What do you think?
Rate this book
Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus?
This highly engaging and readable book is a study of Joseph Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest of the first century and one of the men who sent Jesus to his death. Caiaphas is a valuable resource for scholars of ancient history and students of the Gospel of Acts.
192 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2004
1 person is currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 16, 2018
A valiant effort to dig into what can be known about Caiaphas, just, let's face it, there's so little direct evidence, and there has to be so much conjecture that perhaps this would have been better as a long essay? A strength is in the way she shows the way each gospel writer uses the name to further a particular point being made.
March 14, 2024
James Dunn and Larry Hurtado both commend the accessibility of Helen Bond's writing for good reason.
The biggest challenge for a book dedicated to historically portraying a figure like Caiaphas is the scarcity of reliable sources. Despite this, Bond's grasp of research methodology, explained in chapter one, is sound and reassuring. The project is undertaken with full awareness of its limitations.
In the rest of the book, however, the author largely omits caveats and uses phrases like "Caiaphas would have" to infer his unknown personal life based on what is known about a first-century Jerusalem priestly nobility. Any trained reader encountering these phrases should understand that they reveal more about the cultural context than about the specific individual Caiaphas. However, for lay readers drawn in by the book's accessibility and expecting a concrete biography to enhance their Bible-reading experience, a book filled with hypothetical knowledge on most of its pages might be disappointing.
In the rest of the book, the author largely omits caveats and uses phrases like "Caiaphas would have" to infer his unknown personal life based on what is known about a first-century Jerusalem priestly nobility. Any trained reader encountering these phrases should understand that they reveal more about the cultural context than about the specific individual Caiaphas. However, for lay readers drawn in by the book's accessibility and expecting a concrete biography to enhance their Bible-reading experience, , a book filled with hypothetical knowledge on most of its pages might be disappointing.
Disappointment with the book is understandable, but it shouldn't be seen as an inherent flaw. As a research writer, creating a book about Caiaphas based solely on: 1) a single sentence from Josephus' direct references, 2) the disputed identification of his excavated ossuary in 1990, and 3) ideologically driven canonical gospel passages, would naturally seem impossible at first.
However, it's feasible if we allow ourselves to heavily rely on parallel knowledge or cultural context to illuminate otherwise elusive aspects of the historical figure. The typical scholarly approach is to supplement and aid our understanding with these databases, using complex and rigorous framing phrases to warn readers when "disciplined imagination" is used. If Bond had followed this method, the book might not have been written or would have been written with very slim accessibility.
That said, this book is written with both rigor and accessibility in mind. The writing is incredibly helpful in terms of both form and content.
I will give a few comparative sketch in the book's strength I see in light of another poopular scholarly work I read
- Bond helpfully clarifies that the Sanhedrin did not exist historically at Jesus' time as a functional insititution- a fact that book authors' such as Reza Aslan in his "ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" fails to distinguish when he wrote: "As head of the Sanhedrin and “leader of the nation,” the high priest was a figure of both religious and political renown with the power to decide all religious matters" (p. 21/119)
- Bonds helpfully elucidates the fact that the Rome's Jedean prefects were lax in governance and used be based in Caesarea, leaving most of the civil governance to the Temple pristhood. Though goverenor Gratus (r. 15-26 CE) initially deposed four high priests likely out of the fear of concentration in power, the fat that tenure of Joseph Caiaphas (r. 18-36/37 CE) outlasts both Gratus' and Pontus Pilate's departure proves that this political power may have been reserved to the Syria legate after a delegation was sent to appeal for the matter in 16/17 CE.
Bond is much clearer and convincing in her historical explanation than, again, Aslan in his "Zealot", where he paints the picture rather lousily:
"If the Romans wanted to control the Jews, they had to control the Temple. And if they wanted to control the Temple, they had to control the high priest, which is why, soon after taking control over Judea, Rome took upon itself the responsibility of appointing and deposing (either directly or indirectly) the high priest, essentially transforming him into a Roman employee. Rome even kept custody of the high priest’s sacred garments, handing them out only on the sacred festivals and feast days and confiscating them immediately after the ceremonies were complete.
Still, the Jews were better off than some other than some other Roman subjects. For the most part, the Romans humored the Jewish cult,For the most part, the Romans humored the Jewish cult, allowing the rituals and sacrifices to be conducted without interference."
- Bond suggests in "Caiaphas" that holding the ceremonial vestment in Antonio Fortress was a Herodian practice in the first place. This controlling measure was inherited by subsequent Judean prefects until 37 CE. As mentioned earlier, these prefects mostly resided in Caesarea Maritima and would only visit Jerusalem during the three major festivals. The decision is both based on where they felt their cultural comfort zone was and on an intentional to de-escalte what their overpowering presence could have caused in the Jewish holy city.
Hence, if these prefects were really the ones to have introduced this control measure (as Aslan has misconceived), it would only be logical for them to keep the sacred garments in Caesarea Maritima, bringing them down to Jerusalem when they also had to pay visitations o the rite. Antonio Fortress, as King Herod’s administrative base, was located near the temple complex. That it remained the place to keep the vestments goes to say that the Judean prefects did (could) not apply more stricture to the pristly households than King Herod.
- When Aslan turns to admit that during Roman prefecture of Judea Jewish cult enjoyed more freedom and official respect in the immediate paragraph following the main part of the selected passage, there are obvious loose ends untied.
- Bond’s work leaves no such loose ends untied. The smooth read reflects a knowledgeable auther having master command in her subject matter.
The biggest challenge for a book dedicated to historically portraying a figure like Caiaphas is the scarcity of reliable sources. Despite this, Bond's grasp of research methodology, explained in chapter one, is sound and reassuring. The project is undertaken with full awareness of its limitations.
In the rest of the book, however, the author largely omits caveats and uses phrases like "Caiaphas would have" to infer his unknown personal life based on what is known about a first-century Jerusalem priestly nobility. Any trained reader encountering these phrases should understand that they reveal more about the cultural context than about the specific individual Caiaphas. However, for lay readers drawn in by the book's accessibility and expecting a concrete biography to enhance their Bible-reading experience, a book filled with hypothetical knowledge on most of its pages might be disappointing.
In the rest of the book, the author largely omits caveats and uses phrases like "Caiaphas would have" to infer his unknown personal life based on what is known about a first-century Jerusalem priestly nobility. Any trained reader encountering these phrases should understand that they reveal more about the cultural context than about the specific individual Caiaphas. However, for lay readers drawn in by the book's accessibility and expecting a concrete biography to enhance their Bible-reading experience, , a book filled with hypothetical knowledge on most of its pages might be disappointing.
Disappointment with the book is understandable, but it shouldn't be seen as an inherent flaw. As a research writer, creating a book about Caiaphas based solely on: 1) a single sentence from Josephus' direct references, 2) the disputed identification of his excavated ossuary in 1990, and 3) ideologically driven canonical gospel passages, would naturally seem impossible at first.
However, it's feasible if we allow ourselves to heavily rely on parallel knowledge or cultural context to illuminate otherwise elusive aspects of the historical figure. The typical scholarly approach is to supplement and aid our understanding with these databases, using complex and rigorous framing phrases to warn readers when "disciplined imagination" is used. If Bond had followed this method, the book might not have been written or would have been written with very slim accessibility.
That said, this book is written with both rigor and accessibility in mind. The writing is incredibly helpful in terms of both form and content.
I will give a few comparative sketch in the book's strength I see in light of another poopular scholarly work I read
- Bond helpfully clarifies that the Sanhedrin did not exist historically at Jesus' time as a functional insititution- a fact that book authors' such as Reza Aslan in his "ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" fails to distinguish when he wrote: "As head of the Sanhedrin and “leader of the nation,” the high priest was a figure of both religious and political renown with the power to decide all religious matters" (p. 21/119)
- Bonds helpfully elucidates the fact that the Rome's Jedean prefects were lax in governance and used be based in Caesarea, leaving most of the civil governance to the Temple pristhood. Though goverenor Gratus (r. 15-26 CE) initially deposed four high priests likely out of the fear of concentration in power, the fat that tenure of Joseph Caiaphas (r. 18-36/37 CE) outlasts both Gratus' and Pontus Pilate's departure proves that this political power may have been reserved to the Syria legate after a delegation was sent to appeal for the matter in 16/17 CE.
Bond is much clearer and convincing in her historical explanation than, again, Aslan in his "Zealot", where he paints the picture rather lousily:
"If the Romans wanted to control the Jews, they had to control the Temple. And if they wanted to control the Temple, they had to control the high priest, which is why, soon after taking control over Judea, Rome took upon itself the responsibility of appointing and deposing (either directly or indirectly) the high priest, essentially transforming him into a Roman employee. Rome even kept custody of the high priest’s sacred garments, handing them out only on the sacred festivals and feast days and confiscating them immediately after the ceremonies were complete.
Still, the Jews were better off than some other than some other Roman subjects. For the most part, the Romans humored the Jewish cult,For the most part, the Romans humored the Jewish cult, allowing the rituals and sacrifices to be conducted without interference."
- Bond suggests in "Caiaphas" that holding the ceremonial vestment in Antonio Fortress was a Herodian practice in the first place. This controlling measure was inherited by subsequent Judean prefects until 37 CE. As mentioned earlier, these prefects mostly resided in Caesarea Maritima and would only visit Jerusalem during the three major festivals. The decision is both based on where they felt their cultural comfort zone was and on an intentional to de-escalte what their overpowering presence could have caused in the Jewish holy city.
Hence, if these prefects were really the ones to have introduced this control measure (as Aslan has misconceived), it would only be logical for them to keep the sacred garments in Caesarea Maritima, bringing them down to Jerusalem when they also had to pay visitations o the rite. Antonio Fortress, as King Herod’s administrative base, was located near the temple complex. That it remained the place to keep the vestments goes to say that the Judean prefects did (could) not apply more stricture to the pristly households than King Herod.
- When Aslan turns to admit that during Roman prefecture of Judea Jewish cult enjoyed more freedom and official respect in the immediate paragraph following the main part of the selected passage, there are obvious loose ends untied.
- Bond’s work leaves no such loose ends untied. The smooth read reflects a knowledgeable auther having master command in her subject matter.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews