Evidence of Priestly Corruption around the Time of Yeshua
The Hasmonean Priesthood – Political Power with Cultic Responsibility
As stipulated in the Torah, the high priesthood of Israel has always been of exclusive Aaronic descent, and from the First Temple into the post-exilic period, also Zadokite progeny.[1] An Aaronic high priest's essential functions are non-negotiable – he is the supreme cultic official and mediator between the Jewish people and Hashem, who makes atonement for himself, the temple cult, and the people (Bond, p. 34). However, a fusing of military and religious responsibilities occurred in the high priesthood office after Judah Maccabee led an army of Jewish rebels over the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty, driving the greeks out of sacred Jewish space, securing a perceived victory over Hellenistic forces, and the rededication of the temple (Hannukah). Following a seven-year delay after defeating the Seleucids, the Maccabean family seized the priesthood marking the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty with its newfound political independence for the next hundred years (VanderKam, p. 244). Interrupting the lineage of the Zadokites, Judah Maccabee's brother, Jonathon Maccabee, became the first official Maccabean high priest. Previously, the high priestly transmission was an unbroken hereditary chain passed from father to son, tracing back to Zadok. In addition to its cultic and religious significance, the high priestly role became more of a contrived power and control device with political, military, and diplomatic strength, fitting, as the Maccabean family was famous for its gorilla warfare and brave military tactics. In 67 BCE, the Hasmonean dynasty weakened when conflict arose between two powerful brothers (though disesteemed by the people), Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II – the younger brother Aristobulus II challenged his older brother for the high priesthood. Their quarreling created a power vacuum and an ideal opportunity for general Pompey the Great to siege Jerusalem, bringing the high priesthood and the temple back under foreign control as a client kingdom of the Roman Republic, marking the end of Jewish independence. The two brothers offered Pompey massive bribes for the priesthood, and Hyrcanus retained his position as the high priest. However, it was not without political threat and turmoil. Aristobulus, along with his son, Antigonus II Mattathias, waited for an opportunity to usurp the priesthood. Then, around 49 BCE, a major aristocratic power struggle emerged between Pompey and Julius Caesar, resulting in Hyrcanus buying a few more years by bribing Antipater (father of King Herod), until Caesar's assassination in 44 BCE. Finally, Antigonus II persuaded the Parthians to invade Judea, remove Hyrcanus, and supplant him as the high priest instead. Ironically, Antigonus II's desire to restore the kingdom to the days of Hasmonean independence was short-lived. Two years later, the Roman senate called on the Idumaean Herod the Great to re-capture and wrestle away Judea, resulting in Antigonus's execution by Roman General Mark Antony in 37 BCE (Goodman, p. 99-102). Antigonus II would go down in history as the last Hasmonean high priest, a bitter ending for the Hasmonean dynasty and hope of Jewish independence.
The Prominence of the House of Annas in the Roman Occupation
During the Herodian period (37 – 4 BCE), King Herod the Great chose "puppet" high priests from obscure families from Babylon and Egypt to minimize the threat to his power; therefore, the prestige and political authority of the high priestly position diminished during his reign (Goodman, p. 103). In 4 CE, after the death of Herod, the providence of Judea was divided between his son's Archelaus, who assumed his role of with a less prestigious title of ethnarch, ruler of the nation, Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip, tetrarch of territories north and east of the Jordan. Moreover, the Roman procurator (governor) appropriated the selection of high priests, which forms the basis and historical backdrop for the priesthood in the lifetime of Yeshua and the Roman occupation (Bond, p. 34). Under the Roman regime, the high priestly role contained plausible circumstances for bribery and corruption to occur within its political structure that would rely on favorable standing with local tetrarch, Herod Antipas, and the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate (26-37 CE). Of course, ideal or probable conditions do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was actual corruption in the priesthood at the time of Yeshua – it is merely part of the evidence that would support the notion that bribery existed since the platform is a breeding ground. In 6 CE, the house of the high priest Annas, son of Seth, became the dominant family to hold the priesthood for the next thirty years, with Caiaphas, son in law of Annas, holding the office for the majority of that span, nineteen years (18-37 CE). It is noteworthy that Caiaphas had the position so long, considering that the only other high priest to hold the post for more than two years was Annas (nine years), remarkably less than half of Caiaphas's reign (Bond, p. 43). With the evidence suggesting that every other high priest serving for two years or less during this span, it can't help but provoke curiosity and speculation – what was it about Caiaphas that enabled his appointment to last so long? Unfortunately, other than what we have in the besorot, there is no supplementary historical documentation concerning Caiaphas's character and personality specifically. Aside from making a verdict solely from the besorot, one can speculate that Caiaphas retained his position for many years because he bribed Antipas or went out of his way to maintain optimal status with the Judean governor, securing autonomous uninterrupted cultic function without intervention.[2] The climate and the opportunity and the widespread practice of bribery make it likely (especially when comparing the besorot accounts) that Caiaphas and Annas were "pay for play" power brokers. Notwithstanding, it is necessary to explore other textual and historical evidence before forming a more definitive conclusion.
The temple cult's centrality was always of supreme significance in Judaism; thus, the temple establishment and priestly ruling aristocracy undergoing scrutiny from the diverse Jewish ruling groups and peasantry was not unwarranted. As noted in the Hasmonean era, the priesthood became a device of political power and control. In a broader sense, historical events reveal that political power in any individual or family's possession comes with exceedingly great responsibility; there is always a substantial risk of enticement to greed and corruption, even for the most well-intended people. In addition to the biblical accounts of the prophets issuing prophetic warnings to the priestly authorities of their day, particularly Jeremiah (26:26), there is a heap of historical and extra-biblical evidence supporting the possibility of a corrupt priesthood around the time of Yeshua. All of the characteristics of power and control that reflect the ugly side of humanity's dual nature are evident in texts and historical documentation of the Second Temple priesthood, namely, greed, mammon, bribery, theft, partiality, violence, and murder.
For instance, Josephus (and others) writes about corroborating evidence, such as the extreme wealth existing among the Priestly aristocracy, used as dowries and allowances for perfumes and jewelry. Josephus also comments on the great political power of the temple establishment – their authority included officiating the temple cult, general supervision, setting and conducting trials, and issuing punishments (Evans, p. 322). During the Herodian Period/Tetrarchy, families striving to retain control of the priesthood through intermarriage (e.g., Caiaphas married into Annas's house), despite the Romans having the final say (Bond, p. 37). There is evidence of bribery in 50-60 CE – the high priest Ananias, son of Nebedeus (Acts 23:2, ESV), was bribing Roman officials, such as Albinus, Roman Procurator of Judea, with sums of money, keeping the upper hand because of his bribery. Josephus claims the consequences of Ananias' bribery victimized him and insists that he became too powerful when he wrote, "there was no way to stop him." He also claims that the high priest Annas son of Annas (62 CE), was plotting to kill Ya'akov (James), brother of Yeshua, and a few others between 55-60 CE, around the reign of Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27, ESV; Evans, p. 324). In a later Talmudic source, for the same period, we are told that Yeshua Ben Gamaliel gained his position by appointment – marrying the rich widow Martha, from the aristocratic family of Boethius who bribed King Yannai with a tarkab of denarii (VanderKam, p. 485). This passage's historical accuracy is questionable since it refers to King Yannai (a Hasmonean King), instead of King Agrippa, still worth mentioning because of the perception of the Tannaitic source, and because this Yeshua married a widow, forbidden for a kohen in the Torah (Leviticus 21:14, ESV).
Second Temple Priestly Corruption in Tannaitic texts
Corruption in the priesthood during the Second Temple Period by the rabbis of the Tannaitic Period in the rabbinic writings is well attested. For example, there is a text alluding to יוחנן בן זכאי R. Yochanan ben Zakkai condemning the kohanim for exempting themselves from paying the half-shekel temple tax, making them guilty of sin. The rabbis expounded using Leviticus 6:23 to their advantage, begging the question, how they got away with it, whereby the response is that it was "in the interest of peace" that no one called them out on the tax to avoid polemics, violence, or retaliation from the priesthood. Another tradition states that Annas' family did not tithe their produce; thus, they reaped the destruction of their property three years before the rest of Israel. The rabbis of the Tannaitic Period indicate that the ways and means by which the priestly families of the Second Temple Period profited were questionable at best and unequivocally oppressive. The Tannaitic Rabbi's also preserved the Second Temple priestly bribery accusation substantiated by Josephus (in part), stating that it was not uncommon for wealthy aristocrats to use bribery tactics to secure the high priesthood during the second temple period. Another tradition says: "the fear of Hashem prolongs days (Proverbs 10:27a) applies to the priests of the first temple," while the second part of the verse, "the years of the wicked shall be cut short (Proverbs 10:27b) applies to the kohanim of the second temple." They said this because eighty priests served in the First Temple, compared to only twenty-eight during the second, for they used to obtain the high priestly office for money or because they used to kill each other utilizing witchcraft. (Evans, p. 331-333).
Second Temple Priestly Corruption in the Amoraic texts
The Amoraic traditions reflect that the high priestly aristocrats in the Second Temple Period were wealthy, powerful, greedy, violent, and oppressive toward the lower-ranking priests, and nepotistic. Specific Amoraic texts reflecting the Second Temple convey that the high priestly standards and expectations diverged from the biblical premise, attributed to the social-political climate and the competing forces of power and control among the aristocratic families, a departure from administering a justice-based Torah ideology. The high priest was "to be greater than his brethren in beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom and good looks"; on one occasion, for instance, the high priests "filled up the high priest's woodshed with gold dinars," and "they covered the whole temple with gold plaques a cubit square of the thickness of a gold denar." In another tradition, powerful men of the priesthood steal tithes or apprehend what belongs to the lower-ranking kohanim, causing some of them to die of starvation. Josephus adds that during the priesthood of Ishmael, son of Phabi (59-61 CE), his servants would forcibly remove the tithes from the threshing floors, which had been given voluntarily before him. Lastly, the Tosefta and Mishna record two early Tannaitic Rabbi's, Abba Saul b. Bitnit and Abba Joseph ben Yochanon (t.Menahot 13:21, b.Pesahim) speak against the injustice of the four prominent high priestly families of the Second Temple Period, including the House of Annas, for their violence, sin, and oppression.
Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; Woe is me because of their staves. Woe is me because of the house of Hanin (Annas); Woe is me because of their whisperings. Woe is me because of the house of Kathros; Woe is me because of their pens. Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael, son of Phabi; Woe is me because of their fists. For they are High Priests, and their sons are [temple] treasurers, and their sons-in-law are trustees, and their servants beat the people with staves (Evans p. 333-337).
An Opposing Argument on Second Temple Priestly Corruption
James P. McLaren argues against the probability of priestly corruption in the Second Temple Period, especially when using Rabbinic literature as a primary historical source. McLaren argues that using the rabbinic writings as historical proof is mostly unconvincing, especially without a closer examination for clarification and explanation since Talmudic interpretation is a complicated process. He cites the following conditions to do Talmudic analysis: the origin of the saying, clarification of the detail of the saying, and determining the broader context of the saying (McLaren, p. 152-153). Worth noting is that McLaren's argument hinges on a presupposition, as summarized from an unrelated source:
Talmudic literature contains by definition historical details only coincidentally. Its aims are not historiographical and it focuses on legislation (Halakhah) and didactic theology (Aggadah), whose purpose is to draw the attention of the reader to the Torah and its study. The associative and anecdotal nature of Talmudic Literature also means that one cannot expect to extract from it a clear impression of historical reality (Oppenheimer, p. 17).
Since Rabbinic literature is not historiographical (and written much later), linking to specific historical figures and events to prove historical accuracy is complicated and problematic, at the very least, requiring careful examination and scrutiny.[3] McLaren suggests an alternative analysis to determine the meaning and context of the original rabbinic saying while comparing its usage, beginning with the oldest text (i.e., Tosefta t.Menahot 13:21), instead of naively or presumptuously assuming that the saying is an accurate reflection of history. Secondly, as in the case of t. Menahot 13:21 (the Woes), McLaren argues for greater clarification of the detail, prompting questions such as: do parallel historiographical writings from the Second Temple Period agree, further substantiating the claims as reasonably accurate history on a grander scale? He notes that in Josephus's accounts of similar events, the victims are lower-ranking priests; in contrast, the rabbinic text indicates that the victims extend beyond the priestly attendants, so that priestly corruption is a broader issue as the Woes seem to represent the thoughts and reflections of the people. McLaren's third point of contention about determining the broader context is most compelling. He argues that the Tosefta or Talmudic literature's complicated process, which is non-historiographical, does not necessarily represent the majority opinion or a complete line of thought of that day even when it harmoniously coincides with historiographical documentation (McLaren, p. 152-154).
Second Temple Priestly Corruption in the Dead Sea Scrolls
This paper surveys only some of the compelling pieces of evidence for priestly corruption around the time of Yeshua and the House of Annas while providing a contrasting perspective. It handpicks evidence from Josephus's and Rabbinic writings while leaving out other Second Temple Pseudepigrapha that alludes to possible priestly corruption, such as Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of Levi, the Testament of Moses, as well as the four besorot.[4]
The final insertion is evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Qumran יַחַד Yahad sectarian's whose writings insinuate some form of disgruntlement with the temple operation, and the temple officials, the priestly ruling aristocracy. Specifically, the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal how the early founders of the Qumran sectarian community rejected the Jerusalem priesthood (probably Hasmonean), its calendar, and conceived of itself as the temple of God. These early priestly founders of the Qumran community consequently withdrew from early Second Temple Judaism out of their discontentment with the priesthood, whom they refer to as the "wicked priest" (Bond, p. 48). Their breaking away from the Hasmonean aristocracy is noteworthy, considering it harmonizes with my earlier assessment of the change from the Zadokite to the Maccabean priesthood as a contrived power and control device with political, military, and diplomatic strength. At the very least, the fact that the community perceived itself as a temple, with its members constituting a form of sacrifice to God, with their well-documented assertion of dissatisfaction with the priesthood, temple, and calendar adds credibility to priestly corruption in the Second Temple Period, at least to some extent (Goodman, p. 154).
Conclusion
I attempted to provide a balanced assessment of the likelihood of priestly corruption in the Second Temple Period around the time of Yeshua when the House of Annas was the predominant ruling priestly aristocracy. One may ask, why should a Messianic Jew be concerned with this particular time frame, and for what specific reason is this study so necessary? For starters, most of the modern scholarship does not consider the details of Yeshua's trial in the Synoptic and Yochanon's besorot as historically reliable. While his life, teachings, and Roman crucifixion are generally uncontested, the popular scholarly view is to see the purpose of the besorot as promoting theological reflection and truth of the passion event rather than historiographically (Bond, p. 105). While they wouldn't deny the besorot retains a core of historical fact, they would see the stories of the slaughter of the innocents, Yeshua's going down to Egypt, the feeding of the five thousand, the birth story, and the details of the trials, solely as literary devices. They would argue that as with great literature, sometimes characters and events become literary devices in the story, rather than intended to be literal history. While one shouldn't ignore the use of effective literary techniques, the existence of literary devices with no exact parallel counterpart story in historiographical or extra-biblical sources does not mean it didn't happen. While the trials are seemingly hard to believe because of the level of injustice – a sham, a kangaroo court of sorts with the illegal night trial, and trumped-up charges, it fits harmoniously with the evidence we've surveyed. After the priestly shift from the Zadokites to Hasmoneans, we detected a departure from Torah concerning the high priest as the supreme cultic and anointed official, to a puppet-political figure of power, prestige, and control (with temple duties), as opposed to judging the people according to ideals of Hashem and the laws of the Torah. Therefore, the evidence points to the high probability of bribery and priestly corruption present around Yeshua's time, substantiating the besorot accounts.
Bibliography:
1. Bond, Helen K. Caiaphas: A Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? Westminster John Knox Press, 2004
2. Evans, Craig A. Jesus' Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption (English): Chapter 8, pg. 319-344
3. Goodman, Martin. A History of Judaism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2018
4. McLaren, James S. Corruption Among the High Priesthood: A Matter Of Perspective: Published 2009 https://www.academia.edu/11940525/Jesus_Action_in_the_Temple_and_Evidence_of_Corruption_English_
5. Oppenheimer, Aharon. Talmudic literature as a Historical Source
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/talmudic-literature-as-a-historical-source.pdf?c=fia;idno=11879367.2009.007;format=pdf
6. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile: Fortress Press, 2004
[1] The Zadokites were descendents of the high priest Zadok, a patrilineal descendent of Eleazar, son of Aaron (1 Chron. 6:4-8, ESV). The Zadokites, the most illustrious branch of Aaronic priests, ceased from serving in the temple during Hasmonean dynasty. Scholars debate whether some of the priestly families of Second Temple period, like the House of Annas, were Zadokites. Helen K. Bond argues that is highly probable that Caiaphas was a Zadokite (Bond, p. 24).
[2] One scholar noted that before 40 CE, the Second Temple priestly families practiced a reasonably consistent collaboration policy and adherence to the Romans system. This particular scholar, who minimizes priestly corruption in the House Annas, argues that aside from general Mediterranean societal evidence of giving gifts and bribes to benefactors and proof from the Hasmonean period, there is no evidence explicitly alleging that Annas or Caiaphas participated in such activities (Bond, p. 34).
[3] There are, however, various approaches that scholars use to reconcile rabbinic sayings with historiographical material that we need not address here as it is beyond this essay’s scope.
[4] The four besorot were deliberately omitted since the aim of paper is to survey the probablity of priestly corruption in Yeshua’s day from relevant extra-biblical and historiographical sources from the Second Temple to the Amoraic period.