The Son Cometh Volume I

5. Pilate Becomes Governor of Judea under Tiberius the “Third” Caesar (27 C.E.)

It was just prior to the death of Augustus that “Annius Rufus, under whom Caesar died,”[1] succeeded Ambivius (or Ambivulus) as procurator of Judea from 12-15 C.E. Thus, as Josephus concludes the life and reign of Augustus, “upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia’s son, succeeded,”[2] Josephus censoriously states of Gratus (Rufus’ successor as procurator of Judea):

Tiberius was now the third emperor; and Tiberius sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator[3] of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man [Gratus] deprived Ananus [or Annas] of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest [c. 16 C.E.]. Gratus also deprived Ismael in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus [or Annas], who had been high priest before, to be high priest [c. 16-c. 17 C.E.]: which office, when Eleazar [son of Annas] had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus [c. 17-c. 18 C.E.]; and when Simon had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas [son-in-law to Annas][4] was made Simon’s successor [c. 18-36 C.E.]. When Gratus [and Annas] had done those things, Gratus went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years [c.16-c. 26 C.E.], when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.[5]

In fact, Josephus further elucidates of Annas’ nepotistic hegemony and probable party affiliation with the Sadducees:

Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus [or Annas] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly [6-c. 16 C.E.], which had never happened to any other of our high priests; but this younger Ananus [or Annas II], who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood [62 C.E.], was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed…[6]

To wit, Whiston notes:

It hence evidently appears that Sadducees might be high priests in the days of Josephus, and that these Sadducees were usually very severe and inexorable judges, while the Pharisees were much milder, and more merciful, as appears by Reland’s instances in his notes on this place, and on Josephus’s Life 34, and those taken from the New Testament, from Josephus himself, and from the rabbis; nor do we meet with any Sadducees later than this high priest [Annas II] in all Josephus.”[7]

The Sons of Annas and the Office of High Priest: 1. Eleazar son of Annas c. 17-c. 18 C.E. (Antiq. 18:2:2); 2. Johnathan son of Annas 36-37 C.E. (Antiq. 18:4:3; 18:5:3); 3. Theophilus son of Annas 37-41 C.E. (Anitq. 18:5:3; 19:6:2); 4. Matthias son of Annas c. 41-c. 44 C.E. (Antiq. 19:6:4; 19:8:1); 5. Annas II son of Annas 62 C.E. (Wars 2:20:2; 2:22:1-2; Antiq. 20:9:1).

Theologically, if the elder Annas was a Sadducee this meant that he rejected both God’s sovereign and meticulous Providence, and God’s concern “in our doing or not doing what is evil.”[8] As Josephus has already noted of the Sadducees, “they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please.”[9] Furthermore, the Sadducees did not believe “in the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and the rewards in Hades.”[10] As “Hades” denotes, the Sadducees did not believe in Sheol (or the place of the dead; cf. Lk. 16:22-25) where one awaited Final Judgment (or the last day; cf. Jn. 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48), nor in eternal accountability (see above), nor in the resurrection of the dead (Mt. 22:23; Mk. 12:18; Lk. 20:27; Ac. 23:6-8; cf. Ac. 4:1-2; 1 Co. 15:12-14). Whereas the Pharisees believed that “the souls of good men are only removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.”[11] As Luke affirms, “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all” (Ac. 23:8; NIV). Politically, if the elder Annas was a Sadducee this meant he was also an aristocratic opportunist, for he affiliated with the sect that “cooperated” with Rome. “But,” as Josephus has already clarified, “the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild; and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.”[12]

--

[1] Josephus, Antiq. 18:2:2.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Gk. ἔπαρχος, “commander” or “prefect.”

[4] Jn. 18:13.

[5] Josephus, Antiq. 18:2:2.

[6] Josephus, Antiq. 20:9:1.

[7] Works, p. 538.

[8] Josephus, Wars 2:8:14; cf. Antiq. 13:5:9.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid. Let the reader cross reference Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades, wherein paragraph 6 states (cf. Jn. 5:22-23): “For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ. For Minos and Rhadmanthus are not the judges, as you Greeks do suppose, but he whom God even the Father hath glorified; concerning whom we have elsewhere given a more particular account, for the sake of those who seek after truth.”

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.