Was Caiaphas wrong? Using utilitarian philosophy to challenge an antisemitic trope

Condemning Caiaphas for his role in the execution of Jesus has long been a leitmotif of religious antisemitism in the West. In recent times, historians have attempted to correct the caricaturizing of Caiaphas. But philosophers have largely abstained from doing so. In this article, I evaluate Caiaphas’ actions from an ethical perspective. To do so, I rely on a utilitarian framework. I ponder if Caiaphas was wrong to consider the numbers in claiming that it is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. I also evaluate if Caiphas was wrong to actively seek the death of Jesus. In so doing, I discuss whether there is a difference between killing and letting die, and the doctrine of double effect. Ultimately, I acknowledge that Caiaphas was in a conundrum, and I claim that any judgement of his decision is very complex, and therefore, does not warrant the simplistic approach that has been partly fuelled by antisemitism.