M ca&ed because he had formerly filled the situation.
Bat it does not thus appear why, of those who held
the high-priesthood before Caiaphas, Annas in par- ticular should be named, and not Ishmael, Eliazer, or Simon, who had all served the office more recently than Annas. Hence Kuindl and others consider it as the more probable opinion that Caiaphas was the high-priest, but that Annas was his vicar or deputy, called in the Hebrew ^jJiD, soffon. Nor can that office be thought unworthy of a man who had filled the pon- tifical office, since the dignity of sagan was also great. Thus, for instance, on urgent occasions he might even enter the Holy of Holies (Lightfoot, Hor, JTeb, ad Luc. iii, 2). Kor ought it to seem strange or unusual that the vicar of a high-priest should be called by that name. For i^ as it appears, those who had once held the office were after by courtesy called high-priests, with greater justice might Annas, who was both a pon- tifical person and high-priest's vicar, be so called. In foot, the very appellation of high-priest is given to a sagan by Josephus (Ant. xvii, 6, 4). (See the com- mentators on Luke ili, 2, particularly Hammond, Light- foot, Kuindl, and Bloomfield.) See Annas. Caiaphas belonged to the sect of the Sadducees (Acts v, 17). (See Hecht, De Sadducceismo Caiaphoy Bud. 1718.)-- Smith, s. V. ; Kitto, s. v. See Hioh-phiest. t
The wonderful miracle of rabing Lazarus from the dead convinced many of the Jews that Christ was sent from God ; and the chief priests and the Pharisees, alarmed at the increase of his followers, summoned a council, and pretended that their liberties were in dan- ger; that the Romans would become jealous of them, and that their destruction was inevitable if something were not done at once to check his progress. Caiaphas was a member of the council, and expressed his deci- ded opinion in favor of putting Jesus to death, as the only way of saving the nation from the evils which his success would bring upon them. His language was, '* Ye know nothing at all ; nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the peo- ple, and that the whole nation perish not" (John xi, 49). Thb counsel was wicked and unjust in the high- est degree; but as there was no ofilence charged, it seemed the only plausible excuse for putting Christ to death. The high-priest's language on this occasion was prophetic, though he did not intend it so. The evangelist, in giving an account of this extraordinary occurrence, enlarges on the prophetic language of the high-priest, and shows the extent and blessedness of the dispensation of mercy through Jesus Christ. Noth- ing of this, however, was in the mind of the cruel and bigoted high-priest After Christ was arrested, he was first taken before Annas, who sent him to his son-in-law Caiaphas, who probably lived in the same house; he was then arraigned before Caiaphas, and an efiTort was made to produce folse testimony suffi- cient for his condemnation. This expedient failed ; for though two persons appeared to testify, they did not agree, and at last Caiaphas put our Saviour him- self upon oath that he should say whether he was in- deed the Christ, the Son of God, or not. The answer was, of course, in the affirmative (q. v.), and was ac- companied with a declaration of his Divine power and majesty. The high-priest pretended to be great- ly grieved at what he considered the blasphemy (q. v.) of our Saviour's pretensions, and forthwith appealed to his enraged enemies to say if this was not enough. They answered at once that he deserved to die, and then, in the very presence of Caiaphas, and without any restraint fh>m him, they fell upon their guiltless victim with insults and injuries. Aa Caiaphas had no power to inflict the punishment of death, Christ was taken from him to Pilate, the Roman governor, that his execution might be duly ordered (Matt, xxvi, 8, 67 ; John xviii, 18, 28). The bigoted fbry of Caiaphas exhibited itself also against the first efibrts of the apos- tles (Acts iv, 6).
Treatises more or less general on the character and conduct of Caiaphas In the above transaction have
CADET
12
CAIN
been written In Latin by Baumgarten-Cnisius (Opuse, p. 149 8q.), Hase (Brem. 170S, also in Iken's Tketaur. ii, %i9 sq.), Hecht (Buding. 1719), Haulen (Viteb. 1/13), Hoder (Upsal, 1771), Hofmann (in Menthenli The$. ii, 216-222), Lungenhausen (Jen. 1696), Salt»- mann (Argent 1742), Scharban (Lubec, 1716), Schick- endana (Fcft and V. 1772), Weber (Viteb. 1807), Selt- ner (Altorf, 1721); in French by Dupin (Paris, 1829). See abw Evans, Script. Bioff, ii, 267.
Calet (or Cayet), Pibrrb Victoibb Palma, was bom at Montricbard, in Touraine, in 1626. He be- came a Protestant onder the instructions of Peter Ra- mus, at Paris ; afterward studied theology at Geneva, and about 1682 was a minister in Poitou. Catharine of Bourbon made him her chaplain, and brought him to Paris. Here, under the influence of cardinal Du- perron, he abjured Protestantism, Nov. 9, 1696, became professor of Hebrew and Oriental hinguages in the col- lege of Navarre, and died March 10, 1610. He left many controversial works, on the motives which led to his conversion; on the Eucharist; on the Mass; on the Church and the Apostolical Succession, etc. His best known works are his Chronologie Septinake and Nf^emaire, 1698-1604 (Paris, 1606, 8vo). — Hoefer, Now, Biog. GM, ix, 809.