besides Kaiapha, who was his son-in-law.  His was called the “priestly family,” as if the priesthood had become hereditary in it.[4] The chief offices of the temple were almost all filled by them.[5] Another family, that of Boethus, alternated, it is true, with that of Hanan’s in the pontificate.[6] But the Boethusim, whose fortunes were of not very honorable origin, were much less esteemed by the pious middle class.  Hanan was then in reality the chief of the priestly party.  Kaiapha did nothing without him; it was customary to associate their names, and that of Hanan was always put first.[7] It will be understood, in fact, that under this regime of an annual pontificate, changed according to the caprice of the procurators, an old high priest, who had preserved the secret of the traditions, who had seen many younger than himself succeed each other, and who had retained sufficient influence to get the office delegated to persons who were subordinate to him in family rank, must have been a very important personage.  Like all the aristocracy of the temple,[8] he was a Sadducee, “a sect,” says Josephus, “particularly severe in its judgments.”  All his sons also were violent persecutors.[9] One of them, named like his father, Hanan, caused James, the brother of the Lord, to be stoned, under circumstances not unlike those which surrounded the death of Jesus.  The spirit of the family was haughty, bold, and cruel;[10] it had that particular kind of proud and sullen wickedness which characterizes Jewish politicians.  Therefore, upon this Hanan and his family must rest the responsibility of all the acts which followed.  It was Hanan (or the party he represented) who killed Jesus.  Hanan was the principal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Kaiapha, far more than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions of mankind.

[Footnote 1:  The Ananus of Josephus.  It is thus that the Hebrew name Johanan became in Greek Joannes or Joannas.]

[Footnote 2:  John xviii. 15-23; Acts iv. 6.]

[Footnote 3:  Jos., Ant., XX. ix. 1.]

[Footnote 4:  Jos., Ant., XV. iii. 1; B.J., IV. v. 6 and 7; Acts iv. 6.]

[Footnote 5:  Jos., Ant., XX. ix. 3.]

[Footnote 6:  Jos., Ant., XV. ix. 3, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]

[Footnote 7:  Luke iii. 2.]

[Footnote 8:  Acts v. 17.]

[Footnote 9:  Jos., Ant., XX. ix. 1.]

[Footnote 10:  Jos., Ant., XX. ix. 1.]

It is in the mouth of Kaiapha that the evangelist places the decisive words which led to the death of Jesus.[1] It was supposed that the high priest possessed a certain gift of prophecy; his declaration thus became an oracle full of profound meaning to the Christian community.  But such an expression, whoever he might be that pronounced it, was the feeling of the whole sacerdotal party.  This party was much opposed