During the high priesthood (ἀρχιερέως
[genitive singular of ἀρχιερεύς]) of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came
to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. (Luke 3:2 NRSV)
2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως
Ἅννα καὶ Καιάφα. Lk. now passes to the ecclesiastical rulers. The singular is probably
not accidental, and certainly not ironical. “Under the high priest
Annas-Caiaphas,” which means that between them they discharged the duties; or
that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas de jure (Acts 4:6) and Caiaphas de facto (Jn. 11:49).
Annas had held
office a.d. 7–14, when he had been
deposed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession
Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held
office a.d. 18–36, when he was
deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded Caiaphas, the last of
whom (another Annas) put to death James the “brother of the Lord” and the first
bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas retained very great influence,
and sometimes acted as high priest. “Annas the high priest was there, and
Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the
high priest” (Acts 4:6). Perhaps, so far as it was safe to do so, he was
encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and to continue in office during
the high priesthoods of his successors. This would be especially easy when his
own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman nominee. There were no less than
twenty-eight high priests from the time of Herod the Great to the capture of
Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. Ant. 20:10).
(Alfred Plummer, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke [International
Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 1896], 84)
ἀρχιερεύς is correctly used in the singular, despite the fact
that two names follow, since there was only one high priest at the time; the v.
1. ἀρχιερέων (TR; Diglot—on very weak textual authority)
is to be rejected. Although Jews regarded the high priesthood as a life-office,
the Roman administration changed the holders at will. Ἅννας (Jn. 18:13, 24; Acts
4:6**) held office from AD 6 to his deposition by Gratus in AD 15 (SB II,
568–571). He was succeeded by his son Eleazar (AD 16–17) and then by his
son-in-law Καϊάφας (AD 18–37; Mt. 26:3, 57; Jn. 11:49; 18:13f., 24, 28; Acts 4:6**;
Jeremias, Jerusalem, 195 n. 153).
Thereafter four more of his sons held the high priesthood (Jos. Ant. 20:198).
Clearly Annas continued to possess considerable power behind the scenes (Jn.
18:13–27), a fact which explains why Luke names him here and also calls him the
high priest in Acts 4:6: the retired priest kept his title (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 157f.). Luke thus recognises
that there was in fact one high priest in office, but shows his consciousness
of the powerful position of the retired high priest; similarly, Jos. Vita 193
can refer to ‘the high priests’. Schürmann, I, 149, 151, translates ‘under
Annas the high priest and Caiaphas’, claiming that Luke regards the deposed
Annas as being the real high priest (cf. Acts 4:6). (I
Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New
International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978],
134)
Use
of the singular high priesthood to mention two figures is unusual but accurate,
since Annas was the key priest from A.D. 6–15 and then his relatives were
chosen for many of the next several years. After two brief tenures by others,
his son-in-law Caiaphas came to power and stayed there until A.D. 36. (NET
Bible, 1st ed.)
6. “And during the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.” Annas (or
“Ananus” as Josephus calls him) had been appointed highpriest by Quirinius in
the year a.d. 6, and was deposed
by Valerius Gratus, about a.d. 15.
But though deposed, he remained for a long time the ruling spirit of the
Sanhedrin. Five sons and a grandson followed him in the highpriesthood; also a
son-in-law, the very one mentioned by Luke, namely, Caiaphas. The latter held
the highpriestly office from a.d.
18 to 36. The New Testament refers to Caiaphas in the following passages (in
addition to Luke 3:2): Matt. 26:3, 57; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; and Acts
4:6; to Annas, also in John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6.
It may seem strange that Luke assigns the beginning of the Baptist’s
ministry to the highpriesthood not only of Caiaphas but “of Annas and Caiaphas.” Annas, after all,
was deposed from that office in a.d.
15, long before John’s ministry began, whether according to theory (a) or (b).
That Luke assigns the beginning of John’s ministry to the highpriesthood of
Caiaphas (a.d. 18–36) we can
understand, but why to that of Annas?
Nevertheless, Luke is correct. He is thinking of the actual situation, not the merely formal one. The actual situation was
that both Annas and Caiaphas were “in the driver’s seat” during the entire
period of John’s ministry and during the entire length of Christ’s ministry;
Annas as well as—perhaps even more than—Caiaphas. For more on these two men see
N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 162–165, 385–388, 394–401. So here again either
theory (a) or (b) may be correct. (William
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke [New Testament
Commentary 11; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1953], 196)
