Question for Jews about the Sanhedrin...?

Question

I've heard that the actions described in the Gospels about what the Sanhedrin supposedly did to bring Jesus to trial are utterly against the rules the group operated under - for instance, meeting at a high priest's house at night, meeting during Passover, etc. Can someone give me some more details?

Answer 1

as said, these inconsistencys should be seen as (at very least) hints that theres something very fishy about the story.

Answer 2

answer: that's a good indication the trial thing was a late interpretation of whatever happened because the court did not act that way.  They certainly didn't impose a death sentence on anyone claiming to be the Jewish messiah - there were quite a few of them over the years.  

The trial before Pilate is extremely unlikely as well (as written).  Most likely Jesus was tried by Pilate for armed rebellion (throwing the money changers and Roman soldiers out of the temple). That warranted a death sentence among the ruling Romans.

Answer 3

Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to the home of Caiaphas for questioning. Frustrated at Jesus' answers to their questions as to whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah, the scribes and priests hit Jesus in the face and spit on him in disgust. There are several problems with this gospel account:

1. It was against Jewish law for the Sanhedrin to meet outside of the designated Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple and would not have been violated under any circumstance.

2. The Sanhredrin had an express rule that it could not meet at night because justice must be carried out in the "light of day."

3. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem was probably during the Feast of the Tabernacles, not Passover. (the palm leaves strewn in front of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem would not have been in bloom during Passover) The Sanhedrin would not have met during the eight-day festival for any reason.

4. The Elders of the Sanhedrin would no more strike or spit on an accused person, than would the Supreme Court of the U.S. hearing a case! Luke's account is completely out-of-context and shows remarkable ignorance as to the machinations of Jewish Law.

5. It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a "Messiah" or a "Son of God" any more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. The Pharisees who composed the majority of the Sanhredrin would dismiss such a charge at once since blasphemy could only be applied to anyone who claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus' declaration that he was a Messiah, merely referred to his earthly desire to ascend to the throne of David--an act of sedition against Rome surely, but not one of blasphemy.

If the Gospel of John is to be our authority, his account disagrees with the Luke in that the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary, the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. (Indeed Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious. In the trial of Peter as reported in Acts, the Pharisees sided against the High Priest and voted to release the accused.)

Answer 4

You have to remember that there were dozens of versions of Christianity in the first centuries after Jesus' death, but the power of the Roman congregation was huge long before there was such a thing as a pope. The Roman church intervened in arguments about doctrine in churches all over the empire by giving "love offerings" to those whose teachings agreed with theirs and to bishops who deferred to the doctrinal stances of the Roman church. Since Rome was the capital of the empire and the congregation was wealthy, this makes complete sense. You can see why a new religion trying to ingratiate itself with Roman authorities, a religion dominated by Romansand gentile subjects of Rome, should wish to shift blame for Yeshua's execution away from Pontius Pilate and Roman "Justice" and onto the Jews, who were seen as outsiders, different and suspicious by all gentiles. And indeed the Roman church continued to condemn Jews as Christ-killers until very, very recently.

Answer 5

It was the grand council of the Jews. Jewish Court possessing riligious, civil and criminal jurisdiction.     The Great Council (Sanhedrin) of the Jews consisted of at least 70 members with the High Priest as president,,,,Annas.

The voices of the priests were the loudest at the trial of Jesus.

These religious leaders had not a love for the truth.  They rejected the truth.

Christs greatest enemies were religious enemies.

Answer 6

Well for starters,

1.) Holding trial at the high priest's house would be like holding court in the living room of the chief justice of a US court system.  

2)  There is no record in the Sanhedrin, which kept a lot of records, of special releases for Passover.  There's nothing in Jewish law to support the idea.

3)  No one else was charged with calling themselves the messiah, but there were other people doing it who were more well known.  It wouldn't be against the law.

I'm blanking out on some keys ones right now.  If I find my prior answers on this, I'll add them.

Mama_Pajama has a very good description of the conflicting information & historical details, if you don't get more here.

Answer 7

Yes, what you've heard is correct :)

Interestingly, in the Christian bible itself, the Jews of that time are criticised for being overly 'legalistic' and 'pedantic' precisely because they stuck to their rules!

Yet the Gospel account to which you refer has the Jews VIOLATING numerous rules!

Firstly: the Sanhedrin never, ever would have met during Pesach. This just could not have happened.

Secondly: although yes, the Sanhedrin in theory could sentence someone to death by stoning, the actual criteria NEEDED to merit a 'guilty' verdict were so strict that it's said if one man in 70 years was sentenced to death, that was considered 'unusually violent'.

Thirdly: Why would the Jews have wanted Jesus dead? Jesus TAUGHT basic Torah. And he was one of many, many young Jewish preachers claiming to be the messiah. None of the others were a problem for the Jews, and neither was Jesus. It was the Romans that crucified almost all of these young, charismatic Jewish men. Again: Jesus was one of many and not unique.

Fourthly: Crucifixion has always, always been forbidden in Judaism. So the Jews could not have sentenced Jesus while knowing that the Romans would have crucified him. And obviously they knew the Romans would, because the streets were literally lined with the corpses of Jews!

http://www.ajewwithaview.com

TUCKER

Strange. Successive POPES have APOLOGISED to the Jews for the 'false charge' of killing Jesus and 'deicide'.  Do try picking up a decent book once in a while. You'll find it'll do WONDERS for your mind.