Rome and the East
every year, he was of course wrong. But he was correct in that Caiaphas
was indeed high priest from about.. to . His father-in-law Annas or
Ananus (the relationship is attested only here) had, however, also earned the
designation high priest by holding the high priesthood from..to.^13
The term is thus also applied (by implication) to him when Peter and another
disciple follow Jesus into ‘‘the house [aulē]ofthearchiereus’’ (:), where
Peter makes his first denial. A first examination of Jesus is then conducted
by the high priest, evidently Annas, leading to no clear answer, after which
Annas sends him bound to appear before Caiaphas the high priest (:–
). It is here that Peter is again described as warming himself and making
his second denial (:–).
No examination in the house of Caiaphas is represented. There is thus a
clear contradiction of all three Synoptic narratives, which represent Jesus as
being brought to only one high-priestly house, where the examination is
conducted; and specifically of Matthew, who names the high priest as Caia-
phas. No taking of counsel in the morning is recorded either, and instead
‘‘they took Jesus from [the house of ] Caiaphas to thepraitōrion.’’ T h e t i m e i s
indicated clearly, and with it both the crucial element in the whole account
and a source of considerable difficulty: ‘‘it was morning, and they did not
enter into thepraitōrion, so that they might not be defiled, but (be able to) eat
thepascha’’ (:). The context is thus made quite clear, even if the nature of
the defilement which would ensue on entering thepraetoriumof the Roman
praefectusis not immediately obvious. It is, however, clear, though not ex-
plicitly stated, that the group which would otherwise have entered theprae-
torium, coming as representatives directly from the house of the high priest,
should be presumed by the reader to have included at least somekohanim
(priests); this indeed becomes explicit later (:). Whether an even more
profound significance is to be attached to this precise moment in time de-
pends on how we understand the exchange which then follows between
‘‘them’’ (not identified in any way at this point) and Pilate. He comes out of
thepraetoriumto meet them and asks what charge they are bringing. They
reply that, if Jesus were not a wrongdoer, they would not have handed him
over. Pilate then replies, ‘‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to
your own law.’’ They (here defined simply as theIudaioi) say, ‘‘It is not per-
mitted to us to kill anyone.’’ John’s authorial comment is that the purpose of
this was to ensure the fulfilment of Jesus’ own prophecy as to what sort of
death he would suffer (:). The comment repeats exactly what John had
. For the family, see now D. Barag and D. Flusser, ‘‘The Ossuary of Yehoḥanan Grand-
daughter of the High Priest Theophilus,’’IEJ (): .