JESUS AND THE SADDUCCEAN SYNDICATE [r]
The generally accepted theory today is that Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities for the political crime of treason or rebellion since the religious infractions with which he was charged would have not allowed for crucifixion as a proper punishment. There is ever much argument over whether the Jewish authorities had the power to execute the criminals at the time [John 18:32] [1] We are directed back in time to the earlier story of John the Baptizer and of the Tetrarch, and paid the ultimate price, his head. The arrest, trial and execution of Jesus has often been wedged into the same mold. I, however, would like to suggest another possibility.
Imagine, if you will, a young rural lad from New Jersey let us say, going into New York City's drugs area and "knocking off" a drug dealer. Let us further imagine that this dealer was protected, or belonged to one of the major "families" of New York's crime syndicate. What do you suppose would be the reaction of this family? Would they shrug it off or take reprisal? I would opt for the latter course.
Now, let us look at the career of Jesus of Nazareth on the last week of his life. This young, out-of-town 'rabbi' if not a Pharisee, at least with some Pharisaic training [2] not only makes a big noise on Sunday by parading into the city through the Golden Gate recalling the prophecy of Zechariah, but on Monday he commenced the unforgivable act. He enters the Temple precincts, the Sadduccean sanctuary, and overthrows the 'money changers'. [3]. Now these money changers were known far and wide as the "booths of Annas" ( Raymond Brown identifies that "some would associate theses bazaars {hanut} with the priestly family of Annas")[4]] We are told that from that moment on he chief priest 'tried to do away with him'.[5]
Who is this Annas who seems to have so much power in Jerusalem? Annas, or perhaps more properly Ananus, to whom these 'booths' or 'bazaars' belonged was the son of Seth, a leader of a prominent Sadduccean family. Annas was appointed High Priest by Quirenius, the Prefect of Syria when he deposed Joazar, in the " 37th year of Caesar's victory over Anthony", or 6 C. E. [6]. Annas served until 15 C.E. when he was deposed from office for corruption by Valerius Gratus, who had become Prefect. It was generally the policy of the Roman rulers in the provincial territories not to interfere in local religions unless it was necessary to keep the peace.
However, the Jewish historian Joseph ben Matthias writing under his chosen name of Flavius Josephus describes the condition of the Jerusalem priesthood in this way: " The sanctuary now has become a shop of tyranny" , and again he said, "… the multitude was going to rise, for Ananus, the ancientest of the High Priests persuaded them to it". [7] Annas was a bad one !
But, Annas was a survivor. He arranged that no less than five
of his sons, his son-in-law, and a grandson all became High Priests
after him.[8] All of these followers in the
office paid a price. Annas was always considered, and indeed called,
the ' high Priest" no matter who was in the office at the
time.[9] We can see here a real 'god-father'
inaction.
Perhaps none paid a dearer price that Caiaphas , who not only had to remain married to Annas' selfish and greedy daughter. However, Caiaphas was also a survivor, and was willing to play second fiddle to remain in power. He lasted longer than any of Annas's sons and actually outlasted two Procurators. [10]. It could be, if we give any credence to Luke's spurious story of Jesus at age 12 as having real roots in memory, that Jesus may have already come into contact with Annas, since Jesus would have been 12 the year Annas became High Priest. At any rate, it appears that Annas had occupied the greatest palace in the upper city, that of Herod the great. Since Archelaus , Herod's son , was out of favor with Rome he was not given his father's 'great house'. This house had a large court-yard and had direct communication with the temple mount by way of "Wilson's Arch".
The importance of Annas can also be seen in the magnificence of his tomb which has recently been discovered about one-half mile south of Jerusalem in the place called "Akeldama' or the biblical 'field of blood'. It is the most elaborate tomb in the entire Jerusalem area, which is saying something. It is triple-gated with beautiful decorated domes similar to the double "Golden" gate at the Temple mount. The tomb had a facade or tower which could be seen for a great distance.
His sons are buried with him as the tomb has space for many burials. Caiaphas has a separate tomb nearby. Annas' tomb was considered a landmark in the area and was even mentioned in connection with the siege [11].
When Jesus was arrested on Thursday night it was to this house that he was first taken [John 18:22]. Since Annas was not the ruling High Priest that year, we might ask why he was taken to Annas first. Matthew, alone of all the accounts, states that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas, and it could have been "for the sake of simplification that Matt's (sic) initial verses has only Caiaphas the High Priest". [12] In fact the term "high priest' could mean either Caiaphas or Annas, and Luke always lists Annas first when listing both names [13] Annas is still called 'the high priest' at the end of Caiaphas' reign. [13]
Raymond Brown, in his " Death of the Messiah", points out that as far as Christians are concerned is it accidental that Jesus, Stephen (the first martyr) and James, the ' brother of the Lord' were all put to death during the tenure of priests of the house of Annas ? That would mean that every famous Christian who died violently in Judea before the Jewish revolt suffered in the tenure of a priest related to Annas". [14] ( emphasis is Brown's)
After being interrogated by Annas, Jesus was finally taken
to the house of Caiaphas, the son-in-law and ruling high Priest
" for the year". { Matthew 26:57} We might ask why,
if Annas was the high-priest entitled to interrogate Jesus, he
did not send Jesus directly to Pilate without bothering Caiaphas
as 'transit agent or middleman' [15] The answer
may be simply that Annas was not High Priest and could not deal
directly on any official basis with the Roman government. Also,
only Caiaphas could convene a Sanhedrin.
The 'Sanhedrin trial' if there was one, causes many problems. It is usually claimed that the rules clearly stated that any capital crime must be tried in daylight, whereas the trial of Jesus seems to have taken place at night. Mark and Matthew seem to be reporting two separate sections of the Sanhedrin, but this is illogical. Raymond Brown states that "harmonizers will try to fit the gospels together usually by positing that the interrogation by Annas was followed at night by a Sanhedrin trial that was resumed in the morning". [16] According to Luke, the Sanhedrin met at daybreak; John does not even mention the Sanhedrin at all in this context. Brown suggests, and I like this scenario, that the Sanhedrin met regarding Jesus much earlier ( or perhaps Monday night) and the Interrogation by Annas is the only event of Thursday night. The gospels have compressed the story of a Sanhedrin meeting with Annas' interrogation into a one-night story. At any rate it was finally left up to Caiaphas to dispose of this outsider who had so annoyed his father-in-law.
Enter, stage left, Lucius Pontius [his gens name] Pilate [ from pilatus = lance or spear], the Prefect and Procurator of Judea with headquarters in Caesarea Maritima . He was the grand-son-in-law of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor of Rome, being married to one of the emperor's grand-daughters. Tiberius, by the year 29/30 was already an old man, paranoid and fearful. He had been on a shaky throne since the death of Augustus in 14 C.E. He believed that everyone was trying to kill him and take his throne away from him. He had fled from Rome to a remote villa in Capri, leaving the government in the hands of the Praetorian Prefect, Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Sejanus was strongly anti-Jewish, according to Josephus. ( It is possible that Josephus is trying to protect Tiberius by reassigning the anti-Jewish attitude) It later proved that Sejanus was trying to overthrow Tiberius. At any rate, the worst crime that anyone could be accused of, in the eyes of Caesar, was to be unfaithful, disloyal. Pilate was married to Tiberius' granddaughter, and could be considered a legitimate threat to take the throne.
Why does Pontius Pilate come upon the scene ? Why couldn't the Jewish authorities simply execute Jesus on their own? After all, they did kill Stephen and James and others later without help. The Roman 'imperium' or right of full power was extended to the Jewish authorities in certain cases. The Romans permitted the Jews to execute criminals convicted of certain clear religious offenses [ e.g. for violating certain Temple rules, and perhaps for adultery.] Perhaps there was an understanding between Caiaphas and Pilate which allowed Caiaphas to remain in office so long, longer than any other High Priest of his time. In addition, an execution at Passover time could cause a turmoil and Pilate was in Jerusalem, not safely out of the way in the capital. Also, the Roman style of execution would place a Deuteronomic curse on Jesus.
Anyhow, Jesus was taken before Pontius Pilate for final judgment
and execution. Records are confusing as to whether Pilate was
staying in the Antonia fortress or at the house of Annas for the
holidays. The "Via Dolorosa" route hinges on this decision.
Pilate, according to Scripture, wanted no complications during the holidays, and since Jesus was from Galilee and the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas, was in town for Passover, he sent Jesus to him for jurisdictional purposes. [Luke 23:6-12]. But, Antipas wanted nothing to do with the whole mess, perhaps recalling the aftershock of the John the Baptist affair, so he sent him back to Pilate.
Pilate appeared to want to 'dodge the bullet' , but then the syndicate played its trump card. The message sent to Pilate was; " If you don't punish this Jesus you are not a friend of Caesar's." [John 19:12] This threat must have scared Pilate half to death. If this message got to Tiberius, Pilate was in big trouble. He could have felt he had no choice; "it's either him or me". Brown agrees "that Pilate was afraid of being denounced to an unpredictable emperor may be historically accurate"[17].
After one more feeble attempt, perhaps brought on by his wife [Matt. 27:19] Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus. The charge 'he claimed to be king of the Jews' would certainly satisfy Tiberius [ or Sejanus] for Jesus had neither been appointed by nor sworn allegiance to Tiberius.
The final seal to the story, one that is probably caused for
as the answer to the question asked after 70 C.E.. How could Rome
destroy a city protected by God ? What sin have we committed ?
The answer given by the gospelor Matthew if found in 27:25 "
His blood be on us and our children.'
NOTES;
COPYRIGHT © 1995 BY ROBERT T. MASON
All Rights Reserved