HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS IN ROMAN PALESTINE

Author(s): E. Mary Smallwood

Source: The Journal of Theological Studies , April 1962, New Series, Vol. 13, No. 1 (April
1962), pp. 14-34
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23958116

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Theological Studies

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS IN ROMAN
PALESTINE

life appointment before the reign of Herod the Great, although

THE High
exceptionsPriesthood
had occurred. Underof theand until
Herod, Jews hadceasednormally been an hereditary
the office
to exist with the destruction of the Temple, appointments were ter
minable and were no longer confined to one family. The power of
appointment lay at first with Herod and then with Archelaus, the suc
cessor whose kingdom included Judaea and Jerusalem. On the con
version of Archelaus' realm into a province it passed to the procurator
(although it was exercised three times by the legate of Syria by virtue
of his general powers of oversight over Judaea). It naturally devolved
on Agrippa I in 41, when Judaea was added to his kingdom. When the
whole of Palestine became a province on his death in 44, the power
presumably reverted to the procurator (who, however, made no appoint
ment) until 46, when Herod of Chalcis obtained the right of appointment
together with general responsibility for the Temple from Claudius.
After his death these privileges passed to Agrippa II.1 Eusebius errs in
inferring from Josephus' account of the procuratorship of Valerius
Gratus (15-26), who appointed no less than four High Priests, keeping
two of them in office for only a year each, that the High Priesthood was
then an annual office,2 but there were some very short tenures. Apart
from one of a single day made to meet exceptional circumstances some
time between 6 and 4 b.c., Jonathan son of Ananus was High Priest
for only a few weeks or months in 37, his brother Ananus for only three
months in 62, and Joazar and Simon Cantheras each for less than a year,
in 4 b.c. and a.d. 41 respectively.3
Although the High Priesthood was no longer hereditary, family con

1 Herod of Chalcis—AJ xx. 15-16. After his death Josephus records no

appointment until c. 59—AJ xx. 179—but it may be assumed that the right
passed direct to Agrippa II in 48; cp. AJ xx. 222.
2 HE i. x. 2-6 with AJ xviii. 34-35. A list of High Priests, with the references
for their appointment, is given in Appendix A, and the references are not
repeated in the footnotes.
3 The suggestion that short tenures were due not only to political expediency
but also to the unwillingness of many incumbents to tolerate the restrictions of
office for long (F.-M. Abel, Histoire de la Palestine (1952), i, p. 456, quoting
J. Derenbourg, Essai sur l'histoire et la géographie de la Palestine (1867), p. 215,
η. 1 ; S. Perowne, The Later Herods (1958), p. 86) ignores the statement in the
Mishnah that ex-High Priests were under the same restrictions as the High
Priest in office (Horayoth iii. 4).
[Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XIII, Pt. i, April 1962]

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 15
nexions and influence played a large part in many appointm
office was restricted to certain families within the Sadducean ar
and two of these provided about half the High Priests from
accession until a.d. 66. One was the family of Boethus. The p
held by Simon son of Boethus from 23 to 6 b.c. ; by Matthias
relation) from 6 to 4 b.c.; by Joazar (possibly Simon's son bu
probably his brother) in 4 B.C. and again in a.d. 6; by Eleaza
brother, in 4 B.C.; by Simon Cantheras (possibly another
but more probably the son of Joazar or Eleazar) in a.d. 4
Cantheras' son Elionaeus in 44. Jesus son of Gamaliel, High P
a year or two from 63-64, was connected with this family th
wife 'Martha daughter of Boethus', but the exact relationshi
stated; and Joseph Cabi, High Priest c. 61, may have been an
of Cantheras.1 The other family was that of Ananus (the Ann
New Testament), who was High Priest from a.d. 6 until some t
first half of the procuratorship of Gratus, and whose son-in-l
was the last of Gratus' appointments. His five sons occupied
Priesthood on and off until shortly before the war: Eleazar fo
under Gratus; Jonathan for a short time early in 37; The
Jonathan's successor until 41; Matthias from 41 to 44; and A
62. The 'Matthias son of Theophilus' who became High Priest
64 and 66 may have been a son of the High Priest of 37-41 ; in
appointments Josephus does not invariably (though he does
mention the fact that the new High Priest's father had also
position.2 Another family provided three High Priests:
of Phiabi (or Phabi), appointed some time after 35 B.c. and i
until 23; Ishmael son of Phiabi, Gratus' first appointment; a
of the same name appointed c. a.d. 59. Josephus does not spe
relationship in any of these cases, but the second of these m
have been the grandson of the first, and the third the grand

1 The wife of Jesus son of Gamaliel (Joshua ben Gamala)—Mish

moth vi. 4. The High Priest Simon, father of Joseph Cabi, may have
Simon Cantheras or Simon son of Camithus, High Priest under Gratus; cp.
p. 16, n. 2. For discussion of the relationships within the family of Boethus see
Appendix B.
2 There is no need to assume, as is often done, that Gratus deposed Ananus
during his first year as procurator. M. Brann, in his revision of H. Gràtz, Ge
chichte der Juden, iii5 (1906), note 19 (an important but in some places highly
conjectural study of the High Priests of this period), pp. 738, 752-3, takes BJ
iv. 574, and v. 527 to mean that Matthias son of Theophilus (and possibly also
his namesake, High Priest 6-4 B.c.) was a blood relation of Boethus. But BJ vi.
114 shows that there were two men named Matthias of High Priestly families
prominent in the war. On the description of the Boethid Matthias as 'High
Priest' cp. p. 16.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 l6 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

second.1 The family of Camithus provided

Simon son of Camithus under Gratus and
(possibly brothers) and perhaps Joseph Cab
appointed High Priest by Herod the Great
to the High Priest in office, the other Hi
known, not related either to one another o
There was a change of family after a.d. 6
three members of Boethus' family held the H
advent of the procurators the office passed t
kept it almost as a monopoly until 41. An
and three of his sons were all appointed,
two men chosen from other families were
received the right of appointment, it was
new régime by exercising it at once. He r
Herodian family of Boethus by the appoint
break with the recent past and a token of hi
past. From then until 66 the High Priests
of families, some of which provided only
even balance was struck between the families of Boethus and Ananus.
The evidence of the New Testament and Josephus shows that the
title 'High Priest' belonged to ex-High Priests as well as to the incum
bent for the time being; that the expression 'the High Priests' was also
used loosely to denote members of the High Priestly families who did
not actually hold office;3 and that High Priests and ex-High Priests
alike had considerable influence on the community in secular as well as
spiritual affairs. The purpose of this paper is to consider the secular and
political activities and achievements of those High Priests of the Roman
period about whom Josephus gives more information than the bare fact
of their appointment, and to study the development of their attitude
towards Rome during the years leading up to the war.
1 It is improbable that the same Ishmael held office twice, as Α. H. M. Jones
(The Herods of Judaea (1938), p. 233) and Perowne (op. cit., chronological
table) think, since the interval between the two High Priesthoods was one of
about forty years. Jesus' father's name appears variously in the MSS. of Josephus,
but E. Schurer regards all the forms as variations of Phiabi (Geschichte des
judischen Volkes, ii4 (1907), pp. 269-70, n. 6).
2 Simon—AJ xviii. 34; Joseph—AJ xx. 16. The father's name appears
variously in the MSS. of Josephus. The correct Talmudic form is Camithus
(Brann, op. cit., p. 738). Schurer (op. cit., p. 273, n. 19) makes Joseph Cabi a
member of this family on the grounds that he appears as 'Joseph Came' in the
list of High Priests in the Libellus Memorialis of the tenth-century Christian
writer Joseppus (Migne, PG cvi. 20). A stronger argument is that his father
Simon may have been the son of Camithus rather than Simon Cantheras; cp.
Brann, op. cit., p. 736.
3 The evidence for this is collected and discussed by Schurer, op. cit., p. 275.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 17

Josephus gives the following account of the High Pri

13 March 4 B.c. Herod the Great deposed the High P
whom he suspected of complicity in the attack on the go
he had had erected over the Temple gate, and replac
thias' brother-in-law, Joazar.1 Immediately after Hero
a month later, his son Archelaus, in a speech thanking h
their enthusiasm at his accession, promised to rule better t
if Augustus confirmed him in the position given him
The Jews took advantage of this to ask a number of fav
the punishment of men whom Herod had honoured;
heading they asked specifically for the deposition of Jo
appointment had been connected with the execution of t
had removed the eagle, and for the appointment of a H
greater piety. Archelaus agreed to grant these requests
went to Rome to get his position ratified. During his a
less and arrogant behaviour of the procurator of Syria
sibly taking temporary charge of Herod's estate, caused a
out against Roman authority; it spread as far north as G
certain Judas was one of the local leaders. P. Quinctiliu
of Syria, restored order before Archelaus' return. On hi
laus fulfilled his promise by replacing Joazar by his br
giving as his reason that Joazar had supported the recen
in his turn, however, was soon replaced.2 When Judaea
vince in a.d. 6 and a census was held by Coponius, the fi
together with P. Sulpicius Quirinius, legate of Syria, J
Priest succeeded in persuading the Jews, who resented
submit to it quietly—except for a few extremists, who
instigation of a Galilean named Judas. When the census
Quirinius deposed Joazar because the people object
appointed Ananus in his place before leaving the provin
care.3
There are several difficulties in this account as it stand
is found holding the High Priesthood in a.d. 6 without hi
being mentioned. The reappointment in itself is no stu
since it is not unique.4 But was he reappointed by Arch

1 Ay xvii. 164-7. The eclipse gives the exact date.

2 AJ xvii. 200-323 (especially 207-8 on Joazar), 339-41 ; By
cially 7 on Joazar).
3 Ay xviii. i-6, 26. Cp. By ii. 117-18.
4 The case of the Hasmonaean Hyrcanus, reappointed in 63 B.c
for he was the legitimate holder of what was then an hereditary
his brother and restored to his rightful position by Pompey—
i. 120-53. But under Herod Ananelus was deposed in favour of
621.1

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ι8 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

the end of his reign, or by the Romans at th

tion? Secondly, whoever had reappointed J
depose the man who had worked for Rome i
accept the census? Thirdly, Joazar, who supp
stration in a.d. 6, was accused (rightly or wro
the anti-Roman revolt in 4 B.C. And lastly,
itself in a strange way. After Herod's death
against Joazar, who was eventually deposed, a
rebellion in which one of the leaders was
banishment there was popular feeling agains
on account of it, and there was a small revolt
Some years ago Lagrange put forward a theo
tions of earlier scholars, that the events of
appearing first in their correct place in Jos
incorrectly in a.d. 6 also.1 First he connected
the Nativity with the institution of the new o
and Herod c. 7 b.c. (replacing the former oat
6,000 Pharisees refused to take.2 Then he sup
time and in connexion with this census and
Herod that Judas began the agitation which w
after Herod's death, when, in his view, the ce
that it was at this time that Joazar, appoint
'the party of order', persuaded the people to
Josephus, aware that Joazar's action was
attached it to the census held by Quirinius in
only one known to him. Thus, Lagrange c
involved in the pro-Roman party, and oppose
fore deposed him on his return from Rome. L

Aristobulus in 36 B.c. (for the date cp. CAH x. p. 7

after his murder—A J xv. 22, 39—41, 56. And i
offered to Jonathan, who however declined it—A
take the reference to 'Jonathan the High Priest' in
was reappointed, but later, during the procurat
(e.g. The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. High Priest, vi. 3
It is true that the last appointment mentioned before
•—xx. 103—and that when Josephus next records a
179), he does not state in his usual way whom he
clusive, and to deduce a second term for Jonathan
precarious; cp. p. 16. On the possible reappointme
1 Rev. Bibl. viii (1911), pp. 60-84 (especially 6
be noted that he identifies the two rebel leaders c
does not affect the present discussion.
2 AJ xv. 368 and xvii. 42. This conjecture of La
it is a reasonable one, made also by T. Corbishley i
S. Accame in Riv. di Filol. Class. N.s. xxii-xxiii (1

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 19
revolt of a.d. 6, pointing out that Josephus' reference
consisted of 'vague generalities' without precise details,
a man from Galilee (still a client kingdom under Antipa
to have led a rising in the Roman province in a.d. 6.
There are several objections to this theory. First, ther
that the revolt of 4 B.c. was in any way connected wi
there is no reason for supposing that the census at th
Nativity, in progress some two years before Herod's de
until 4 B.c. The problem of the military command
held for the Homonadensian war, and which appar
authority over Syria for a period covering the probab
Nativity, is highly controversial; but the view held by
alios, that he was legate of Syria twice (the Nativity and
falling in the first tenure) is now discredited, and it
(though not proved) that the war, and Quirinius' comm
ended by 6 b.c.1 Secondly, although it is true that Jos
about the revolt of a.d. 6 both in AJ xviii and in his re
BJ ii. 118, 433, and vii. 253, and neither gives details o
records the fate of Judas, St. Luke speaks of it in rath
terms in Acts v. 37, adding that Judas was killed an
scattered—which suggests that, even if the rising was
than that of 4 b.c., which is called 'the war of Varus' in J
it was nevertheless a bigger affair than Josephus indi
rence of a rising in protest against the census of a.d. 6
in any case, since Josephus refers to the Jews' 'anger'
ment that it was to be held. Thirdly, Josephus, though ill
the reign of Archelaus, is well informed (as Lagrange
about the events of a.d. 6. He is therefore probably co
that Joazar was High Priest then and was deposed
Fourthly, the argument that Joazar, by associating him
Roman party, became the opponent of Archelaus is illog
especially at the beginning of his reign when he had jus
recognition, must have been strongly pro-Roman. Alth
expected him to be a contrast to his father, he depended o
retention of his throne no less than Herod had done,
government remained exactly the same. Lastly, it is b
possible that a Galilean should have started a revolt in J
1 The war—Tac. Ann. in. xlviii. 2; Strabo, xn. vi. 5. For d
rinius' command and the war see L. R. Taylor in AJPh, liv (
R. Syme in Klio, xxvii (1934), pp. 131-8; Corbishley, op.
Roos in Mnemosyne, ix (1940-1), pp. 306-18; Accame, op
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), pp. 1322-3. Ear
problem are cited in these.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

since Josephus and the New Testamen

communications between Antipas' tetra
Thus too many objections can be brou
ingenious though it is, to eliminat
Josephus' narrative for it to be accept
repeat itself, and the story makes coher
policy as consistently pro-Roman—a
virtually had to be throughout the pe
reason for his deposition as basically
supported indirect Roman rule thro
system worked satisfactorily, and dir
He underwent no fundamental volte-f
a different facet of his policy came to th
due to his unpopularity with the pa
Roman party, and that unpopularity o
pro-Herodian and pro-Roman policy.
Two of the other problems in Jose
easily. First, the reappointment of Joaz
of Archelaus towards the end of his rei
knowledge is scanty. His information
history of the province is so much fu
appointed by Coponius or Quirinius,
mentioned it at the beginning of AJ x
Joazar was already in office when the
accusation that Joazar had encouraged
can be dismissed as almost certainly fa
been entirely out of character for a su
position depended on retaining Rome's
was fabricated by his enemies as a leve
charge was current, it was politic for
ethnarchy by Augustus, to disgrace
levelled, and thus to put himself in a g
lord. At the same time it provided him
what his subjects had requested—an ac
appeared to be one of weak compliance
The story may now be reconstructed
lines. Joazar had supported Herod t
member of the same dynasty ruling u
forward to his co-operation. But the
Herod, and asked for his deposition.
request as a conciliatory gesture to his s
the grain for him personally. For Rom

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 21

alleged complicity in the recent revolt as hi

probably no truth in the charge. His contin
Boethus was shown by his appointment of
his successor. But Eleazar also was not perso
Archelaus soon found it advisable to depose
end of his reign, when he cared less for his
whom he had by then alienated by a ma
Jewish Law, he reappointed Joazar, to regai
capacity. By a.d. 6, however, Joazar was tho
the character and capabilities of Archelaus,
of the country to provincial status which re
made to Augustus about him.1 It involved n
for him now to support the Roman admini
which he persuaded the majority of the Je
are not hard to guess: the foreseeable con
about Archelaus was the conversion of the c
this status would be preferable to his rule;
administrative measure in a new province, an
of oppression; and as it followed naturally
annexation, to resist it would be illogical—
of his arguments prevailed with all but a s
who attempted unsuccessful resistance, and
their hopes of a general revolt. When order
completed, Quirinius deposed Joazar desp
help, and two reasons (complementary, not
for this action, which forms the last of the
rative: first, Joazar's success in persuadi
unpopular measure showed that he had gre
fearing that it might some day be used aga
strong personality in the High Priesthood ;
hated him, and in the interests of peace and
nius sought to replace him by a more neut
pected to be acceptable to all shades of opin
Joazar thus used his position of spiritual le
and peacemaker between the Jews and thei
role of politician he may be said to have ac
though he did not retain his position. His s
more difficult and delicate position than
mediate predecessors had been appointed by
Idumaeans by race and therefore unpopu

1 Archelaus' reign and deposition—AJ xvii.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

ostensibly Jewish by religion. But from

of the Jews were appointed by the re
oppressor, and they could retain their
good books. Claudius' transfer of the r
procurators to Herod of Chalcis in 46
was a wise concession to the feelings of
their disappointment at the reconstitut
after the brief period of comparative
but at the same time it was a change c
of the Roman hold on the country. Fo
could be expected to appoint 'safe' men
Josephus knows practically nothing ab
the first four procurators, A.D. 6-26, a
silence is therefore far from conclusiv
record of incidents involving the High
mean that they succeeded in their difficu
edge, offending neither Romans nor Je
duration of three of Gratus' appointmen
kind. With the arrival of Pontius Pilate
fuller, but for the years up to 41 the
is still largely negative and inferent
appointments after 46, however, Josep
which show a gradual deterioration in
Priests on the one hand and Agrippa a
Jonathan son of Ananus was appointe
his brother-in-law Caiaphas by L. Vit
37, when he visited Jerusalem for the
dismissal of Pilate. Presumably Caiap
Priest to Pilate, who had found him in
far from exercising his right of appointm
the whole of his ten-year procuratorsh
fixion suggest harmonious relations be
occasions on which Pilate aroused his su
not mentioned as a spokesman of, or even
We may suppose that Vitellius deposed
of Pilate, he was unpopular with the
removal of Pilate, and because he had h
anyhow.2 On his second visit to Jerusal

1 AJ xviii. 55-62, 85-89; BJ ii. 169-77; Ph

2 The only other comparably long tenures
Ananus (a.d. 6 to 15 or later) and Ananias
long tenure, which is unique among the

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 23

replaced Jonathan by his brother Theophilus.1 Why did

Jonathan after such a short tenure? The clear aim of a
with the Jews on both his visits was to conciliate th
unfortunate experience of Pilate's rule, and in choos
Priest he will surely have tried to make an acceptabl
Did Jonathan blot his copy-book in Vitellius' eyes in so
way? Or was his appointment greeted with too much e
Roman taste, making Vitellius afraid to leave him in pow
It was during the High Priesthood of Theophilus that
his attempt to have a statue of himself in the guise of
the Temple. Philo says that his proposal was first d
Petronius, legate of Syria, who was in charge of the ope
èv reXei των 'Ιουδαίων Îepeîs re και άρχοντας, and Jose
deputation consisting of members of the Herodian famil
συν αύτοΐς, which appealed to Petronius to put the Jewish
scheme to the Emperor. It may be assumed that Theop
than, though not mentioned by name, were among the
neither man stands out as a leader of the successful Je
to the sacrilege—which is surprising, since this event sh
of deeper concern to the High Priests than any other in the
Towards the end of 41 Agrippa I offered Jonathan a
High Priest, as being a more worthy candidate than Sim
whom he had appointed earlier in the year. But Jonath
honour on the grounds that a more pious person than he
that his brother Matthias would be a better choice.3 This recalls the
request of the Jews in 4 b.c. that Joazar might be replaced by a man of
greater piety, and the two incidents suggest that there was a feeling
among a section of the population—how widespread one cannot say—
that the High Priest should be primarily a spiritual leader and not a
politician. It is significant that this found voice on the two occasions when
there seemed to be a reasonable chance of improvement—when Herod
was succeeded by a son who, it was hoped, would be a more sympathetic
ruler, and when the right of appointment had passed to a king whose aim

unacceptable. By ingenious manipulation of the evidence he splits the decade

which Josephus gives to Ananias between four High Priests, but his arguments
fail to convince the writer (op. cit., pp. 723-7, 735-6).
1 The exact dates of Vitellius' visits to Jerusalem are disputed, but are un
important for the present discussion. At first sight the visits appear to have taken
place at the Passover and Pentecost of 37, but the writer has argued for dating
them to the turn of 36-37 and the Passover of 37 respectively (Journ. Jew. Stud.
ν (1954). PP· 12—21).
2 Philo, Leg. 207-60 (especially 222 fï.); AJ xviii. 261-88 (especially 273 ff.);
BJ ii. 184-203. 3 47 χix. 313-16.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 24 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD
was to foster Jewish religion.1 At any rate, Josephu
refusal pleased Agrippa. His expressions of piety m
indicating that he had a higher conception of the s
office than some of his fellows apparently had. On
may merely have served as an excuse. His real reas
have been that he preferred to exercise his in
driving as an ex-High Priest, hoping to have a gre
affairs in that way. Later events indeed show th
considerable.
In 52 Jonathan headed a group of Jewish notables sent to Rome under
arrest by Quadratus, legate of Syria, to sort out before Claudius a quarrel
involving the Jews, the Samaritans, and the procurator Cumanus.2
Then, while in Rome, he was instrumental in getting Felix, the brother
of the freedman Pallas, appointed procurator of Judaea. It is at first sight
odd that he should have requested this appointment, since in the hearing
of the Jews and Samaritans, Claudius' freedmen, Pallas possibly among
them, had opposed the Jews; but Jonathan had evidently had some
opportunity of forming a favourable impression of Felix, probably while
he had recently been holding a post in the East.3 As procurator, however,
Felix failed to live up to Jonathan's expectations, and Jonathan tried
to advise him and guide his policy, for fear that the Jews would blame
him for the misdeeds of the man for whose appointment he was partly
responsible. Possibly he tried, unsuccessfully, to dissuade Felix from
marrying the Jewish princess Drusilla in contravention of Jewish Law.
He met his end by murder at the hands of the sicarii, and, according
to the AJ, the crime was instigated by Felix, who was weary of his
admonitions. The shorter notice of the murder in the BJ, however, does
not implicate Felix, and the later account may represent malicious
gossip which made Felix the author of an event which was to his con
venience. The High Priests, 'collaborators' by virtue of their position,
were natural targets for the hatred of the extremists. If the account in the
AJ is historical, the sicarii were on this occasion acting temporarily in
league with their enemy Felix, and Jonathan fell between two stools,
pleasing neither Rome nor the Jewish nationalists. If the BJ is correct,

1 Agrippa's first appointment (Simon Cantheras) is linked with the king's

practice of the Jewish religion—θρησκενσας τον θίόν (AJ xix. 297).
2 BJ ii. 232-46, where the group includes 'the High Priests Jonathan and
Ananias' (§ 243)—i.e. Ananias son of Nebedaeus, the High Priest in office.
In the parallel passage AJ xx. 118-36, it includes neither High Priest but only
members of Ananias'party (tous· nepl Άνανίαν τον άρχκρία—§ 131). The sequel
establishes Jonathan's participation but not that of Ananias.
3 AJxa. 162, and Tac. Ann. xii. 54, with the writer's discussion in Latomus,
xviii (1959), PP. s6o-7·

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 25
Jonathan was killed simply for his Roman sympathies
his attempt to keep Jews and Romans on good terms ha
More serious friction soon followed. During the High
Ishmael (c. 59-61), Agrippa II had a room built on to hi
Jerusalem, the Hasmonaean palace to the west of the T
which he could watch the priests at their duties. The Je
no doubt led by Ishmael, replied by building a wall on t
the inner court of the Temple to block his view. It inc
blocked the view from the western colonnade round
closure, where Roman troops mounted guard during f
Agrippa and the procurator Festus therefore jointly ord
tion, the Jews asked for the matter to be referred to Ro
force the issue Festus granted permission, and Ishmael a
treasurer led a delegation to Nero, who, surprisingly,
Agrippa and the procurator and allowed the wall to
detained Ishmael and the treasurer in Rome when the o
and thus enabled Agrippa to appoint a more amena
without having to risk antagonizing the Jews by depo
whose defence of the sanctity of the Temple will surely
received.2
In this episode the High Priest acted in defiance primar
and secondarily of Rome, but he did so only in the face
and in defence of Jewish traditions, which were official
protection. In the Mishnah it is said that 'when Ishm
died, the splendour of the priesthood ceased'.3 If the H
c. 59-61 is to be identified with the 'High Priest Ishma
cuted in Cyrene, probably during the rising c. 73,4 he
High Priesthood no longer had more than a theoretical e
historical statements in the Mishnah and similar works a
and this one may be no more than a dramatic way of ex
Ishmael's High Priesthood'. The conduct of some oth
in the years before the war certainly brought little glory,
to the office.

During the interregnum between the death of Festus in office and the
arrival of his successor, Lucceius Albinus, probably in the summer of
62, Ananus was appointed High Priest. He took advantage of the tem
porary freedom from Roman supervision to conduct a trial on his own
authority, and, as a Sadducee, to apply the rigorous Sadducean inter
pretation of the Jewish penal code. He arraigned St. James the brother
1 Ajf xx. 141-4 (Drusilla), 162-6; By ii. 256.
2 Ay xx. 189-96. 3 Sotah ix. 15.
4 By vi. 114, and vii. 437 ff.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

of Christ and some other people (presumab

panel of judges drawn from the Sanhédrin
Law and executed them. In doing so he a
alarmed some of the more moderate Jews a
(i.e. the Pharisees) so much that they sen
plaining of the illegality and asking him to
no further such trials, and even went to m
with the information that Ananus had exce
Albinus administered a severe reprimand,
after a tenure of only three months.2
Ananus' offence was a more serious one t
tion of the High Priest's former powers of
even if ostensibly aimed at defending th
inspired by the long-standing antagonism b
Sadducees, was an act of gratuitous defiance
overstepping the constitutional rights grant
authorities on annexation. Retribution, possi
reduction in the Sanhedrin's judicial power
a short-sighted and impetuous action. It w
delegations were sent to Agrippa and Albinu
and the philo-Roman party from Ananus'
in order to avoid trouble from the extremi
like, who will have welcomed Ananus' defia
tions were sent in secret.
By this time the country was rapidly drifting into anarchy, but the
High Priests apparently made no effort to use their authority in the
interests of order. Rather the reverse. Shortly before the end of Felix's

1 The complicated problem of the competence of the High Priest and the
Sanhédrin in capital jurisdiction under the procurators is discussed by, inter
alios, J. Lengle in Hermes, lxx (1935), PP· 312-21.
2 Ajfxx. 197-203 ; Eus. HE 11. xxiii. 1-19 (quoting Hegesippus). The reference
to Christ in the passage of Josephus is probably a Christian interpolation; it was
added before the time of Eusebius, who quotes the paragraph (HE 11. xxiii. 21-24),
but was apparently not known to Origen. A different, and presumably earlier,
interpolation, found in some MSS. of Josephus, but omitted from the accepted
text, was known to Origen (Contra Cels. i. 47, and ii. 13 ; In Matt. x. 17 = Migne
PG xiii. 877) and is also quoted, at least in part, by Eusebius (HE II. xxiii. 20).
But the episode can be genuine even if the text of J osephus has been tampered with.
The martyrdom was alternatively dated to 66 and the war interpreted as divine
retribution for it—see the end of Hegesippus' account and HE ill. xi. 1. But
Josephus' earlier date and Eusebius' explanation of the timing of the attack seem
logical: the Jews, disappointed in their hope of getting St. Paul executed by
his appeal to Caesar, seized the first opportunity of renewing their attack on the
Church, when the death of Festus had temporarily deprived it of Roman
protection.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 27
procuratorship c. 59 a feud (for which Josephus gives no r
out between the High Priestly families and the secular lead
the rival parties collected gangs of ruffians and revolutionari
abused and then stoned each other.1 Then, during Albinu
ship (62-64), the ex-High Priest Ananias was the ringleade
paign of oppression and injustice directed against a sectio
people who, unlike the Christians, were apparently innoc
offence in Jewish eyes. He was a wealthy man, and he br
and the current High Priest (Ananus' successor, Jesus son
to turn a blind eye while his servants, reinforced by a band
attacked the lesser priests, depriving them of the tithes du
thus reducing them to extreme poverty. Other members
Priestly aristocracy followed their example with equal im
phus even makes the barely credible statement that some o
actually died of starvation.2 Further violence occurred w
replaced Jesus son of Damnaeus by Jesus son of Gam
Priest. The jealousy of the dispossessed prelate led to o
between the two men, and if there was any truth in the alleg
fiancée of Jesus son of Gamaliel had secured his appointmen
this may have aggravated the situation. Once again faction
were collected, and the rival groups proceeded from verb
physical assault. In this undignified business the sinister
Ananias' wealth was again at work, winning adherents to t
he favoured.4
Dissension of this kind within the ranks of the aristocracy added to
the widespread unrest of the country. More far-reaching in its evil
effects was another scandal in which Ananias took a hand. The dcarii
kidnapped the secretary of the captain of the Temple, who was Ananias'
son Eleazar, and used Ananias as an intermediary to persuade Albinus
(by further bribery ?) to ransom him by the release of ten of their number
from prison. Having succeeded once with these tactics, they repeated
them by kidnapping some of Ananias' servants, who were similarly
exchanged for other imprisoned sicarii, so that much of the recent work
of the procurators to curb lawlessness and brigandage was undone.5

1 AJ xx. 180.
2 AJ xx. 205-7. In xx. 181 the same outrage is described as happening a few
years earlier, but without reference to Ananias. The two passages are so similar
that a single episode may have been duplicated.
3 Babylonian Talmud Yoma 18a and Yebamoth 61a, with the notes in the
English translation (ed. I. Epstein (1935-52), pp. 77-78 and 406 respectively).
Cp. Mishnah Yebamoth vi. 4.
4 AJtck. 213.
5 AJ xx. 208-10. The majority of the MSS. of Josephus make Eleazar the son

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

Although Josephus says that Ananias acted

sicarii, collusion between the two sides see
in fact, to have been playing a double game
he, like most members of his class, remain
Romans—and under a weak and venal procu
for this purpose; but he secretly sympat
elements, and he used his influence over Al
That such a situation as this could develop
competence and corruption of the Roman
helpless to deal with it ; but at the same tim
Priests' conception of the dignity of their
tical leaders. These contributions which
turbulence of the province in the 6o's, even
directed against Rome, were indirect attack
militated against the pax Romana, while th
best interests of their own people. The Bab
a complaint about the conduct of the High
century a.d. :
Woe is me because of the house of Boethus
staves! Woe is me because of the house of
because of their whisperings! Woe is me bec
(Cantheras); woe is me because of their pen
house of Ishmael the son of Phabi; woe is m
they are High Priests and their sons are Tem
in-law are trustees, and their servants beat

During the greater part of the period befo

were, as far as the evidence shows, on reaso
In the circumstances this was virtually ine
lieved to be loyal and sympathetic to Rom
their position depended on their retention
and other law-abiding and apparently loyal J
in the sense that they recognized the power
futility of opposing it, and in this their a
one than that of the actively hostile natio
they probably had little genuine love for R
and the cases just studied show some of th
period, when patience on both sides was w

of 'Ananus the High Priest'; but in view of BJ ii

minority is probably correct.
1 Pesahim 57a (English translation, p. 285). Th
inconsistent with the praise which he receiv
and in the following paragraph of Pes. 57a.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 29
Rome, either openly or covertly, either during or after the
office.
Ananias and Ananus appear in a different light during the war. In the
early stages of the revolt the High Priests and the secular authorities
led the philo-Roman peace party, opposing the extreme nationalist
party of the Zealots and deprecating a war which they knew would be
disastrous. So deep was the cleavage between the two parties that much
of the first half of the Jewish war was in fact a civil war between them.
Ananias, whose conduct in 62-64 had suggested secret sympathy for
the extremists, is named among the advocates of peace in the summer
of 66. But it was his son Eleazar, captain of the Temple, who brought
about the cessation of sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor, the action
which Josephus regards as marking the outbreak of the rebellion. The
protests and warnings of the High Priests were ignored by the revolu
tionaries, who grew rapidly in numbers and got possession of much of
Jerusalem. Ananias and others of the peace party, together with some of
the Roman garrison, were forced to take refuge in Herod's palace (the
procurators' residence), which was then besieged by the insurgents, and
he and his brother were treacherously killed after an agreement had
been made for the Jews to evacuate the palace under truce.1
Ananus, the only High Priest who had dared open defiance of Rome
before 66, is not mentioned by name in connexion with the High Priests'
efforts to check the revolt at its inception. But when the encouragement
of the Jews' initial victory over Cestius Gallus at Beth Horon in November
66 had strengthened the hands of the war party, he was one of the two
generals elected to organize the defence of Jerusalem, and Josephus
speaks of him in terms which imply that, unlike many of his class, he
was not pro-Roman.2 For all his antagonism to Rome, however, he was
realist enough to foresee the inevitable outcome of the revolt, and in the
early months of his command he hoped to make the rebels see reason
and to avoid war.3 His only fighting was not against the Romans but
against the Zealots entrenched in the Temple area a year later. In the
winter of 67-68 they deposed the High Priest, who, as the nominee of
Rome's ally Agrippa and a member of the peace party, was unacceptable
to them, and replaced him by a wholly unworthy successor, a humble and
dim-witted priest without High Priestly connexions, whom they uncon
stitutionally appointed by lot. The popular indignation at this degrada
tion of the holy office was canalized by Ananus and another ex-High
Priest, Jesus son of Gamaliel, now his colleague in the command.
1 By il 409-41.
2 "Avavos ό àpxitpevs και των δυνατών όσοι μη τα 'Ρωμαίων ίφρόνουν—Β J ii. 648.
3 BJ ii. 562-3, 648-51.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
30 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD

In an oration inciting the people against the Z

primarily as an ex-High Priest, concentrating
volved in the irregular appointment. But during
followed, a development was revealed in the attitud
party towards war with Rome. When the Zealots
aid, alleging that Ananus was negotiating with V
Gamaliel argued, in a speech addressed to the
charge was not only groundless but illogical: surr
after the outbreak of the revolt might have gained
now gone too far for surrender and the only cour
death.1
Ananus and Jesus both fell shortly afterwards
Zealots and Idumaeans. Josephus dismisses
Thackeray calls 'an encomium worthy of a Pe
integrity, humility, and public spirit, a peace-lover w
for the power of Rome, and a skilful diplomat an
he lived, would have negotiated peace or retarded
This contrasts sharply with the description of him
καί τολμητης διαφΐρόντως which introduces his High
and with his defiance of Roman authority then. Bu
not necessarily wholly irreconcilable, for by t
Ananus was a little older, and perhaps much wiser
development in his policy is credible. Not that it ch
the record of his career shows him as constantly a
the failure of his frontal attack on Rome as High
adopted the tactics of a bull at a haystack and suff
him a lesson, and he was more cautious. His know
Rome was no doubt one reason for his election to
he was opposed to a war foredoomed to failure bec
the encomium, he now 'realized that Roman po
and it was only when other people had made war i
prepared to put his heart into directing it.
There is a greater contradiction between the acc
who, if his dealings with the sicarii are correctly int
sympathy for the nationalist movement, was app
different policy in 66. But his advocacy of peace th
mean a change of heart. Getting sicarii released to
procurator was a very different proposition from
He took advantage of the weakness of Albinus
1 BJ iv. 147-282, especially 248-50.
2 BJ iv. 319-22. H. St. J. Thackeray's notes on ii.
edition). Cp. the description of Ananus as άνηρ σωφρονέ

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 31

difficulties of the Romans, but mere prudence made h

open conflict, even if his hatred for Rome was undimi
The contrast between the estimates of Ananus and the accounts of
Ananias in Josephus' two works may reflect not only the wisdom which
maturity and experience brought to them but also a difference in the
author's outlook. It is noteworthy that the stories of High Priestly
misdemeanour are not given in the BJ. That work, written in Rome
under imperial patronage, has a pronounced pro-Roman propagandist
Tendenz, implicit throughout and occasionally made explicit—to demon
strate the might of Rome and the futility of resistance.1 The responsi
bility for the Jewish tragedy is laid on the Zealots, whose misguided
patriotism began the revolt and then dragged the mass of more moderate
and loyal Jews into war. It is possible that in portraying the majority
of the Jews as the unwilling victims of the fanaticism of this minority,
Josephus has to some degree idealized their leaders, passing over their
pre-war anti-Roman activities and exaggerating their efforts to preserve
peace.

APPENDIX A

List of High Priests

Date of Reference for
appointment Name and family r
37 b.c. Ananelus AJ xv. 22
36 Aristobulus AJ xv. 39-41
3 S Ananelus reappointed AJ xv. 56
? §Jesus, son of Phiabi (Phabi) AJ xv. 322 (de
position ; ap
pointment not
recorded)
23 *Simon, son of Boethus AJ xv. 320-2
6 *Matthias, son of Theophilus AJ xvii. 78
(related by marriage to
Simon)
For one day during Joseph, son of Ellemus (a rela- AJ xvii. 166
Matthias' term tion of Matthias)
4 *Joazar, son (?) of Boethus (bro- AJ xvii. 164-7
ther-in-law of Matthias)
4 *Eleazar, son (?) of Boethus AJ xvii. 339
1 e.g. iii. 108, a sentence explaining the preceding digression on the Roman
army but applicable to the whole work.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 32 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD
Date of Reference for
appointment Name and family relationship appointment
3 (?) B.C. Jesus, son of Sie AJ xvii. 341
a.d. 5/6 Joazar reappointed AJ xviii. 3
6 fAnanus, son of Seth AJ xviii. 26
Between 15 and 26 §Ishmael, son of Phiabi )
(a short tenure)
\AJ xviii. 34
„ fEleazar, son of Ananus1
„ J Simon, son of Camithus1 )
„ fCaiaphas, son-in-law of AJ xviii. 35
Ananus
Early in 37 -(-Jonathan, son of Ananus AJ xviii. 95
April/May 37 fTheophilus, son of Ananus AJ xviii. 123
41 *Simon Cantheras, son (?) of AJ xix. 297-8
Joazar or Eleazar
Late in 41 fMatthias, son of Ananus AJ xix. 313-16
44 *Elionaeus, son of Simon AJ xix. 342
Cantheras
46 (Joseph, son of Cami (Cami- AJ xx. 16
thus)
48 Ananias, son of Nebedaeus AJ xx. 103
c. 59 §Ishmael, son of Phiabi AJ xx. 179
c. 61 J or *Joseph Cabi, son of Simon AJ xx. 196
(either Cantheras or Simon
son of Camithus)
62, for three months fAnanus, son of Ananus AJ xx. 197
62 Jesus, son of Damnaeus AJ xx. 203
63/4 *Jesus, son of Gamaliel (re- AJ xx. 213
lated by marriage to the
Boethids)
Between 64 and 66 ?fMatthias, son of Theophilus AJ xx. 223
Winter of 67-68 Phineas (or Phanni), son of AJ xx. 227 ; BJ iv.
Samuel i55~7

The signs *, f, J, and § mark

APPENDIX Β

The Family of Boethus

According to AJ xv. 320 and xvii. 78 (and cp. xviii. 109),
one of the wives of Herod the Great, was the daughter o
Herod appointed High Priest at the time of his marriage
granddaughter of Boethus. According to xvii. 339 and x
For one year each.

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HIGH PRIESTS AND POLITICS 33
was the son of Boethus. According to xix. 297-8, however, B
himself High Priest, and was the father of Mariamme, Simon
and two other sons who were also High Priests; these must
Joazar and Eleazar. From xvii. 164 it appears that Joazar ha
(unnamed) married to Matthias, High Priest 6-4 b.c.; Matth
therefore have been related to his predecessor Simon, as we
successor Joazar, although Josephus does not say so.
Three possible family trees can be made out :
1. Boethus and Simon were not father and son, but one and
person, named Simon Boethus, High Priest from 23 B.c.
father of Mariamme, Joazar, Eleazar, Simon Cantheras,
named wife of Matthias. This would fit xix. 297-8, where Jo
that Cantheras was the brother of Mariamme and that his fath
brothers had all been High Priests. It would also tally with
other statements about the family, if we assume that Simon
referred to as Simon in some of his sources and as Boethus in
that Josephus has failed to co-ordinate them.
2. Simon, High Priest from 23 b.c., was the son of Boethu
father of Mariamme, Joazar, Eleazar, Cantheras, and the wife o
This would fit xix. 297-8 in making Cantheras the son of a H
and the brother of Mariamme and two other High Priests, a
fit Josephus' references to Mariamme as the granddaughter
It assumes that Josephus errs in xix. 297-8 in making Canth
brothers sons instead of grandsons of Boethus.
Both these schemes are open to the same criticism: Could a
a daughter of marriageable age in 23 B.c. and also a son,
capable of holding the High Priesthood over sixty years later, i
This objection stands even though Cantheras must have
elderly when appointed, since his son Elionaeus held office
years later.
3. Boethus was the father of Simon (High Priest from 23 b.c. and father
of Mariamme), Joazar, Eleazar, and the wife of Matthias; and Cantheras
was the son of either Joazar or Eleazar. There are two points in favour
of this scheme. First, it makes Cantheras not the son of the High Priest
of 23 b.c. but his nephew—-the son of a (presumably) much younger
brother. Secondly, Joazar is not closely related to Herod the Great, but
is merely the brother of his father-in-law. Both the preceding schemes
make him Herod's brother-in-law, and if the two men had been so closely
related as that, Josephus would probably have said so—-just as, in his
second reference (xvii. 78) to Simon, he reminds his readers that he was
Herod's father-in-law. AJ xix. 297-8 can be explained by supposing that
Josephus (or his source) has confused Simon Cantheras with the older
Simon, and then (β) has made Cantheras the son instead of the grandson
of Boethus, and (b) has made Boethus a High Priest, since Cantheras'
father (Joazar or Eleazar) held that position.

621.1

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 Ε. MARY SMALLWOOD
Boethus

Simon, High daughter, wife of Joazar, High Eleazar, High

Priest 23-6 b.c. Matthias, High Priest 4 b.c. Priest 4 b.c.
Priest 6-4 B.c. and a.d. 6 /
?\ /?
Mariamme Simon Cantheras,
High Priest a.d. 41

I I?
Elionaeus, Joseph Cabi,
High Priest High Priest
a.d. 44-46 c. a d. 61

Ε. Mary Smallwood

This content downloaded from

178.139.170.136 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 23:14:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms