IV. The High Priests

IV. THE HIGH PRIESTS
THE LITERATURE
Selden, De successions in pontificatum Ebraeorum, lib. i. cap. 11-12 (frequently printed along with Selden’s other works; for example, in the edition of the Uxor Ebraica, Francof. ad Od. 1673; also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xii.).
Lightfoot, Ministerium templi Hierosolymitani, c. iv. 3 (Opp. ed. Roterodam. i. 684 ff.).
Reland, Antiquitates sacrae, par. ii. c. 2 (ed. Lips. 1724, p. 146 f.).
Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione (1833), p. 93 f.
Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. vi. 3rd ed. 1868, p. 634.
Schürer, Die ἀρχιερεῖς im Neuen Testamente (Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 593-657).
Grätz, Monatsschr.für Geschichte und Wissensch. des Judenthums, Jahrg. 1877, pp. 450-464, and Jahrg. 1881, pp. 49-64, 97-112.
The most distinctive feature of the Jewish constitution as it existed during the period subsequent to the exile is this, that the high priest was the political head of the nation as well. That he was so at least from the commencement of the Greek era down to the days of the Romano-Herodian rule is regarded as entirely beyond dispute. The high priests of the pre-Maccabaean age as well as those of the Asmonaean line were not only priests, but also princes at one and the same time. And although their authority was restricted on the one hand by the Greek suzerains, and on the other by the gerousia, still it was very greatly strengthened by the fact that their high office was hereditary and tenable for life. The combination of priesthood and royalty as seen in the case of the later Asmonaeans represented the very acme of sacerdotal power and authority. After the Romans came upon the scene, and still more under the Herodian princes, they of course lost much of their power. The Asmonaean dynasty was overthrown, nay was extirpated altogether. The principle of inheritance and life-tenure was done away with. High priests were appointed and deposed at pleasure by Herod and the Romans alike. In addition to this, there was the steady increase of the power of Pharisaism and the Rabbinical school. But even in spite of the combined influence of all the factors we have mentioned, the high-priesthood contrived to retain a considerable share of its original power down to the time of the destruction of the temple. And even after that the high priests continued to act as presidents of the Sanhedrim, and consequently to have the chief direction of the civil affairs of the community as well. Even then there still remained a few privileged families from which the high priests continued to be almost always selected. And accordingly, although under the supreme rule of the Romans and the Herodian princes they no longer formed, it may be, a monarchical dynasty, they yet continued to exist as an influential aristocracy. As we are familiar, from political history, with the series of high priests down to the overthrow of the Asmonaeans, it will be sufficient at present merely to subjoin a list of those belonging to the Romano-Herodian period. Josephus tells us that they numbered twenty-eight in all.[825] Accordingly on collating his different notices with regard to them, we get the following twenty-eight names:—[826]
[825] Antt. xx. 10.
[826] A list of those high priests, based on the notices found in Josephus, has already been framed by several Greek divines, viz. (1) by Josephus the Christian in his Hypomnesticum s. liber memorialis, chap. ii. (first edited by Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test., vol. ii., and afterwards given in Gallendi’s Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xiv., and Migne’s Patrol. graec., vol. cvi.); (2) by Nicephorus Constantinop. in his Chronographia compendiaria, or rather according to De Boor, by the author of the revised version of this Chronography (critical edition by Credner in two programs for the University of Giessen, 1832-1838, ii. 33 f., and especially by De Boor, Nicephori Const. opuscula, Lips. 1880, pp. 110-112). Then Zonaras, who inserts extracts from Josephus into the first six books of his Annals, has also adopted the passages about the high priests almost entirely (Annal. v. 12-vi. 17). The part referring to the high priests in the time of Jesus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) is also quoted by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. i. 10. 5-6, and Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 100; in like manner in the Chron. paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 417. Of the modern lists the most correct is that of Anger, with which our own entirely agrees. For a fuller treatment of the matter, see my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 597-607.
(a) Appointed by Herod (37-4 B.C.):—
1. Ananel (37-36 B.C.), a native of Babylon, and belonging to an obscure priestly family, Antt. xv. 2. 4, 3. 1. The Rabbinical traditions represent him as having been an Egyptian.[827]
[827] In the Mishna, Para iii. 5, those high priests are enumerated under whom a red heifer had been burnt (in compliance with the enactment of Numbers 19.). In the post-Asmonaean age this took place under the three following:—(1) Elioenai ben ha-Kajaph, (2) Chanamel the Egyptian, (3) Ismael ben Pi-abi (אליועיניי בן הקייף וחנמאל המצרי וישמעאל בן פי אבי, the orthography of the names according to Cod. de Rossi 138). Chanamel the Egyptian can have been no other than our Ananel. There can hardly be a doubt that the form of the name is just as inaccurate as is the statement to the effect that he was an Egyptian. Moreover, the chronological order is incorrect, for by the Elioenai, who is mentioned first, no other can have been intended than Elionaios the son of Kantheras, whose name occurs much farther down the list (No. 19). As for the rest, the term “Egyptian” is simply equivalent to Alexandrian, which other high priests of the time of Herod actually were, as for example the sons of Boethos (Antt. xv. 9. 3).
2. Aristobulus, the last of the Asmonaeans (35 B.C.), Antt. xv. 3. 1, 3.
Ananel for the second time (34 ff. B.C.), Antt. xv. 3. 3.
3. Jesus the son of Phabes, Antt. xv. 9. 3.[828]
[828] In Joseph. Hypomnest. Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Φαυβῆ, Zonaras. Annal. v. 16 (Bonnens, i. 488), Φάβητος, as in Josephus the Jew.
4. Simon the son of Boethos, or according to other accounts, Boethos himself, in any case the father-in-law of Herod, he having been the father of Mariamne II. (some time between 24 and 25 B.C.), Antt. xv. 9. 3, xvii. 4. 2. Comp. xviii. 5. 1, xix. 6. 2. The family belonged originally to Alexandria, Antt. xv. 9. 3.
5. Matthias the son of Theophilos (5-4 B.C.), Antt. xvii. 4. 2, 6. 4.
6. Joseph the son of Ellem, Antt. xvii. 6. 4.[829]
[829] Whether this Joseph should be included in the list is open to question, for he officiated only once, and that on the great day of atonement, merely as a substitute for Matthias, who had been prevented from doing duty himself in consequence of some Levitical defilement. But be this as it may, he was still, on this account, the actual high priest for at least a period of one day, while he is certainly included by Josephus, as otherwise the number would not have amounted to twenty-eight. His name likewise occurs in the list of Josephus the Christian (Hypomnest. chap. ii.). The singular incident just referred to is also frequently mentioned in the Rabbinical sources (see Selden, De succession in pontificatum Ebr. i. 11, ed. Francof. p. 160. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 160, note. Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881, p. 51 ff.). The high priest now in question is there known as יוסף בן אילם.
7. Joasar the son of Boethos (4 B.C.), Antt. xvii. 6. 4.
(b) Appointed by Archelaus (4 B.C.-6 A.D.):—
8. Eleasar the son of Boethos (4 ff.), Antt. xvii. 13. 1.
9. Jesus the son of Σεέ, Antt. xvii. 13. 1.[830]
[830] In Joseph. Antt. xvii. 13. 1, he is called Ἰησοῦς ὁ Σιέ or Σεέ (the manuscripts reading sometimes the one and sometimes the other); Joseph. Hypomnest. Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σεέ; in Nicephorus, Ἰησοῦς Ὠσηέ; in Zonaras, Annal. vi. 2 (ed. Bonnens. i. 472), παῖς Σεέ.
Joasar for the second time, Antt. xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1.
(c) Appointed by Quirinus (A.D. 6):—
10. Ananos or Hannas the son of Seth (6-15 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 1, 2. Comp. xx. 9. 1; Bell. Jud. v. 12. 2. This is the high priest so well known in the New Testament, Luke 3:2; John 18:13-24; Acts 4:6.
(d) Appointed by Valerius Gratus (A.D. 15-26):—
11. Ismael the son of Phabi (some time between 15 and 16 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2.[831]
[831] The name of the father as given in Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2, 2; Euseb. Hist. eccl. i. 10. 5, ed. Heinichen; and Zonaras, Annal. vi. 3 (ed. Bonnens. i. 477), is Φαβί; while in Euseb. Demonstr. ev. viii. 2. 100, it is Φήβα; in Joseph. Hypomnest. Βιαβῆ; and in Chron. pasch., ed. Dindorf, i. 417, Βαφεί.
12. Eleasar the son of Ananos (some time between 16 and 17 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2.
13. Simon the son of Kamithos (somewhere about 17-18 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2.[832]
[832] This high priest is also frequently mentioned in the Rabbinical sources (Selden, De successione in pontificat. pp. 161, 177, ed. Francof. Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 197. Grätz, Monatsschrift 1881, p. 53 ff.). He is there known by the name of שמעון בן קמהית. In Joseph. Antt., Euseb. Hist. eccl., and in Zonaras, Annal. vi. 3 (i. 477), the father’s name is Κάμιθος while in Euseb. Demonstr. it is Κάθιμος, in Joseph. Hypomnest. Κάθημος, and in Chron. pasch., ed. Dindorf, i. 408 and 417, Καμαθεί.
14. Joseph called Caiaphas (somewhere between 18 and 36 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2, 4. 3. Comp. Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; John 18:13-14; John 18:24; John 18:28; Acts 4:6. According to John 18:13, he was the father-in-law of Hannas = Ananos.[833]
[833] The surname Caiaphas is not = כיפא, but = קייפא or קייף; see note 544 above. Derenbourg, p. 215, note 2.
(e) Appointed by Vitellius (35-39 A.D.):—
15. Jonathan the son of Ananos (36-37 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 4. 3, 5. 3. Comp. xix. 6. 4. He was found still playing a prominent part in public life in the time of Cumanus, 50-52 A.D. (Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 5-6), and was ultimately assassinated at the instigation of Felix the procurator (Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 3; Antt. xx. 8. 5).
16. Theophilos the son of Ananos (37 ff. A.D.), Antt. xviii. 5. 3.
(f) Appointed by Agrippa I. (41-44 A.D.):—
17. Simon Kantheras the son of Boethos (41 ff. A.D.), Antt. xix. 6. 2.[834]
[834] See the wild combinations of every sort that have been indulged in with regard to this personage in Grätz, Monatsschrift 1881, pp. 97-112.
18. Matthias the son of Ananos, Antt. xix. 6. 4.
19. Elionaios the son of Kantheros, Antt. xix. 8. 1.[835]
[835] According to Antt. xx. 1. 3, he also appears to have the surname Kantheras as well as his father. In the Mishna, Para iii. 5, he is known as אליועיניי (see note 544, above). The Rabbinical tradition regards him as a son of Caiaphas. The name אֶלְיְהוֹעֵינַי (my eyes are directed to Jehovah) or אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי is also to be met with in the Old Testament (Ezra 8:4; Ezra 10:22; Ezra 10:27; 1 Chronicles 3:23; 1 Chronicles 4:36; 1 Chronicles 7:8; 1 Chronicles 26:3).
(g) Appointed by Herod of Chalkis (44-48 A.D.).[836]
[836] It would also be somewhere about this time (about 44 A.D.) that the high priest Ismael comes in, who according to Antt. iii. 15. 3, was in office during the great famine in the reign of the Emperor Claudius. But as Josephus says nothing about him in the course of the narrative itself, we are probably to look upon this casual mention of him as a fault of memory on the part of the historian. Ewald (Geschichte, vi. 634) inserts him after Elionaios, while Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 159) identifies him with this latter.
20. Joseph the son of Kami or Kamedes (= Kamithos), Antt. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2.[837]
[837] The name of the father, which at one time appears as Καμεί (Antt. xx. 1. 3 = Zonaras, Annal. vi. 12, fin.) or Κάμη (Joseph. Hypomnest.), at another as Κεμεδής (Antt. xx. 5. 2, according to the reading of Dindorf and Bekker = Zonaras, Annal. vi. 14), is in any case identical with Kamithos.
21. Ananias the son of Nedebaios (somewhere between 47 and 59 A.D.), Antt. xx. 5. 2; comp. xx. 6. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 6; Acts 23:2; Acts 24:1. In consequence of his wealth he continued to be a man of great influence even after his deposition, although, at the same time, notorious for his avarice (Antt. xx. 9. 2-4). He was put to death by the insurgents at the commencement of the Jewish war (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6, 9).[838]
[838] For his avarice, comp. besides the Talmudic tradition in Derenbourg’s Histoire, p. 233 f.
(h) Appointed by Agrippa II (50-100 A.D.):—
22. Ismael the son of Phabi (about 59-61 A.D.), Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. He is probably identical with the person of the same name whose execution at Cyrene is incidentally mentioned, Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.[839]
[839] It is probably this younger Ismael, son of Phabi (not the high priest of the same name who stands eleventh in the list), that is also referred to in the Rabbinical traditions regarding ישמעאל בן פיאבי (Mishna, Para iii. 5; Sota ix. 15; in the latter passage it is also the high priest of this name that is meant, for the predicate Rabbi should, with Cod. de Rossi, be expunged. Tosefta. ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 182. 26, 533. 35 f., 632. 6. See in general, Derenbourg’s Histoire, pp. 232-235). In the printed texts the father’s name is frequently corrupted. The correct form is פיאבי, or divided thus פי אבי (as in Cod. de Rossi 138, in the one passage in which it occurs in the Mishna, viz. Para iii. 5). There is as near an approach to this as possible in the Greek form Φιαβι, which is found in the manuscripts in one instance at least, viz. Antt.. xx. 8. 8.
23. Joseph Kabi,[840] son of Simon the high priest (61-62 A.D.), Antt. xx. 8. 11; comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.
[840] In Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, the surname is written Καβί; in Zonoras, Annal. vi. 17, it is Δεκαβί (i.e. δὲ Καβί); and in Joseph. Hypomnest. Κάμης. The latter would correspond to Kamithos.
24. Ananos the son of Ananos (62 A.D., for only three months), Antt. xx. 9. 1. He was one of those who played a leading part during the first period of the Jewish war, but was subsequently put to death by the populace, Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 3, 22. 1-2, iv. from 3. 7 to 5. 2; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60.[841]
[841] For combinations with respect to this high priest, see Grätz, Monatsschr. 1881, pp. 56-62.
25. Jesus the son of Damnaios (about 62-63 A.D.), Antt. xx. 9. 1. and 4; comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.
26. Jesus the son of Gamaliel (about 63-65 A.D.), Antt. xx. 9. 4, 7. In the course of the Jewish war he is frequently mentioned along with Ananos, whose fate he also shared, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9, 4. 3, 5. 2; Vita, 38, 41. According to Rabbinical tradition, his wife, Martha, was of the house of Boethos.[842]
[842] Mishna, Jebamoth vi. 4: “If one happens to be betrothed to a widow, and is subsequently appointed to the office of high priest, he is at liberty to conduct her home as his bride. Thus Josua, son of Gamla, was betrothed to Martha the daughter of Boethos, and afterwards the king appointed him to be high priest; and on the back of this he conducted Martha home as his bride.” Our Josua, son of Gamala, is probably identical again with the Ben Gamala who, according to Joma iii. 9, ordered a golden urn to be made from which to draw the lots relating to the two he-goats on the great day of atonement. For further Rabbinical traditions regarding this personage, see Derenbourg, p. 248 f. As to his services in the way of promoting education, see below, § 27, note 29.
27. Matthias the son of Theophilos (65 ff. A.D.), Antt. xx. 9. 7; comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.[843]
[843] On this high priest, see also Grätz, Monatsschr. 1881, pp. 62-64.
(i) Appointed by the people during the war (67-68 A.D.):—
28. Phannias or Phineesos the son of Samuel, and of humble origin, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 8; Antt. xx. 10.[844]
[844] This, the last of the high priests, is also known to the Rabbinical traditions; see Derenbourg, p. 269. His name in Hebrew was פינחס.
Owing to the frequency with which those high priests were changed, the number of those who had ceased to hold office was always something considerable. But, although they no longer discharged the active functions of the office, they still continued to occupy an important and influential position, as can still be shown with regard to several of them at least.[845] We know from the New Testament, for example, what an amount of influence the elder Ananos or Hannas (No. 10) had even as a retired high priest. The same may be said of his son Jonathan (No. 15), who, long after he had ceased to hold office, conducted an embassy, in the year 52 A.D., to the Syrian viceroy Umidius Quadratus. This latter then sent him to Rome to answer for certain disturbances that had taken place in Judaea; and when he had got the matter settled in favour of the Jews, he took the opportunity of his being in Rome to request the emperor to send Felix as the new procurator. Then when Felix was found to be causing universal dissatisfaction in consequence of the way in which he was discharging the functions of his office, Jonathan took the liberty of reminding him of his duty, for doing which however he had to answer with his life.[846] Another high priest, Ananias the son of Nedebaios (No. 21), ruled in Jerusalem almost like a despot after he had retired from office. Then the younger Ananos (No. 24) and Jesus the son of Gamaliel (No. 26), although no longer exercising the functions of the high-priest-hood, were found at the head of affairs in the earlier stage of the Jewish war. From all this it is evident that, though not actually in office, those men were by no means condemned to political inactivity. On the contrary, the office was such that it imparted to the holder of it a character indelibilis in virtue of which he retained, even after demitting it, a large portion of the rights and obligations of the officiating high priest,[847] and of course the title of ἀρχιερεύς as well, a title that, in Josephus, is accorded to the whole of the ex-high priests. Consequently wherever in the New Testament ἀρχιερεῖς appear at the head of the Sanhedrim, we are to understand that those referred to are first and foremost the ex-high priests in question, inclusive at the same time of the one actually in office.[848]
[845] For what follows, comp. Stud. u. Krit. 1872, p. 619 ff.
[846] The references to passages are to be found above, passim.
[847] Horajoth iii. 1-4. See, in particular, iii. 4: “Between a high priest in office and one who has demitted it there is no more difference than between the young oxen on the great day of atonement and the tenth of an ephab. But both are equal to one another in respect of the service on the great day of atonement, in respect of the law requiring them to marry a maid; both alike are forbidden to marry a widow, to defile themselves by contact with the dead bodies of blood relations, to let the hair grow long, to rend their garments, while their death (in the event of their being murdered) has the effect of bringing back the murderer.” The same points to some extent are also found in Megilla i. 9 and Makkoth ii. 6.
[848] This is corroborated above all by the following passages, Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 6: τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Ἰωνάθην καὶ Ἀνανίαν; Vita, 38: τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Ἄνανον καὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Γαμαλᾶ; Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 7: ὁ γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ἄνανος. Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 3: ό μετʼ Ἄνανον γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ἰησοῦς. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9: οἱ δοκιμώτατοι τῶν ἀρχιερέων, Γαμαλᾶ μὲν υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀνάνου δὲ Ἄνανος. In the last three passages the ἀρχιερεῖς must have been high priests in the sense in which Ananos and Jesus were so, i.e. ex-high priests in the strict sense of the word.
But sometimes we read of certain other personages who are described as ἀρχιερεῖς, and yet their names do not appear in the foregoing list. In the Acts (4:6) we have the following enumeration: Ἄννας ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ Καϊάφας καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ. In a subsequent passage (19:14) mention is made of a high priest called Sceva with his seven sons. Josephus again mentions a certain Jesus, son of Sapphias, as being τῶν ἀρχιερέων ἕνα,[849] also one Simon ἐξ ἀρχιερέων, who was still young at the time of the war, and consequently cannot be identical with Simon Kantheras (No. 17),[850] and lastly, one Matthias, son of Boethos, τὸν ἀρχιερέα or ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων.[851] Not one of those just mentioned is to be found in our list. Besides there is many a high priest known to the Rabbinical traditions whose name does not appear there.[852] This fact may perhaps be sufficiently accounted for by what we are now going to mention.
[849] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4.
[850] Vita, 39.
[851] Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 11, v. 13. 1, vi, 2. 2.
[852] See Stud. u. Krit. 1872, p. 639.
Apropos of the irregular appointment of Phannias to the office of high priest, Josephus remarks,[853] that the zealots, by acting as they did on this occasion, “had robbed of their importance those families from which in their order it had been the practice to select the high priests” (ἄκυρα τὰ γένη ποιήσαντες ἐξ ὧν κατὰ διαδοχὰς οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀπεδείκυντο). The high-priesthood would therefore seem to have been vested in a few privileged families. The truth is, one only requires to glance at the foregoing list in order to be convinced that the office was confined to only a few families. To the family of Phabi, for example, belong Nos. 3, 11, 22; to the family of Boethos, Nos. 4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 26; to the family of Ananos (or Hannas), Nos. 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 27; and to the family of Kamith, Nos. 13, 20, 23. Leaving Ananel, a Babylonian of humble origin (No. 1), Aristobulus the last of the Asmonaeans (No. 2), and Phannias, the high priest of the revolution period (No. 28), out of account, there remain only five (Nos. 5, 6, 9, 21, 25) who cannot be proved to have belonged to one or other of those families, although it is still possible that they did so. Now when one considers how the high-priesthood was thus confined to a few families, and in what high estimation the office was held, it is not difficult to see that the mere fact of belonging to any one of the privileged families in question must of itself have been sufficient to confer special distinction upon a man. And hence we can understand how it should be that Josephus, in a certain passage in which he wishes to tell us particularly who of the notabilities were among those who went over to the Romans, enumerates the υἱοὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων along with the ἀρχιερεῖς themselves,[854] In the Mishna again, we find that on one occasion the “sons of the high priests” (בְּנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים) are quoted as authorities on certain points of matrimonial law, and that too without mentioning their names, seeing that the simple fact of their being high priests’ sons stamped them as men of importance and authority.[855] In another instance, we are informed that letters with unusually large seals had come “to the sons of the high priests” (לבני כהנים גדולים) from distant lands,[856] from which we may again infer that these also enjoyed a certain reputation abroad. But they did not rest satisfied with the mere dignity of rank; so far from that, the members of those high-priestly families also played a prominent part in public affairs. According to Acts 4:6, among those who had seats and a right to speak and vote in the Sanhedrim were ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ, where, from all that has been already stated, it is certain that the γένος ἀρχιερατικόν can only refer to the privileged families now in question. Now, if the members of the high-priestly families occupied so distinguished a position, it is quite conceivable that the designation ἀρχιερεῖς would come to be used in a more comprehensive sense so as to include them as well. That this is what actually took place may be seen, to say nothing of all that has been previously advanced, from the passage in Josephus mentioned above, where after recording the fact that two high priests and eight high priests’ sons were among those who went over to the Romans, he proceeds to include these two categories under the common designation of ἀρχιερεῖς.[857] This will also serve to account for the circumstance of high priests being sometimes mentioned that are not to be found in our list.
[853] Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 6.
[854] Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.
[855] Kethuboth xiii. 1-2.
[856] Ohaloth xvii. 5.
[857] Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2: Ὧν ἦσαν ἀρχιερεῖς μὲν Ἰώσητός τε καὶ Ἰησοῦς, υἱοὶ δʼ ἀρχιερέων τρεῖς μὲν Ἰσμαήλου τοῦ καρατομηθέντος ἐν Κυρήνῃ, καὶ τοῦ Ματθίου τέσσαρες, καὶ εἷς ἑτέρου Ματθίου παῖς, διαδρὰς μετὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπώλειαν, ὃν ὁ τοῦ Γιώρα Σίμων ἀπέκτεινε σὺν τριτὶν υἱοῖς, ὡς προείρηται. Πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐγενῶν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι συμμετεβάλοντο.
Consequently the high priests that, in the New Testament as well as in Josephus,[858] appear as leading personages would consist, in the first instance, of the high priests properly so called, i.e. the one actually in office and those who had previously been so, and then, of the members of those privileged families from which the high priests were taken. In the days of Roman rule they were at the head of the Sanhedrim and of the native government generally, and although the majority of them were unquestionably men of Sadducaean tendencies, yet in the actual conduct of affairs they bowed, however reluctantly, to the wishes of the Pharisees (see above, p. 154).
[858] Especially in the section, Bell. Jud. ii. 14-17