Acts 4:6

Ἄννας κ.τ.λ. All the names in this verse are in the nominative with אAB. The Vulg. has also nominatives but the construction of the previous verse in the Latin brings the words there also into the same case.

6. καὶ Ἄννας ὁ�, and Annas the high-priest was there. The verb in this sentence is understood. Annas (called Ananus in Josephus) son of one Seth was made high-priest (A.D. 7) by the Roman governor Quirinus [Cyrenius], and so continued till A.D. 14 (Joseph. Antiq. XVIII. 2. 1). We do not find that he was ever again appointed to the office, though St Luke here calls him high-priest. But the way in which he is mentioned at the time of the trial of Christ, who was brought, as we read, before Annas first (John 18:13), and sent by him afterwards bound unto Caiaphas, shews that, though not actual high-priest, yet in the eyes of the people of Jerusalem his position was one which justified them in bringing Jesus to him as soon as he was seized. It is difficult to explain from the words of the New Test. the relation of these two men in their office. Caiaphas is expressly called high-priest by St John, yet we are not told why Christ was not at once brought to him. It may be that one was acting high-priest, while the other was nasi or president of the Sanhedrin. Moreover it is not improbable that Annas, having been high-priest before, and only deposed from the office by the Roman governor Gratus, would, both during the short high-priesthood of his son Eleazar (A.D. 16), and the longer high-priesthood of Caiaphas, his son-in-law (A.D. 25–37), exercise much influence by reason of his age and experience, and might from his former tenure of the office even be spoken of as high-priest. It is clear that he was at the head of one of the most influential Jewish families, for before his death, five of his sons had been high-priests (Joseph. Antiq. XX. 9. 1). We can see from Luke 3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are said to be high-priests, that there was some laxity in the common use of the title. So far only does the New Testament carry us, but when we come to examine the Old Testament, and the records of later Jewish literature, there seems every reason to conclude that the expressions which seem somewhat hard to reconcile are exactly those which would naturally be employed. We find that Moses, who is himself counted (Psalms 99:6) high-priest on the same level with Aaron, anointed not Aaron only, but his sons at the same time (Exodus 40:12-15) to be high-priests. Also (Numbers 31:6) Phinehas the son of Eleazar is sent to the war against the Midianites with ‘the holy instruments’ (i.e. the Urim and Thummim), which shews that he was high-priest at the same time as Eleazar his father. Again in later times (2 Kings 25:18) we have mention made of ‘Seraiah the chief priest and Zephaniah the second priest,’ which the Targum explains as ‘high-priest and Sagan’ or deputy high-priest. The Talmud makes it very clear that there was a special arrangement for providing on some occasions such a deputy for the high-priest. Thus (Mishna Joma I. 1) it says, ‘Seven days before the day of atonement they remove the high-priest from his house to the chamber of the assessors, and they provide another priest in his place lest any disqualification should befall him.’ On this passage Rashi’s note is ‘to be high-priest instead of him’: and a little later on in the same treatise (T. B. Joma 39 a) it is said concerning the services of the Day of Atonement: ‘Rabbi Khanina the Sagan of the priests (and so one qualified to speak on the duties of the office) said: “Why does the Sagan stand on the right hand of the high-priest (when the lots are being cast for the goats)? “The answer is, “So that if any disqualification should befall him, the Sagan may go in (to the Holy of Holies) and perform the service in his stead.” ’ Cp. also Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus (par. 20 ad fin.). ‘If there was any defilement on Aaron, Eleazar served (as high-priest), and if there was any defilement on Eleazar, Ithamar served.’ (On the slight matters which caused such ceremonial defilement, see note on Acts 10:28.) And in the same chapter we find ‘Had not Elisheba (Exodus 6:23, the wife of Aaron) joy in this world who saw five crowns (i.e. subjects for rejoicing) in one day; her brother-in-law (Moses) a king (Deuteronomy 33:5); her brother (Naashon) nasi, i.e. president of the Sanhedrin; her husband high-priest; her two sons, Sagans of the high-priest; and Phinehas her grandson anointed for the war?’ These notices make it clear that from the earliest times down to a period posterior to the date of the Acts, there were occasions, and these not unfrequent, when two men were called high-priests at the same time.

That one who had been high-priest should still retain the title may be seen from the principle laid down in several places in the Talmud, (see Mishna Shekalim VI. 6, ed. princ. Jerus.), viz. that ‘you may elevate in a sacred office or service, but you cannot bring down’: as with us ‘once a Bishop, always a Bishop.’ The illustration given is that you might lay the shewbread on a marble table first, and afterwards on a golden one, but the contrary order of proceeding was forbidden. (For another illustration, see note on Acts 6:3.) Therefore Annas, having been high-priest could, according to Jewish usage, never be called by any lower title.

The relationship between Annas and Caiaphas and the seniority of the former is enough to explain the conduct of the crowd in bringing Jesus to him first: while the omission of the word high-priest (Acts 4:6) with the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also known to be high-priest, as well as Annas, than the words of St Mark’s Gospel (Acts 16:7), ‘Go your way, tell His disciples and Peter’ can be made evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. For a similar phrase see chap. Acts 5:29 and the note there.

καὶ Καϊάφας, and Caiaphas. He was called Joseph Caiaphas (Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 22), and was son-in-law of Annas.

καὶ Ἰωάννης, and John. This is the same name as Johanan, and Lightfoot concludes that this person was the famous Johanan ben Zaccai, who by his influence with Vespasian procured permission for many of the Jews to settle in Jamnia (Jafneh) after the destruction of their city, and himself became head of the synagogue there.

καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, and Alexander, of whom we have no other notice than this. The adoption of a Greek name, and his being by that best known, is a sign that foreign influence was at this time strong among the Jews.

ἀρχιερατικοῦ. The adjective is of rare occurrence. It occurs of the chief priest’s dress τὸ ἔνδυμα τὸ� in the Acta Philippi in Hellade §§ 9 and 23; also Joseph. Ant. XI. 8. 2. Here ‘the kindred of the high priest’ would most likely all of them belong to the sect of the Sadducees.