Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I was reading about the high priest Caiaphus and how he supposedly "prophecied" that one man should die for a whole nation when talking about Jesus according to the book of John. The Jewish Encylopedia mentions this:

). Caiaphas is reported to have said on that occasion that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (John xviii. 14), a saying found also among the Rabbis (Gen. R. xciv. 9). The fact that Jesus was taken not to Caiaphas but to Annas is explained on the ground that the latter's palace was nearer the place of arrest than that of the former. Through the travels of Theodosius Archidiaconus, 530, it is known that there were 100 paces between the house of Caiaphas and the hall of judgment ("Nuovo Bull. di Arch. Crist." vi. 184, Rome, 1900). Peter and other disciples, however, being ignorant of the state of affairs, went to Caiaphas' house in the night.

I tried to look up the information in the Rabbah Genesis but havent been able to find it yet.

How did the writer of John know Caiaphus said this? And if he did, did Caiaphus mean something different than how it was reflected in John? The earliest version of Jihn we have is in 125ad-- way after Caiaphus' death so could this have been added for drama?

Then there are a few sites that try to assert that Caiaphus became a Christian. More hyperbole?

Kris wrote:I tried to look up the information in the Rabbah Genesis but havent been able to find it yet.

Genesis Rabbah 49:9 says:

"...is it not better [to sacrifice] a thousand men than that your city be destroyed?...the number [was] reduced from a thousand to five hundred, then to one hundred, to ten, and finally to one, who was a visitor there [in the city]. And who was he? Sheba son of Bichri. Immediately "they then cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri" (2 Sam. 24:22).

Thanks for posting that Nathan!

Did New Testament writers tend to say people did things without any real proof-- in this case using Caiaphus? I don't think any of the other gospel writers mention this prophecy--and the writer of John wasn't sitting there when Caiaphus would have supposedly said this-- so how could he even know this was said. I read that John had several iterations-- did the writers add things about people that were dead by the time of their writings so they couldn't be fact checked? Why pick Caiaphus-- because he was the high priest and John needed to make some sort of point? If so, what point?

Kris wrote:Did New Testament writers tend to say people did things without any real proof-- in this case using Caiaphus? I don't think any of the other gospel writers mention this prophecy--and the writer of John wasn't sitting there when Caiaphus would have supposedly said this-- so how could he even know this was said. I read that John had several iterations-- did the writers add things about people that were dead by the time of their writings so they couldn't be fact checked? Why pick Caiaphus-- because he was the high priest and John needed to make some sort of point? If so, what point?

Caiaphas is personally a bad person (according to John) but also a valid high priest. Hence what he means as brutal political realism is actually a divine prophecy.

Andrew Criddle

Kris wrote:I was reading about the high priest Caiaphus and how he supposedly "prophecied" that one man should die for a whole nation when talking about Jesus according to the book of John. The Jewish Encylopedia mentions this:

). Caiaphas is reported to have said on that occasion that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (John xviii. 14), a saying found also among the Rabbis (Gen. R. xciv. 9). The fact that Jesus was taken not to Caiaphas but to Annas is explained on the ground that the latter's palace was nearer the place of arrest than that of the former. Through the travels of Theodosius Archidiaconus, 530, it is known that there were 100 paces between the house of Caiaphas and the hall of judgment ("Nuovo Bull. di Arch. Crist." vi. 184, Rome, 1900). Peter and other disciples, however, being ignorant of the state of affairs, went to Caiaphas' house in the night.

I tried to look up the information in the Rabbah Genesis but havent been able to find it yet.

How did the writer of John know Caiaphus said this? And if he did, did Caiaphus mean something different than how it was reflected in John? The earliest version of Jihn we have is in 125ad-- way after Caiaphus' death so could this have been added for drama?

Then there are a few sites that try to assert that Caiaphus became a Christian. More hyperbole?

Does it say that John was at one of these trials? I thought it did.
Also, he could hear it second hand from a servant if he asked for details. There are lots of ways it could get out, kind of like how jury or judges' deliberations sometimes get out.