We continue our week’s series on skeptics’ attack on the details of the final week of Jesus. If you have benefited from these posts drop us a comment to let us know!

For today’s post will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?

Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:

Caiaphas

Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. ” (Matthew 26:57)

They led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes *gathered together. ” (Mark 14:53)

Having arrested Him, they led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest; but Peter was following at a distance.” (Luke 22:54)

Annas

and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. ” (John 18:13)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time. We must look to see if the answers that the skeptic claimed are supported from the verses that were cited. The second claim is biblically warranted. In support of the claim that Jesus was brought to Annas first the skeptic cited John 18:13. John 18:13 uses the Greek word πρῶτον. The word means “first” which indicated that Jesus was brought to Annas first. To support the skeptic’s first claim that other parts of the Bible taught that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first the skeptic quoted Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54. However these verses do not support the skeptics’ claim that the Bible taught Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. Neither Mark 14:53 nor Luke 22:54 named Caiaphas or any other name for that manner as to which house it was that Jesus was taken to. Nor does the greater context of the chapter of Mark 14 and Luke 22 mentioned the name of Caiaphas. Since these passages do not even mentioned Caiaphas it is thus a stretch for the skeptic to cite Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54 as proof that the Bible taught that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. While Matthew 26:57 does mention the high priest Caiaphas it does not state that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. We do no have a contradiction here since none of the verses invoked support the skeptic’s claims that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas first. That is, Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54 do not conflict with John 18:13’s statement that Jesus was taken to Annas first. To harmonize the four verses the chronology is as follows: Jesus was taken to Annas first and then later Jesus was taken to Caiaphas. This chronology is supported by John 18:13 which explicitly mentioned that Jesus was taken to Annas first. We want to go a little deeper and ask why the skeptic might have arrived at his erroneous conclusion that there is a contradiction here. It seems that one possible reason why the skeptic might have thought there was a Bible contradiction is because Matthew 26:57 mentioned Jesus was taken to Caiaphas while John 18:33 mentioned Jesus was taken to Annas. However there is not a contradiction here since Jesus was taken at different times to two different high priests. Some might ask the question: Why Annas first? To answer this it is important to know the background of both Annas and Caiaphas. Annas According to Josephus, a first century Jewish writer, Annas was a high priest before being removed during the reign of Roman emperor Tiberius. As Josephus recorded it Tiberius “sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest” (Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2 35, enter in “J. AJ 18.2.2”). While Annas was officially not a high priest due to the political maneuvering of Roman authorities nevertheless Annas was a skillful behind-the-scene political influence since he managed to have five of his own sons become high priests. Note Josephus’ account: “But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. ” (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1, enter in “J. AJ 20.9.1”). Given that he’s the high priest behind the high priest and that he was a man with bad temper and one who exercise his authorities, it would make sense that the group of armed men who captured Jesus would have wanted to take Jesus to Annas first for an unofficial stop. Caiaphas According to John 19:3 Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas. Caiaphas was appointed a high priest by Gratus the Roman procurator of Judea (Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.2 35, enter in “J. AJ 18.2.2”). While Caiaphas was officially on paper the high priest nevertheless the Gospel of Luke recognizes that Annas was still the functional high priest when Luke 3:2 mentioned “the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.“ It would thus make sense that the group of armed men would have taken Jesus to Caiaphas’ courthouse after the unofficial first stop at Annas house. The first stop at Annas’ place was to sort the situation out. The second stop was to get thing officially moving of pressing charges against Jesus. As my fellow blogger and friend Patrick Hawthorne put i there was ” a simple ‘chain of command,’ type scenario. They went up the chain by first taking to Jesus to Annas then Caiaphas.”

Not only do we not see a Bible contradiction here but we see the biblical chronology makes sense in light of what we know of Annas and Caiaphas and also in light of the extra-biblical data. Rather than this being an attack on Scripture when we study more carefully the details we find that Scripture is beautifully consistent within the Bible itself and also consistent with historical facts outside the Bible.