people? If He is an obstacle to the well-being of Israel, is it not a godly thing to remove Him? “It is better for us that one man should die for the people, than that the whole nation should perish.”.

Immediately after Jesus Christ was taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, His preliminary interrogation was first carried out by Annas, after which he sent Him to Caiaphas. Morning had not yet come; it was dark outside. By the light of torches and lanterns, the armed crowd, together with the prisoner, headed towards the palace of the high priest. Here Annas and Caiaphas questioned Jesus again, but were unsuccessful.

The Sanhedrin had to officially condemn Christ. But the Sanhedrin in those days did not have sufficient powers - it existed only thanks to the tolerance of the Roman authorities. The Sanhedrin did not have the right to carry out the death sentence. There they could only interrogate prisoners, pronounce a sentence, and then send it to the Roman authorities for approval. That is why Christ had to be accused of such acts that would seem crimes to the Romans. It was also necessary to choose an accusation that would look serious enough in the eyes of the Jews.

Among the priests there were many convinced supporters of Christ, and only the fear of excommunication prevented them from confessing Him. The priests remembered well the question of Nicodemus: “Does our law judge a man unless they first listen to him and find out what he is doing?” This question then forced them to close the meeting of the Sanhedrin and for some time prevented the implementation of their plans. This time Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not invited to the council. The trial had to be conducted in such a way that all members of the Sanhedrin would oppose Christ.

The priests wanted to bring forward two charges: blasphemy (then the Jews would have condemned Him) and incitement to rebellion (then the Romans would probably have condemned Him too). The authorities tried to speed up the trial. They knew how much Jesus was revered by the people, and they feared that if word of his arrest became known, they might try to free Him. In addition, if the trial and execution of the sentence are not carried out immediately, you will have to wait a week due to the Easter holiday. And this could again disrupt their plans. To achieve the condemnation of Jesus, they needed the support of an embittered crowd, most of which were the Jerusalem mob. If the trial had been postponed for a week, the excitement would have died down and the situation could have changed completely. The best part of the people would have taken the side of Christ, many would have come forward with testimonies in His justification, telling about the great deeds that He had done. And this would arouse anger among the people against the Sanhedrin. Then the members of the Sanhedrin would have been condemned, and Jesus would have been released and again accepted the worship of the crowd. And so the priests and rulers decided: before their plans became known to everyone, they would deliver Jesus into the hands of the Romans.

The first meeting of the Sanhedrin, which began in the house of Caiaphas on Thursday night, ended early Friday morning. Elders, scribes, eminent Pharisees and almost the entire Sanhedrin gathered at Caiaphas. Despite the late hour, they were in a hurry to quickly collect evidence against Jesus in order to prepare everything necessary for another, morning full meeting of the Sanhedrin, at which they could officially pronounce His death sentence.

To collect accusations, they invited false witnesses who began to accuse Christ of various violations of the law (for example, breaking the Sabbath rest). Finally, two false witnesses came who pointed out the words spoken by the Lord when expelling the merchants from the temple. At the same time, they maliciously altered the words of Christ, putting a different meaning into them. At the beginning of His ministry Christ said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Thus, He prophetically predicted His death and resurrection in figurative language. “He spoke of the temple of His body” (John 2:19, 21). The Jews understood these words literally and attributed them to the Jerusalem Temple. Apart from this expression, the priests could not find anything in the words of Christ that could be used against Him. By distorting His thought, they hoped to benefit themselves. They accused Jesus of inciting rebellion and seeking to establish His kingdom. “He said: I can destroy the temple of God and build it in three days.”But even this accusation attributed to Christ was not sufficient for serious punishment.

Jesus did not utter a single word in His defense. Finally His accusers became confused, confused, and enraged. The trial could not continue any further. It seemed that the whole conspiracy had failed. Caiaphas was in despair. The last resort remained: to force Christ to judge Himself. With his face distorted with anger, the high priest jumped up from his judicial seat. One look at him was enough to understand that if it had been in his power, he would have attacked the prisoner standing in front of him. “Why don’t you answer?” - he exclaimed. - “What do they testify against You?”

The silence of Christ irritated Caiaphas, and he decided to force such a confession from the Lord that would give reason to condemn Him to death as a blasphemer. Caiaphas raised his right hand to heaven and solemnly addressed Jesus: “I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are You the Christ, the Son of God?” Christ could not help but respond to these words. There is a time to be silent and there is a time to speak. He was silent until He was asked a direct question. He knew that by answering it. He condemns Himself to certain death.No longer hiding His Messianic and Divine dignity, Christ answered: “You said!” that is: “Yes, you truly said that I am the promised Messiah, and added: “From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Here is a reference to the 109th Psalm and to the vision of the prophet Daniel. In the psalm, the Messiah is depicted as sitting at the right hand of God. The Prophet Daniel saw the Messiah in the form of the “Son of Man” coming on the clouds of heaven.

Christ's words angered the high priest. And tearing his clothes, he demanded that the prisoner be immediately, without delay, condemned for blasphemy. “What more witnesses do we need,” he said, “behold, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?” And everyone condemned Jesus. The Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus to death. But according to Jewish law, a prisoner could not be tried at night. By law, the condemnation could only take place during the day and in front of the full council.

When the day arrived, the Sanhedrin met once more and Jesus was again brought into the meeting room. He called Himself the Son of God, and based on these words, the judges had already prepared a charge against Him. "Are you the Christ?- they asked. - Tell us". But Christ remained silent. And they began to bombard Him with questions. Finally, with deep sorrow in his voice, He answered: “If I tell you, you will not believe; but if I ask you, you will not answer Me and will not let Me go.”. "So, You are the Son of God?"- they asked Him in one voice. And He said to them: "You say I am". They shouted: “What more testimony do we need? For we ourselves have heard from His mouth.”. So, condemned by the Jewish rulers for the third time, Jesus had to die. Now, they thought, they had everything they needed for the Romans to confirm this sentence and deliver Him into their hands.

For another four years after the death and resurrection of Christ, Caiaphas held the post of high priest, shamelessly continuing to rob people. But the ever-increasing hatred of the people towards him finally reached the Roman authorities, who were no less outraged by the actions of Caiaphas than the Jews. Having examined his case, the Roman consul Vitellius removes Caiaphas from the post of high priest. The proud Caiaphas ends his life in obscurity.

Now on the site of the house of Caiaphas stands the Church of St. Peter.

The church was built by monks of the Assumptionist order. Inside the church are the dungeons of the ancient palace and the prison in which Jesus spent the rest of the night before He was taken to trial before Pontius Pilate.

Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea, Herod was tetrarch in Galilee, Philip his brother was tetrarch in Ituraea and the Trachonite region, and Lysanias was tetrarch in Abilene, under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God was to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness” (Luke 3:1–2). “It was Caiaphas who gave advice to the Jews that it was better for one man to die for the people” (John 18:14).

Roman procurators ruled the province of Judea with the help of high priests they appointed. Caiaphas was the high priest of the Temple for 18 years. He was appointed to this post by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, and removed from power by the consul Aulus Vitellius, the future emperor of Rome. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of the high priest Annas and, after his election, was completely subject to the advice and recommendations of his father-in-law. Even after leaving his post, Anna firmly held power in his hands and, in fact, had sole control of temple posts and the treasury. Like his father-in-law, Caiaphas was a Sadducee and owed his rise entirely to Roman power. After the resurrection of Lazarus, the Sadducees were alarmed that an indisputable fact rejected their teaching about the impossibility of resurrection and the denial of life after earthly death. Caiaphas valued his personal interests first of all, and seeing in the Lord Jesus Christ a dangerous troublemaker, fearing that he might lose his position if a rebellion and subsequent reprisals by the Romans occurred, he was the first to call for getting rid of Jesus Christ, because “what is better for one man to die for?” people" .

In the “Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus the following is said about Joseph Caiaphas: “Then, according to the evangelist, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius and in the fourth of Pilate’s reign of Judea, when the tetrarchs of the rest of Judea were Herod, Lysanias and Philip, our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God, in the thirtieth year of His life came to be baptized by John and laid the foundation for the gospel. According to the Holy Scriptures, the time of His teaching fits into the years when Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. It began during the high priesthood of Annas and continued until the high priesthood of Caiaphas, a period of less than four years. From that time on, the provisions of the law concerning service to God, which was lifelong and passed successively from father to son, were violated. The Roman authorities appointed first one or the other high priest, and no one remained in this position for more than a year. Joseph<Флавий>says that after Annas and before Caiaphas there were four high priests. In the same book of “Antiquities” he writes this: “Valery Grat deposed Ananus and declared Ishmael, son of Fabi, high priest, but later a short time removed him too and declared Eleazar, the son of the high priest Anan, high priest. After a year, he also removed him and transferred the rank of high priest to Simon, son of Camith. And he held his title for no more than a year; Joseph, nicknamed Caiaphas, became his successor.” So, the teaching time of our Savior lasted less than four years, and during these four years four high priests - from Annas to Caiaphas - carried out their ministry. That Caiaphas was truly the high priest in the year of the saving Passion is evidenced by the Gospel. It and the above remarks, which agree with it, indicate the time of Christ’s teaching. Our Savior and Master, soon after the beginning of His sermon, called the twelve apostles; only them, among His other disciples, did He especially honor with the name of the apostles. Then He chose seventy more, whom He sent two by two before Him to every place and city where He Himself wanted to go” (Book 1, Chapter 10).

In a burial cave discovered in 1990, several ossuaries (coffins) were discovered, on the narrow side of one of them the inscription “husf br kfa” was found, that is, on modern language“Yehosef bar Qafa” - Joseph, son of Caiaphas. In the ossuary, archaeologists found the bones of six people: two infants, one child aged 2 to 5 years, a teenager about 13 years old, adult woman and men approximately 60 years old. Probably the last skeleton belongs to the high priest.

[Greek Καιάφα; aram. ] (late 1st century BC - mid 1st century AD; reign c. 18 - c. 36 AD), high priest of the times of Jesus Christ, who, according to testimony, received Gospels, active participation in His condemnation. Information about K. recorded in other sources is sparse. Josephus reports that Valerius Gratus, the 5th governor of Judea, “deposed the high priest Ananus and installed in his place Ishmael, son of Fabi. However, not long later, he dismissed Ismail and appointed Eleazar, the son of the high priest Anan, in his place. After a year, he removed him too and gave the post to Simon, son of Camith. However, the latter held out for no more than a year, and Joseph, also nicknamed Caiaphas, was appointed his successor” (Ios. Flav. Antiq. XVIII 2. 2). The fact that Joseph notes the instability of high priestly power has sharpened the attention of researchers to the personality of K. and the reasons for his long reign.

In the Gospels, K. is mentioned in connection with 2 circumstances: to establish the chronological framework of the narrative (Luke 3. 1-2) and to clarify his role in the history of the condemnation of Jesus Christ (among all the evangelists). The degree of K.'s participation in the trial is presented in different ways in the Gospels. All Synoptic Gospels give decisive question K. addressed to Jesus: “...Are you the Christ, the Son of God?” (Mt 26.63; “...Son of the Blessed One” (Mk 14.61); “Are you the Christ?” (Lk 22.67)). In response to the affirmative words of Jesus Christ, K. tears his clothes, and all those present recognize Jesus as guilty of death (Matthew 26.64-66; Mark 14.62-64).

In Matthew 26.3, the name of K. is mentioned in connection with the location of the meeting against Jesus Christ: “Then the chief priests and scribes and the elders of the people were gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas.” The use of the word "high priest" in the plural. h. allows us to see here a specific indication of the former. the high priest Annu (Hanan) and the current high priest K., however, the repetition of the word “high priest” - with the explanation “by name”, as if it was being spoken about for the first time - allows us to assume that the expression “high priests and scribes and elders” - a general formulaic phrase used to denote Heb. spiritual elite. There is no emphasis on K.’s special role in the narrative. In Matthew 26.65-66 the high priest is not called by name; Thus, for the evangelist, the trial itself and its consequences are important, and not the role specific person, K., in the matter of condemning Jesus.

Evangelist Luke mentions Anna and K. together, calling them both high priests, despite the fact that during the gospel events Anna could not perform this ministry. He was removed from office ca. 15 A.D. Anna probably continued to have an active influence on religion. politics in Judea. Five of his sons occupied the position of high priest for a short time (Ios. Flav. Antiq. XX 9.1), and K., according to the Gospel of John, was Anna’s son-in-law (John 18.13).

In the Gospel of John, the evangelist’s remark is interesting that K. was the high priest “for that year” (John 11.49, 51): Euthymius Zigaben saw in this clarification a hidden denunciation of the violation of the law, which prescribed that the high priest should be elected for life. With the expression “for that year,” the evangelist could be trying to “harmonize” the tradition about the 2 high priests of the time of Jesus Christ, believing that every year Anna and K. took turns replacing each other as high priest. Evangelist John names the reasons for the conference against Jesus: the high priests and Pharisees were confused by the numerous miracles of Jesus Christ (primarily the resurrection of Lazarus) and were afraid that unrest among the people would provoke punitive measures from the Romans (John 11.47-48). Evangelist John is the only author who emphasized the political motives for the actions of the priests and scribes against Jesus. High Priest K. says that it is better for one person to die for the people than for the whole people to perish, and these words turn out to be prophetic (John 11:49-52). The evangelist connects this prophecy with the special status of the position held by K..

The description of the trial of Jesus in the Gospel of John contains significant additions to the testimony of the weather forecasters. Although K. was the high priest “for that year,” and the evangelist repeats this remark (John 18:13), Jesus is first led to Anna. This circumstance receives a somewhat strange explanation: “... for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas...” (John 18:13), since the relationship between Anna and K. in itself could hardly be a sufficient reason for the fact that the accused was brought to a relative of the high priest, and not to himself. Next, John describes in detail the interrogation of Anna; meanwhile, almost no attention is paid to K.’s interrogation: having mentioned K. (John 18.24), the narrator immediately moves on to the story of the apostle’s renunciation. Peter (John 18:25-27). On the one hand, the story of the Gospel of John confirms the assumption that Anna continued to interfere in the affairs of the high priests - his close relatives. (Cf. E. Renan: “Judging by many circumstances, one can think that his (Caiaphas. - M.K.) power was only nominal... Caiaphas did nothing on his own initiative; theirs (Annas and Caiaphas. - M. K.) they are accustomed to joining names together, and moreover, Anna’s name was always even put in front.”) On the other hand, within the framework of the Gospel narrative, the connection between the content of Anna’s interrogation and those accusations that were reported to Pontius Pilate remains unexplained: Anna was interrogated Jesus Christ about the nature of His teaching, and Pilate - about political motives, about the messiahship of Jesus and His Kingdom. Evangelical forecasters are unanimous that it was the messianic dignity of Christ that was discussed at the trial of K. (Matthew 26.61-65; Mark 14.57-64; Luke 22.66-71) - an event about which he is silent Evangelist John. He may do this deliberately, following his tendency to supplement rather than repeat the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels.

The evidence of the evangelists and Josephus allows us to conclude that K. is loyal to Rome. authorities. K.'s reign was exceptionally long compared to the reigns of his predecessors. Josephus Flavius, who paid much attention to the struggle of the Jews. people for independence during the reign of Pontius Pilate, does not dwell in any detail on the activities of K. Evangelist John points out the fear of the high priest and other religions. European leaders people before Rome power. The decisive argument in the condemnation of Jesus Christ is the threat of disloyalty to the emperor (John 19. 12, 15; cf. Lk 23. 2).

In addition to the Gospels in the NT, K. is mentioned only in Acts 4. 6. Here K. is again named after the “high priest” of Annas and is spoken of along with others. representatives of the "high priestly family". K. appears here as one of the opponents of the preaching of the apostles. K.'s image is devoid of specific features.

Lit.: Dodd Ch. H. The Prophecy of Caiaphas: John 11. 47-53 // Neotestamentica et Patristica. Leiden, 1962. P. 134-143; Evans C. A. In What Sense “Blasphemy”?: Jesus before Caiaphas in Mark 14:61-64 // Idem.

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden, 1995. P. 407-434; VanderKam J. C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis, 2004; Reinhartz A. “Rewritten Gospel”: The Case of Caiaphas the High Priest // NTS. 2009. Vol. 55. N 2. P. 160-178.

M. G. Kalinin

Archaeological evidence In 1990, during the construction work

, to the south On the outskirts of Jerusalem, a tomb carved into rock, typical of burials of the 1st century, was discovered. according to R.H.: with a burial chamber measuring 2.60x3.45 m and 4 small niches for placing ossuaries (ossuaries). Here, 6 intact ossuaries were found, partially moved from their places, and many fragments of bone boxes scattered in disarray. In addition, archaeologists found a lot of pottery from the 1st century in the burial chamber. according to R.H., characteristic of Jewish burials of the era (kitchen pots, oil lamps, incense bottles), mostly broken, and a glass incense bottle. Apparently, the tomb was looted in ancient times: several Byzantine types were recorded among the ceramic finds.

Some ossuaries are decorated with reliefs with stylized images of columns, with a zigzag pattern and rosettes in a circle. Some of the ossuaries are inscribed in cursive cursive writing, in Hebrew or Aramaic. On the ossuary, decorated with a particularly complex relief, the name of the buried person is scratched twice (on the long and short sides of the bone box): (Joseph bar Caiaphas). The inscriptions on other ossuaries undoubtedly indicate that those buried belonged to the same family: , (Miriam, daughter of Simeon), (peace). In total, the remains of 63 people were found in the tomb. The bones were found in only 6 ossuaries, and each contained the remains of several. Human. Thus, in the ossuary with the name “Joseph Caiaphas” the remains of a 60-year-old man, a woman and several others were found. children and teenagers. Anthropological analysis of bone remains revealed extremely child and adolescent mortality. Researchers explain this by famine caused by the droughts of 41-48. according to R.H. Apparently, the high social status of the family of the high priests did not protect them from hunger. A small Jewish coin minted by King Agrippa I Herod (42/43 AD) was found in one of the skulls. Obviously, this reflects the Hellenistic idea of ​​posthumous “payment to Charon”, widespread in ancient Judea. OK. Two dozen similar finds were made in Jewish burials in Jerusalem and Jericho, but the discovery of a similar coin in the tomb of a family of high priests indicates a high level of Hellenization of the family.

Additional information on the history of the K. family was obtained thanks to the ossuary of Miriam, the granddaughter of the New Testament high priest, found in 2011. The ossuary was confiscated from the black diggers, and the exact location of its discovery is unknown (presumably the valley of Ha-Elah (“valley of the oak”, 1 Kings 17.2, 19), in the foothills of the Judean mountains). The ossuary was subjected to rigorous laboratory tests and found to be genuine. According to the cautious assumption of the researchers, the find should be dated to the period between anti-Roman. uprisings (70-135): the decorative relief on the ossuary was made carelessly, and with it 2 oil lamps of that time were found. On the long side of the ossuary there is an inscription: (Miriam, daughter of Yeshua, son of Caiaphas, priests of Maazi from Beth Imri).

The inscription provides researchers with very valuable information. From the inscription it follows that K. was indeed a priest, came from the priestly family of Maazia, mentioned in the Holy. Scripture (24th priestly family in the series of temple service, 1 Chron. 24. 18; Neh. 10. 8). Bet Imri is the name of a settlement. The family may have moved to Jerusalem, but their family estate was located in Beth Imri. The exact location of Bet Imri has not been established.

Lit.: Greenhut Z. Burial Cave of the Caiaphas Family // BAR. 1992. Vol. 18. N 5. P. 28-36, 76; idem.

The “Caiaphas” Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem // Atiqot. 1992. Vol. 21. P. 63-71; Reich R. Ossuary Inscriptions from the “Caiaphas” Tomb // Ibid. P. 72-77; idem.

Caiaphas Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes // BAR. 1992. Vol. 18. N 5. P. 38-44, 76; Zias J. Human Skeletal Remains from the “Caiaphas” Tomb // Atiqot. 1992. Vol. 21. P. 78-80; Horbury W. The “Caiaphas” Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas // PEQ. 1994. Vol. 126. P. 32-48; Ilan T. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Tüb., 2002. Vol. 1: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE; Evans C. A. Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simon of Cyrene: Assessing the Literary and Archaeological Evidence // Jesus and Archaeology / Ed. J. H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, 2006. P. 323-340; Zissu B., Goren Y. The Ossuary of “Miriam Daughter of Yeshua Son of Caiaphas, Priests Ma"aziah” from Beth ‘Imri // IEJ. 2011. Vol. 61. N 1. P. 74-95.

Ya. Chekhanovets

The next example is the relief of wooden doors c. Santa Sabina in Rome (c. 430), where the composition “Jesus Christ before Caiaphas” is presented. The scene is carved into a small rectangular panel and is located at the bottom of the right wing. The high priest is depicted alone, sitting on a throne or chair with bent legs, placed on a dais. On the right, Jesus Christ is brought to him, accompanied by 5 people, one of whom holds a sword. K. is presented as beardless, wearing a long chiton, over which is a cloak fastened at the shoulder with a round brooch. On the head is a round hat with a band; its top has folds like a turban or turban - this is a turban, the headdress of the Jewish high priests. In the detailed Passion cycle of mosaics in the south. walls of the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (VI century). K. depicts several. times in the scenes “Jesus Christ is led to Caiaphas”, “Jesus Christ before Caiaphas and the council of elders (Sanhedrin)”, “Judas returns the pieces of silver”, “Bringing Jesus Christ to Pilate” and “Procession to Calvary”. In all compositions K. appears as a gray-haired old man with his head uncovered; long hair and a medium-length beard. He actively gestures, pointing to Jesus Christ. Dressed in a white cloak, trimmed with a dark border and fastened on the chest with a round fibula with precious stones(a stylized image of the Jewish high priestly confidant), and in a short, knee-length, white tunic with claves. In the scene “The Return of Silver by Judas” on a miniature from the Rossan Gospel ( Cathedral, Rossano, VI century) K. is presented together with the high priest Anna. They sit on a throne placed on a raised platform under a canopy on 4 columns. K. turned away and put his hands forward, refusing to take the pieces of silver back. Both high priests are in light gray-blue tunics and himations, they have uncovered heads and the same short hairstyles and beards, only the hair color is different: K. has gray hair, Anna has dark hair. Likewise, with gray hair, in a tunic and himation, K. is depicted in a miniature from the Khludov Psalter (GIM. Greek No. 129. Sheet 31 vol., ca. mid-9th century) - he sits on the judge’s seat, in front of him is Jesus Christ and 2 false witnesses .

The scene of the trial of the high priests Annas and Caiaphas is found in Byzantine miniatures. front Gospels of the 11th century. (eg: Paris. gr. 74. Fol. 55, 97v, 160, 160v). In the miniature from the Gospel of the Dionysiates monastery (Ath. Dionys. 587m, late 11th century), which depicts not a court scene, but the Sanhedrin itself, K. sits on the judge’s chair with a white doll (kidar?) on his head. He, like the other high priest standing in front of him, probably Anna, wears a long chiton and an upper bell-shaped robe, similar to a priestly phelonion. Both high priests have long, pointed beards. This iconographic type of depiction of K. and Anna will be characteristic of Middle Byzantine art. period.

On the fresco of the Spassky Cathedral of the Mirozh Monastery in Pskov (the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 12th century), where the expanded Passion Cycle is presented, the high priests are depicted twice: sitting on the throne and listening to false witnesses and standing at the judge’s table, passing the accusation Jesus Christ. Their white headdresses, kukol, have an ornament in the form of black strokes. Gesture right hand K., turning to Pilate, has characteristics: such a finger formation with the 3rd and 4th fingers pressed to the palm and the 2nd finger and little finger held back is found among prophets; it is usually called the gesture of prophetic revelation. K.’s gesture in the Mirozh painting recalls his involuntary prophecy about Jesus Christ, which is given in the Gospel of John: “You know nothing, and you will not think that it is better for us that one person should die for the people, than that the whole nation should perish. But he did not say this on his own, but, being high priest that year, he predicted that Jesus would die for the people, not only for the people, but so that he might also gather together the scattered children of God” (John 11:49-52). The words of K. spoken at the council of the high priests and Pharisees about Jesus Christ, who performs so many miracles that everyone can believe in Him, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, although the high priest himself, testifying to the truth about the Savior, did not listen to his own words and did not understand their truth sense.

In Old Russian art of the late 15th century. Passionate subjects begin to appear on icons. On the Novgorod tablet (late 15th century, NGOMZ) in the scene “Bringing to Anna and Caiaphas,” K., sitting at the table next to Anna, is depicted without a headdress and in a robe torn to the waist. This motif - Judge K. tearing his clothes - was popular in Western Europe. art (for example, Duccio di Buoninsegna, “Christ before Caiaphas”, fragment of the altar “Maesta”, 1308-1311, Cathedral Museum, Siena) and became widespread in Russian. art of the 17th century (paintings of the Church of St. John the Baptist in Tolchkovo, Church of the Prophet Elijah in Yaroslavl). K. in these scenes appears in robes imitating the historical clothes of the Jewish high priests - in a high turban hat, long lower clothing and a short upper one (ephod). K. is also depicted in the Russian series. engravings of the 17th-18th centuries.

Lit.: Rovinsky.

Folk pictures. Book 3. No. 809. 10; No. 810 (16-20); Wessel K. Der Sieg über den Tod: Die Passion Christi in der frühchristlichen Kunst des Abendlandes. B., 1956; LCI. Bd. 3. Sp. 39-85; Pokrovsky N.V. The Gospel in iconographic monuments. M., 2001. P. 385-400.

N. V. Kvlividze

, Mf. , OK. , In. , In. ), as well as in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts). This occurs first in the story of John the Baptist:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judea, Herod was tetrarch in Galilee, Philip his brother was tetrarch in Ituraea and the Trachonite region, and Lysanias was tetrarch in Abilene, under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God was to John , son of Zechariah, in the wilderness.

He then appears in the story of the Passion of the Lord; in the house of Caiaphas the fate of Jesus Christ is finally decided:

And some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and Pharisees held a council and said, “What should we do?” This Man does many miracles. If we leave Him like this, then everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take possession of both our place and our people. One of them, a certain Caiaphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: you know nothing, and you will not think that it is better for us that one person should die for the people, than that the whole people should perish. He did not say this on his own, but, being high priest that year, he predicted that Jesus would die for the people, and not only for the people, but in order to gather together the scattered children of God. From that day on they decided to kill Him.

Caiaphas was the high priest of the Temple for 18 years. He was appointed to this post by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and removed from power by the future emperor Aulus Vitellius. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, son-in-law of the high priest Annas (Hannan), and an obedient tool in the hands of his father-in-law. Even after leaving his post, Anna continued to tenaciously hold power in his hands and, in fact, had sole control over temple posts and the treasury. According to some historians, it was Anna, through his son-in-law, who made the decision to execute Jesus as a rebel, “one of those “prophets” with whom Judea was flooded at that time,” fighters against the power of the Romans, who predicted the imminent coming of the Messiah and the renewal of the world.

Ossuary of Joseph, son of Caiaphas

In November 1990, during the construction of a water park in Jerusalem - in an area called the “Forest of Peace” - excavators unexpectedly broke through the roof of an artificial cave, which turned out to be a burial chamber, sealed approximately since the Second Jewish War (70). The chamber was divided into four parts by partitions, where there were 6 intact and 6 broken (probably by robbers) ossuaries. On the narrow side of one of them they read the inscription ""husf br kfa", that is, in modern language "Yehosef bar Qafa" - « Joseph, son of Caiaphas" It is possible that this ossuary contained the remains of the son of the Gospel Caiaphas, who bore the same name as his father.

In the ossuary, archaeologists found the bones of six people: two infants, one child aged 2 to 5 years, a teenager about 13 years old, an adult woman and a man about 60 years old. Probably the last skeleton belongs to the high priest. After the research was completed, the remains were transferred to the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs and buried on the Mount of Olives. It is interesting that a coin was placed in the deceased’s mouth, which is typical of Greek, not Jewish, custom.

Write a review of the article "Caiaphas"

Notes

Literature

• Josephus Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. Essay in 20 books ().

Links

	in Wikisource

Events Places Jesus and disciples Jews Romans Items Iconography

Tabernacle First Temple Post-Prisoners Dynasty Hasmonean Herodians before Jewish revolt

Characters Geography Film adaptations Theater productions

Excerpt characterizing Caiaphas

At dawn on the 16th, Denisov's squadron, in which Nikolai Rostov served, and which was in the detachment of Prince Bagration, moved from an overnight stop into action, as they said, and, having passed about a mile behind the other columns, was stopped on the high road. Rostov saw the Cossacks, the 1st and 2nd squadrons of hussars, infantry battalions with artillery pass by, and generals Bagration and Dolgorukov with their adjutants passed by. All the fear that he, as before, felt before the case; all the internal struggle through which he overcame this fear; all his dreams of how he would distinguish himself in this matter like a hussar were in vain. Their squadron was left in reserve, and Nikolai Rostov spent that day bored and sad. At 9 o'clock in the morning he heard gunfire ahead of him, shouts of hurray, saw the wounded being brought back (there were few of them) and, finally, saw how a whole detachment of French cavalrymen was led through in the middle of hundreds of Cossacks. Obviously, the matter was over, and the matter was obviously small, but happy. Soldiers and officers passing back talked about the brilliant victory, about the occupation of the city of Wischau and the capture of an entire French squadron. The day was clear, sunny, after a strong night frost, and a cheerful shine autumn day coincided with the news of the victory, which was conveyed not only by the stories of those who took part in it, but also by the joyful expression on the faces of soldiers, officers, generals and adjutants traveling to and from Rostov. The heart of Nikolai ached all the more painfully, as he had in vain suffered all the fear that preceded the battle, and spent that joyful day in inaction.
- Rostov, come here, let's drink out of grief! - Denisov shouted, sitting down on the edge of the road in front of a flask and a snack.
The officers gathered in a circle, eating and talking, near Denisov's cellar.
- Here's another one being brought! - said one of the officers, pointing to the French captured dragoon, which was being led on foot by two Cossacks.
One of them was leading a tall and beautiful French horse taken from a prisoner.
- Sell the horse! - Denisov shouted to the Cossack.
- If you please, your honor...
The officers stood up and surrounded the Cossacks and the captured Frenchman. The French dragoon was a young fellow, an Alsatian, who spoke French with a German accent. He was choking with excitement, his face was red, and, hearing the French language, he quickly spoke to the officers, addressing first one and then the other. He said that they would not have taken him; that it was not his fault that he was taken, but that le caporal was to blame, who sent him to seize the blankets, that he told him that the Russians were already there. And to every word he added: mais qu"on ne fasse pas de mal a mon petit cheval [But do not offend my horse] and caressed his horse. It was clear that he did not understand well where he was. He then apologized, that he was taken, then, putting his superiors before him, he showed his soldierly service and care for his service. He brought with him to our rearguard in all its freshness the atmosphere of the French army, which was so alien to us.
The Cossacks gave the horse for two chervonets, and Rostov, now the richest of the officers, having received the money, bought it.
“Mais qu"on ne fasse pas de mal a mon petit cheval,” the Alsatian said good-naturedly to Rostov when the horse was handed over to the hussar.
Rostov, smiling, reassured the dragoon and gave him money.
- Hello! Hello! - said the Cossack, touching the prisoner’s hand so that he would move on.
- Sovereign! Sovereign! - suddenly it was heard between the hussars.
Everything ran and hurried, and Rostov saw several horsemen with white plumes on their hats approaching from behind along the road. In one minute everyone was in place and waiting. Rostov did not remember and did not feel how he reached his place and got on his horse. Instantly his regret about not participating in the matter passed, his everyday mood in the circle of people looking closely at him, instantly any thought about himself disappeared: he was completely absorbed in the feeling of happiness that comes from the proximity of the sovereign. He felt rewarded by this proximity alone for the loss of that day. He was happy, like a lover who had waited for the expected date. Not daring to look at the front and not looking back, he felt with an enthusiastic instinct its approach. And he felt this not just from the sound of the hooves of the horses of the approaching cavalcade, but he felt it because, as he approached, everything around him became brighter, more joyful and more significant and festive. This sun moved closer and closer for Rostov, spreading rays of gentle and majestic light around itself, and now he already feels captured by these rays, he hears its voice - this gentle, calm, majestic and at the same time so simple voice. As it should have been according to Rostov’s feelings, dead silence fell, and in this silence the sounds of the sovereign’s voice were heard.
– Les huzards de Pavlograd? [Pavlograd hussars?] - he said questioningly.
- La reserve, sire! [Reserve, Your Majesty!] - answered someone else’s voice, so human after that inhuman voice that said: Les huzards de Pavlograd?
The Emperor drew level with Rostov and stopped. Alexander's face was even more beautiful than at the show three days ago. It shone with such gaiety and youth, such innocent youth that it was reminiscent of a childish fourteen-year-old playfulness, and at the same time it was still the face of a majestic emperor. Casually looking around the squadron, the sovereign’s eyes met Rostov’s eyes and stayed on them for no more than two seconds. Did the sovereign understand what was going on in Rostov’s soul (it seemed to Rostov that he understood everything), but he looked for two seconds with his own blue eyes in Rostov's face. (The light poured out of them softly and meekly.) Then suddenly he raised his eyebrows, with a sharp movement he kicked the horse with his left leg and galloped forward.

First, the soldiers brought the bound Jesus Christ to the old high priest Anna, who by that time was no longer serving in the temple and was living in retirement. This high priest interrogated Jesus Christ about His teaching and His disciples in order to find some guilt in Him. The Savior answered him: “I spoke openly to the world: I always taught both in the synagogues and in the temple, where Jews always gather, and I did not say anything secretly. Why are you asking Me? Ask those who heard what I told them; now they know what I mean.” said". One servant of the high priest, standing close, hit the Savior on the cheek and said: “Is this how you answer the high priest?” The Lord, turning to him, said to this: “If I said something bad, show me what is bad; and if it’s good, then why are you beating Me?” After the interrogation, the high priest Annas sent the bound Jesus Christ through the courtyard to his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas.

Caiaphas was serving as high priest that year. He gave advice to the Sanhedrin: to kill Jesus Christ, saying: “You know nothing and will not think that it is better for us that one person should die for the people than that the whole people should perish.” St. Apostle John, pointing out the importance of the priesthood, explains that despite his criminal plan, the high priest Caiaphas involuntarily prophesies about the Savior that He must suffer for the redemption of people. That is why the Apostle John says: “But he (Caiaphas) ​​did not speak on his own, but being high priest that year, he predicted that Jesus would die for the people.” And then he adds: “And not only for the people (i.e., for the Jews, since Caiaphas spoke only about the Jewish people), but so that the scattered children of God (i.e., the pagans) may be gathered into one.” (John 11:49-52).

Many members of the Sanhedrin gathered at the High Priest Caiaphas that night (the Sanhedrin, as the supreme court, according to the law, had to meet in the temple and certainly during the day). The elders and scribes of the Jews also came. All of them had already agreed in advance to condemn Jesus Christ to death. But for this they needed to find some kind of guilt worthy of death. And since no guilt could be found in Him, they looked for false witnesses who would tell lies against Jesus Christ. Many such false witnesses came. But they could not say anything for which they could condemn Jesus Christ. At the end, two came forward with the following false testimony: “We heard Him say: I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will erect another, not made with hands.” But even such testimony was not sufficient to put Him to death. Jesus Christ did not respond to all these false testimonies.

The High Priest Caiaphas stood up and asked Him: “Why do You not answer anything to the fact that they testify against You? Jesus Christ was silent. Caiaphas asked Him again: “I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are You the Christ, the Son of God?” Jesus Christ answered this question and said: “Yes, I, and even I say to you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then Caiaphas tore his clothes (as a sign of indignation and horror) and said: “What more do we need witnesses for? Now, have you heard His blasphemy (i.e., that He, being a man, would call Himself the Son of God)? What do you think?" They all answered with one voice: "Guilty of death." After this, Jesus Christ was taken into custody until dawn. Some began to spit in His face. The people who held Him cursed at Him and beat Him. Others , covering His face, they struck Him on the cheeks and asked mockingly: “Prophesy to us, Christ, who struck You?” The Lord endured all these insults meekly in silence.

NOTE: See in the Gospel: Matthew, ch. 26, 57-68; Ch. 27, 1; from Mark, ch. 14, 53-65; Ch. 15, 1; from Luke, ch. 22, 54, 63-71; from John, ch. 18, 12-14, 19-24.