The house of Hanan — designated in Greek as Annas and in rabbinic sources as Bet Hannan — constitutes one of the great priestly dynasties of first-century Judea. It dominated the priesthood of the Temple of Jerusalem at the time when the latter still functioned as the religious, political, and economic center of Second Temple Judaism. To understand this lineage is to grasp the articulation between Roman power, Sadducean aristocracy, and the internal tensions of ancient Judaism on the eve of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
The study of the house of Hanan raises a methodological question from the outset: it stands at the intersection of several documentary corpora — the works of Flavius Josèphe, the Christian Gospels, and rabbinic literature — which do not always concord and pursue distinct purposes. As recent research on the historical passage "from priests to rabbis" reminds us, the first century marks precisely the pivotal moment when sacerdotal authority, embodied by families such as that of Hanan, progressively yields to an authority grounded in the study and interpretation of the Law [Mimouni, 2012]. The dynasty of Hanan thus belongs to the world that ends in 70, and its memory is prolonged in a critical form within rabbinic Memory.
This work intends to restore, chapter by chapter, the established History of this lineage, the Memory preserved of it by Jewish and Christian traditions, and the complex — often polemical — heritage it has bequeathed. It carefully distinguishes what belongs to the historical archive from what belongs to transmitted tradition, so as never to confuse the document and the narrative.
Hanan ben Seth — Annas in the Greek transcription of the Gospels and of Josèphe — was appointed high priest of Jerusalem by the Roman legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius around 6 CE, at the very moment when Judea came under direct Roman administration following the deposition of Archélaüs. He held the office until 15 CE, when the prefect Valerius Gratus removed him from his position. These data come essentially from the Antiquités judaïques of Flavius Josèphe, the primary and oldest source on the history of the high priesthood in the Roman period.
The appointment of Hanan occurred within a profoundly altered institutional context. Under Roman domination, the high priest was no longer a lifelong office nor strictly hereditary according to the traditional Sadducean line: the imperial authority or its local representative appointed and dismissed officeholders, often according to shifting political balances. This instrumentalization of the priesthood by foreign power constitutes one of the defining features of the period and explains the proliferation of successive titleholders. The profound transformation of Judaism during this period, in which the priestly institution found itself caught between Roman tutelage and internal religious change, lies at the heart of the historical analysis of ancient Judaism [Mimouni, 2012].
Although deposed after nine years in office, Hanan retained considerable and lasting influence. His prestige, his wealth, and his family network allowed him to remain a leading figure long after the official end of his tenure. This residual authority, exercised in the shadow of the nominally incumbent high priests, makes him the true patriarch of a dynasty that would come to dominate the priesthood for nearly half a century. The title of high priest remained attached to him even after his deposition, a usage attested by sources that continue to designate him as such alongside the serving officeholders.
The posterity of Hanan illustrates in striking fashion the grip of a single family over the highest religious office in Judea. According to Flavius Josephus, five of his sons acceded successively to the high priesthood: Éléazar (c. 16–17), Jonathan (c. 36–37), Théophile (c. 37–41), Matthias (c. 43), and Ananus the Younger (c. 63). To these five sons is added his son-in-law, Joseph known as Caïphe, who exercised the function for a particularly long period, approximately from 18 to 36 CE.
Caïphe belonged, according to several reconstructions, to another priestly family, the house of Phiabi (Bet Phiabi), and his union with Hanan's daughter sealed a dynastic alliance between two great lineages of the priesthood. The exceptional longevity of his tenure, under successive prefects and notably under Ponce Pilate, testifies to a political balance skillfully maintained with Roman authority. This stability stands in contrast to the rapid succession of officeholders that characterizes the rest of the period and underscores the political acumen of the clan of Hanan.
The concentration of priestly power in the hands of a single kinship group for more than fifty years constitutes a remarkable phenomenon in the history of the Second Temple. It marks the culmination of a priestly aristocracy that had become a true oligarchy, whose power rested as much on the control of the cult and its revenues as on the favor of Roman authority. This model of family domination forms part of the vast movement of recomposition of Jewish religious elites that scholarship has analyzed as the slow passage from an authority founded on priestly birth to an authority founded on knowledge [Mimouni, 2012].
The last of Hanan's sons to assume the charge, Ananus ben Ananus — Anân the Younger —, occupies a singular place in history, on account of an episode reported by Josèphe himself. Appointed high priest around 62–63 CE by King Agrippa II, he took advantage of the vacancy in Roman power, between the death of the procurator Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, to convene a tribunal.
According to Josèphe, this tribunal condemned to stoning a number of accused, among them Jacques, designated as the brother of Jesus "called Christ." This passage from the Antiquités judaïques constitutes one of the most debated references in ancient historiography, both for what it reveals about the workings of sacerdotal justice and for its importance in the study of Christian origins. Anân's initiative provoked strong opposition among the inhabitants of Jérusalem attached to legality, and aroused the protest of Jews who deemed the procedure irregular; Anân was deposed after only three months in office.
This episode reveals the tensions inherent in sacerdotal power of the era: capable of acting with great brutality in the interstices of Roman authority, yet subject to internal countervailing forces and to the oversight of imperial power. Anân the Younger subsequently played a notable role during the early phases of the Great Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE), before being killed during the conflict. His death, which Josèphe laments, symbolically marks the end of the direct influence of the house of Hanan over the affairs of Jérusalem, only a few years before the destruction of the Temple.
If historical sources paint the portrait of a powerful dynasty, rabbinic Memory has preserved a markedly critical image of it. Talmudic and tannaitic literature evokes, in terms of reproach, the conduct of certain great priestly families of the late Second Temple period, among which the house of Hanan is frequently cited. A celebrated tradition, transmitted in the name of the sage Abba Saül ben Batnit, expresses a lamentation — a "woe is me" — directed against several priestly houses, which are reproached for their greed, their violence, and their abusive stranglehold over the offices and revenues of the Temple.
This reproach belongs to the register of Memory: it reflects the retrospective gaze cast by rabbinic circles — heirs to an authority that rivaled that of the priests — upon the priestly aristocracy that had preceded them. It must be read with caution, for it belongs to a polemic aimed at legitimizing a new model of religious authority. It is precisely this shift that historical research has brought to light: the transition from a Judaism centered on the priesthood and the Temple toward a Judaism of masters and the Law, whose Memory and, in part, whose founding narrative is borne by the rabbinic tradition [Mimouni, 2012].
The interest of this corpus lies in the intersection it opens between the archive and tradition: where Josèphe describes an influential and at times violent family, rabbinic Memory makes of it a moral counter-model. The two registers answer each other — one documenting power, the other judging it — without either being able to be taken as a neutral reconstruction. This confrontation of sources illustrates the manner in which medieval and ancient Jewish communities were able to reread and reinterpret their own past, a process of critical appropriation of History that nourished learned culture through the Middle Ages [Ben-Shalom, 2022].
A considerable part of Hanan's posterity lies in the place accorded to him by the Gospels and the Christian tradition. Under the name of Annas, he appears there alongside his son-in-law Caïphe in the accounts of the Passion of Jesus. The Gospel texts present him, though officially deposed long before, as remaining a foremost authority before whom Jesus is brought prior to being presented to Caïphe, then high priest in office.
This double mention — Annas and Caïphe designated jointly — reflects, within the Christian narrative, the historical reality of the deposed patriarch's enduring influence over his son-in-law in office. It belongs, however, to the register of theological Memory: the Gospels are not neutral chronicles, but narratives of faith, and the role they attribute to Annas is inscribed within a narrative construction of responsibility for the death of Jesus. The figure of Annas becomes therein an emblematic character, whose importance in Christian Memory far exceeds what the historical sources allow us to establish with certainty.
This Christian reception has durably shaped the representation of the house of Hanan in the West, often at the cost of simplifications and polemical projections. The critical study of the manner in which religious traditions — Jewish as well as Christian — have reconstructed and instrumentalized the priestly past of the Second Temple belongs to a History of memories rather than a history of facts, and invites a rigorous distinction between the historical figure and his legendary persona [Ben-Shalom, 2022].
After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the institution of the high priesthood disappeared, and with it the very foundation of the power of the great priestly families. The house of Hanan, which had derived all its authority from Temple service, lost its institutional raison d'être. No reliable historical source allows us to establish a direct, documented lineage continuity between the priestly dynasty of the 1st century and any particular Jewish family of subsequent centuries.
One must therefore be particularly cautious when confronted with genealogical traditions that, in medieval and modern Judaism, may have claimed a prestigious priestly descent. The consciousness of belonging to a lineage of priests — the Kohanim — has been perpetuated in many communities, but the connection to a named priestly house of the Second Temple belongs to family memory and identity construction, not to the archive. The scholarly elites of medieval Sephardic Judaism, in the manner of the great learned figures of Toledo, widely cultivated this consciousness of lineage prestige and continuity with the priestly and biblical past [Ben-Shalom, 2007] [Ray, 2004].
In Sephardic and North African Judaism, the memory of lineages and the veneration of illustrious ancestors constitute a deep cultural trait, studied notably through hagiography and the family traditions of Morocco [Ben-Ami, 1984]. Great rabbinical families, such as those of the Ankawa or the Encaoua, have thus carefully transmitted the memory of their eminent figures, such as the grand rabbi Raphaël Ankawa of Salé [Encyclopedia.com, 2024] [Yabiladi, 2022] or Messod Encaoua, grand rabbi of Tlemcen [Encaoua, 2023]. Any attempt to connect such a diasporic lineage directly to the house of Hanan of the 1st century remains, given the current state of sources, an assumed editorial hypothesis and not an established fact. Historical rigor requires here a clear separation between claimed prestige and documentary demonstration.
The house of Hanan ben Seth embodies, more than any other, the nature of sacerdotal power in first-century Judea: an authority concentrated in the hands of one family, allied with Roman power, prosperous and influential, yet also contested and fragile. Founded by a man whose prestige survived his own deposition, continued by five sons and a son-in-law at the summit of the Temple, it spanned the entire period separating the Roman annexation of Judea from the destruction of Jerusalem.
Its history unfolds at three levels which, taken together, compose its richness: the archive of Josèphe, which establishes the facts; the rabbinic Memory, which turns it into a moral counter-model; and the Christian tradition, which fixes a lasting theological image of it. The first century it dominates is also the one in which the great transformation of Judaism begins — from priesthood toward study — whose trace the Memory of subsequent generations would carry [Mimouni, 2012]. The house of Hanan belongs to the world that came to an end in 70; its legacy now pertains less to the lineage of blood than to the Memory of texts and the rereadings made of them, century after century, by the heirs of the Jewish tradition [Ben-Shalom, 2022].
