Talk:Sanhedrin trial of Jesus

Among the reasons that this topic may be considered controversial is that some of its factual basis comes from religious texts. Specific reasons for controversy have to do with the death of Jesus, and whether this institutional body was truly in a postion to stop it, or if it was directly responsible. The casual editor should be warned that posits made in this article, innocently stated, may fuel a sensitive debate.

Isn't the Sanhedrin Trial only in the Synoptics? In John, Jesus seems to be subjected to an informal interview by Annas, not a trial by the Sanhedrin. Also, the current version seems highly biased against John's account. Much of the scholarship I have read suggests that John's version of what happened makes more sense - an informal interview by the Jewish leadership, followed by him being turned over to the Roman authorities - than the Synoptic version. Also, all the Gospels, except maybe for Mark, try to downplay Pilate's role and put the blame on the Jewish authorities. It is, after all, Matthew which has Pilate's wife's dream and Pilate washing his hands and the Jews calling down their guilt onto their children and their children's children; and it is Luke who has Pilate try to evade responsibility by sending Jesus off to Herod, among other things. At the very least, all the stuff that suggests that it's generally agreed that the author of John wasn't a Jew should be seriously recast, I think. john k 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: JohnI agree with almost all you said. Oub 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC):

Most scholars are of the opinion that John is the least reliable even if it might on occasion have the most logical argument. See Authorship of John. E.g. you can logically argue that shopkeeper A must have been in bank B at time C, but that doesn't make you an eyewitness.

I agree that Pilate's role is downplayed by most of the Gospels, though I'm not that sure why it is significant to state that on the talk page of the Sanhedrin trial article?

It IS generally agreed that the author of John was probably not a Jew - see Authorship of John. Clinkophonist 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Many scholars, however, believe that John may, in some points, be more accurate than the Synoptics. The idea that only the Synoptics contain real historical details arose in the 19th century, and I think a lot of recent scholars have taken issue with the idea. And on what basis can we possibly say that John is less reliable than those parts of Matthew and Luke which do not follow Mark? And there's certainly no general sense that the author of John was not a Jew. Certainly many scholars think this, but I've never gotten any sense that this is a consensus - many scholars I've come across clearly think it's likely that John was a Jew - I've come across sources saying things like "I see no reason to doubt that the authors of the Gospels, other than Luke, are Jews." I'd say that scholars generally agree that the author of Matthew was a Jew, and that the author of Luke was a Gentile, but that there's no especial consensus about Mark or John, and various opinions exist. The Authorship of the Johannine Works article seems to me to suggest that the supposed non-Jewishness of John has, in fact, come into question based on the fact that various Johannine ideas show up in the Qumran material. As to Pilate's role, this article states

Both the Synoptics and the Gospel of John state that early in the morning the Sanhedrin reach their conclusion, and bind Jesus, taking him to Pontius Pilate. The Gospel of John downplays Pilate's responsibility and somewhat anti-semitically treats all the Jews as being responsible for Jesus' death, arguing that the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, that Pilate initially wanted the Jews to judge Jesus by their own laws, but that the Jews object since they want to execute Jesus but don't have the legal authority.

This implies that John is unique both in blaming "the Jews" and in downplaying Pilate's responsibility. Which just isn't true. Matthew certainly does both, and Luke at least downplays Pilate's responsibility. john k 18:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But blaming the Jews was natural for many of the gospel writers, due to a number of factors-- they'd turned Christ over to Rome, not to mention that they were also persecuting His followers, the effects of which Levi, John Mark, Luke, and John the Apostle all would have felt. Blaming them was not an act of anti-Semitism, especially when you take into consideration that many of them were Jews themselves.

The Pilate situation, I think, is complicated. I do not doubt the gospels' accounts, but I do recognize that in order for them to survive they had to be subtle about what was said of Rome. I think Pilate's hesitation was based on the fact that Jesus alarmed him in what He said, as well as the arrising controversy over this man. Though he was left baffled by the situation, even going so far as to turn Christ over to Herod to escape responsibility for judgement, Pilate, in the end, did what he had to in crucifying Jesus. It was his command that issued the death of the Messiah, but we must also keep in mind that if it were not for the Jews of the time, no such verdict would have been reached, as well as Pilate's reluctance as opposed to the willingness of the Jews to rid themselves of this Fellow, not knowing their actions were a part of a much larger scheme. Both Rome AND the Jews played a part in this deicide, but clearly the prime culprits are the Jewish people who rejected and killed Christ with their accusations.

As for John's gospel, what must be acknowledged here is that with the coming of Immanuel, if one believes such prophecies, the Law began to change, as did many sacred traditions (for example, the Passover became the Lord's Supper). John, the Beloved Disciple, as tradition would hold, a Jew, did not put particular emphasis on these customs, but instead focused on the divinity of Christ. The accounts of the gospels were not chronological, for those that do not know, with the exception of certain cases, and so 'discrepancies' are bound to occur. It's like asking four children to watch a movie and, in their own words, describe what happened in it. The answers will vary, but the synopsises will agree, if accurate. Such is the case of the gospels. (MrLigit)

Article Title

Didn't this page used to be called just "Trial of Jesus?"

In of itself, the title seems to state a POV (that the Sanhedrin was fully capable of trying Jesus independently, etc). Wouldn't one say that the trial went before a court, in order to assume the court's impartiality (rightly so, or not)? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Supreme Court Trial of Roe v. Wade," so much as "Roe v. Wade" or "The Trial of Roe v. Wade, that went before the Supreme Court." Calling it "their" trial of Jesus sounds accusatory. I submit that the name be changed.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

"Trial of Jesus" is ambiguous. It needs to differentiate between the trial involving the Jewish authorites, and the trial involving Pilate. Its more like "Supreme Court Trial of Roe v. Wade" vs. "Southern Baptist Convention Trial of Roe v. Wade". Basically its "Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus" as opposed to "Pontius Pilate Trial of Jesus". The other thing is that "Sanhedrin X" is somewhat shorter than "X before the Sanhedrin", and its important that the article title stays on one line and is easy to remember. I don't have a problem with the name being changed (I'm quite surprised that anyone would have thought it had a POV), but the new name, whatever it might be, must retain the ability to differentiate from the Pilate-related-trial. Clinkophonist 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The authority of the Jewish priesthood in 1st century CE Judaea is nothing like the authority of the Southern Baptist Convention. The temple officials were heavily involved in the temporal government of the province, and were closely associated with the Roman officials, who actually appointed them. I don't have a problem with this title, though. john k 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I would have agreed with you until George W Bush got elected as president. I feel we are veering off-topic though. Clinkophonist 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush isn't a Southern Baptist. the Sanhedrin could have legally punish Jesus, the worst a Church can do in America, is kick you out. One article describing the trial of Jesus and how he is sent from the Sanhedrin to Pilate to Herod and back to Pilate, titled the "The Trial Of Jesus" would be fine, since what is there now is a stub. If you have info that is excluded, or different just edit it in. (unsigned)

That would be one option, it depends on whether there would be too much material for just one article. However, since most scholarly works (and artistic works) treat these as two separate events - the Sanhedrin vs Jesus being one and Pilate vs Jesus being the other - then the appropriate way is to follow the scholarly works in this manner. Clinkophonist 12:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Other violations of Jewish law not mentioned here

I realize that this is a sensitive topic, but I would like to mention that there are additional Jewish laws that are being violated, if this is true: The Torah forbids any court to convene or even sit at night. It is also forbidden to convene a court or arrest someone during a Sabbath or Festival. If this took place during the first night of Passover, then the Jews couldn't have convened 23 people (or any for that matter) to decide any case, let alone a capital one. They wouldn't have been able to arrest him until Sunday morning, as the first day of Passover and the Sabbath stretched from Thursday afternoon to Saturday night. Valley2city 02:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)