for the people.” The infliction of harsh measures became much common by the time of The Bible. Or did the Evangelists deliberately wished to make this ancient custom , by replacing the word ‘abandon’ with ‘death’, sound cruel, with the further intention of projecting Caiaphas as a cruel person !!???
Samaria (4 BC –AD6), Antipas of Galilee (4 BC-AD 39) and Philip of territories to the north and east of Galilee (4 BC- AD 33/34). None of them inherited the royal title.
unsuccessful uprising fomented by Judas the Galilean, the founder of the Jewish revolutionary party of the Zealots. The extensive powers of Roman governors included the choice and dismissal of Jewish high priests. Unlike during the previous centuries, during the lifetime of Jesus most of these high priests installed by the Romans remained in office for only a short period, with the exception of Annas (AD 6-15) and Caiaphas (AD 18-36/37), to both of whom leading parts are assigned in the trial of Jesus. Under Roman surveillance, the Jewish high priest and his senate, the Sanhedrin, which acted as both council and tribunal, continued to play a significant role in the day-to-day government of Judaea and Jerusalem, whereas Galilee, the country of Jesus, enjoyed near complete independence under Herod Antipas as long as the taxes were duly delivered to Rome.”-p.182, Geza Vermes, “Jesus-Nativity, Passion, Resurrection”.
more light on Caiaphas, and Caiaphas real concerns highlighted by Vermes are reflected in John 11: 45-48, which gives rise to the saving solution of sacrificing one man for the entire nation of Jews. Quote “ Caiaphas, the high priest, and the chief priests are the villains of the Passion story. Does this portrait reflect historical reality or is it also the product of the theological and apologetic speculation of the evangelists ? Their thorough-going antagonism to Jews seems to suggest that they(Christian evangelists) had given up hope of any further successful mission among the Jews. Also, by the time of the redaction of the Passion narratives- (Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work.) the synagogue and the
Church had already split. Late first-century AD (Gentile) Christians perceived the Jews as THE enemies. The ‘THEY AGAINST US” situation prevailing by then could easily be retrojected to the time of the Passion itself and lead to the de-Judaization of Jesus and his followers. Since Jesus was seen as persecuted by THE JEWS, he ceased to be apprehended as belonging to the Jewish people and was simply turned into a Christian.
Jewish community against forseeable Roman excesses. His ultimate purpose, summed up in the principle that the whole nation is more important than a single individual, was no doubt based on a misjudgement of Jesus, but it CANNOT be qualified as wholly dishonourable. Arguably he did what a man in his position had to do, and this could occasionally entail the unpalatable duty of sacrificing an individual for the common good. Besides, the fact that he managed to keep his job for eighteen years when most of his predecessors and successors were sacked in their first or second year in office proves that Joseph Caiaphas was a shrewd operator. He was not a satanic figure, however, just an efficient quisling, responsible for handing over Jesus to the Romans in full awareness of the likely outcome.
Neverthless, the ultimate LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for the crucifixion lies with Pilate and the Roman empire. In all probability it was a major miscarriage of justice as Jesus does not seem to have been motivated by political ambitions.” (pages 286,286 Geza Vermes)
Brahmanas, Bhishma, Vidura, and other friends, relatives and Kurus, said- Sloka 29,30
and Jesus. At the most historical Jesus was a rabble rouser, engendering sectarian animosity. This was not any grave crime (even at that period in the Roman empire), unlike Duryodhana’s track record. Therefore the capital punishment desired by Caiphas for Jesus is unwarranted. This is a one-sided story, and as portrayed by the Evangelists. We will never know what Caiaphas really told on that day. !!!