The trial of Jesus, as described in the
Christian bible, could never have happened. Roman law and Jewish law -- and
historical information that has come to us from sources outside the Christian
bible including Philo and Josephus (37 CE to 100 CE) re-enforces the fact that
the story of Jesus' "trial" by Jews is total fiction. There is an
excellent article on this topic, with references, at "The Rejection of
Pascal's Wager."
Let us begin.
There were multiple Sanhedrins in the 1st
century of the common era. 'Sanhedrin' (the word) is derived from the Greek
'Synhedrion' -- so the body didn't come to be called by that name until later,
but the courts were the same.
Courts (בית דין / Beit Din / houses of judgment) are comprised of three
judges. This court system is still in place today. No Jewish court exists with
only one judge (as in American courts). There is no jury system of lay persons,
cases are adjudicated and tried by judges (rabbis).
The next level of court was the "minor
Sanhedrin." Cities had "minor Sanhedrins." These courts were
comprised of 23 judges. (Mishna, Sanhedrin, 1:4a). Ergo the court system was
somewhat similar to the American system of courts, appellate courts and a
supreme court. The minor Sanhedrins did indeed have the ability to pass the
death penalty. The number (23) is derived from Bambidar (Numbers) 35:24-25 as
discussed in the Rambam's Mishna Torah: "What is the source which teaches
that capital cases may be judged only by a court of 23? Although this is a
matter conveyed by the Oral Tradition, there is an allusion to it in the Torah.
Numbers 35:24-25 states: "And the congregation shall judge... and the
congregation shall save...." Implied is that there must be the possibility
of a congregation judging - and condemning him to death - and a congregation
saving - and seeking his acquittal. Now a congregation is no less than ten.
Thus there are at least 20 judges. We add three judges so that there not be an
equally balanced court and to allow the possibility of "following after
the inclination of the majority."
A death penalty could be appealed to the
"supreme court" of the land -- the "Great Sanhedrin."
The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme court of
the land, the court which met in the Temple in the Chamber of Hewn / Carved
Stone. It was comprised of priests, scribes and judges -- normally 71 judges.
This number is taken from Bambidar (Numbers) 11:16. The true Hebrew name would
be Beit Din HaGadol (The Great Court) but it came to be called Sanhedrin in the
2nd Temple period. Different name -- same concept. Link.
The Sanhedrin never met at night --- they met
from 9 - 4. (Mark 14:17 says it was night, 39-41 they were sleeping. Sanhedrin
35a-b in the Talmud explains that the Sanhedrin never met at night). The Sanhedrin (a combination of the Congress
and Supreme Court) only met in the Temple, never at someone's home as described
in the Christian bible. (Mark 14:53, they took Jesus to the high priest). The Sanhedrin rarely passed the death
sentence and when they did the method was stoning -- crucifixion is Roman not
Jewish (Mark 15:15, 15:25, ). Stoning was carried out is detailed in the Mishna 6:4,
Treatise Sanhedrin describes סְקִילָה s'kilah (usually
translated as “stoning" but it was not people hurling stones at a person.
Rather, a person was placed into a pit. סְקִילָה / s'kilah /
stoning is described in the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6:4. “The stoning area's height
was that of two men. One of the witnesses pushes him on his loins. If he is
turned on his heart, they turn him [over,] on his loins. If he dies from this,
[the court] has discharged [its obligation]. If not, the second [witness] picks
up the stone and puts it on his heart. If he dies from this, [the court] has
discharged [its obligation]. If not, he is pelted with stones by all of Israel,
as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:7) "The hand of the witnesses shall be first
upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people."
In plain English – a man is thrown into a
pit. The fall may kill him. If it does not he is turned over so that his chest
is facing “up” and a heavy rock is placed on his chest to kill him quickly
(either by the weight of it crushing him or suffocating him). The idea of
throwing rocks at someone so they die a painful death is NOT part of the
process – thus the way Acts describes it is incorrect. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of
24 hours was given before it was carried out -- this was to give time for
witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned. (Mark 14:64, Mishna
Sanhedrin 4:1 "In capital cases they come to a final decision for
acquittal on the same day, but on the following day for conviction. [Therefore
they do not judge [capital cases] either on the eve of the Shabbat or on the
eve of a festival].").
The Sanhedrin had lost the ability to pass
the death sentence a few years before and by 30 CE were not meeting in the
Chamber of Hewn Stone (the only place they COULD pass a sentence of death).
(Mark 15:13, Talmud, Shabbat 15a tells us that this ability was lost 40 years
before the destruction of the Temple (28 CE). When a capital case was tried by
the Sanhedrin a judge would be appointed to investigate evidence pointing to
the defendant's guilt and judges to find his innocence. If a defendant was
found guilty by unanimous decision the defendant was not executed.
The Sanhedrin never met on Shabbat or any
holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin 4:1) and the Rambam /
Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin 11:2). (Mark 14:12, it was Passover, the Festival
of Unleavened Bread).The Christian bible says that the high priest
headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin -- that role
fell to Nasi (president) and the Av Beit Din (head of the Sanhedrin) -- both of
whom were rabbis. The Christian bible doesn't mention either one. (Mark 14:53,
14:60). These pairs are all listed in the "Ethics of the Fathers"
(Pirkei Avot). Gamaliel (who is mentioned in the Christian bible in Acts 5 is
not mentioned at all in relation to Jesus' trial). He was the Nasi of the
Sanhedrin at the time. . .
The Talmud records nothing of a court that
existed like the one in the Christian bible -- and the Talmud is a law book,
describing legal processes in Judaism. (Hilkhot Sanhedrin, 1. 1, 3, 7). There
were local courts -- consisting of 3 judges on the lowest level, to 23 judges
for courts that would hear death penalty cases, to the Great Sanhedrin which
was a combination of a congress / supreme court and normally consisted of 71
judges. To pass the death penalty was really hard -- you had to have two eye
witnesses to the crime who could not be associated with the person accused. . .
More than one death penalty in 70 years and the court was called a "bloody
Sanhedrin). . .
All the "particulars" of the mock
trial, those who supposedly tried Jesus, etc. don't fit with Jewish law or historically
known facts. The whole thing is fiction.
The real Sanhedrin (the Jewish court, not the
Roman puppet court) had lost its power to pass the death penalty twice
over. The Romans withdrew this right. According to Josephus (Antiquities of the
Jews 17:13) around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished
to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator
named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately
restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try
death penalty cases -- that power was given to the puppet Roman procurator. See
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19.
From the Jewish perspective, the Chamber of
Hewn Stones had been destroyed inside the Temple prior to Jesus' supposed
death. Also supposedly from the Talmud (the Talmudic quote at the end of the
paragraph is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 4, fol,37):
“When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right
over life and death, a general consternation took possession of them; they
covered their heads with ashes, and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming:
‘Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not
come’ ” (M. M. Lemann, "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," translated by
Julius Magath).
The Roman Sanhedrin was a puppet court put
into place by the Romans. ROMAN Sanhedrins -- not to be confused with the real
Sanhedrin. Solomon Zeitlin in his book The Rise and Fall of the Judean State
"Any disturbance was a peril to the Judean (Roman) authorities, who could
maintain their status only if complete tranquility prevailed."
The high priest in particular - then Caiaphas
- was really a servant, or lackey of Rome, appointed by the legate or
procurator to ensure local control of malcontents. His sensitivity to the
Galilean preacher is not difficult to imagine. Nor is Pilate's...
Pilate was vicious to the people and hostile
to their religion. He was cunning and treacherous. Due to his provocations,
Judea was on the brink of rebellion. The leaders of the people and High Priest
Caiaphas, knowing his cunning and treachery, were fearful that if anything
should happen Pilate would hold them responsible and wreak vengeance on the
entire people.
William Nichols wrote: Christian
Antisemitism, A History of Hate. (He is a former Anglican minister, and founder
of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia).
"Following the Jewish scholar Paul Winter in his influential book, The
trial of Jesus, Vermes concluded that if indeed such a trial as the Gospels
describe took place, the Sanhedrin achieved the considerable feat of breaking
just about every rule in the book on a single occasion." (Vermes, Jesus
the Jew p36).
One of the most relevant of these rules
prohibits holding a capital trial by night or on a festival. We are asked by
the synoptic writers to believe that Jesus was arraigned before the full
Sanhedrin on the evening of the Passover celebration. Given the especial
sacredness for Jews of the first night of Passover, such a claim alone will
strain the credulity of anyone who has ever thought about its implications...
The historicity of the affair is more than
suspect. Paul knows nothing of it and the accounts in the first two Gospels are
both conflicting and highly tendentious.
From anything we know from other sources
about the character and conduct of Pilate, the accounts in all four Gospels of
his inadequate attempts to defend Jesus against a Jewish mob howling for blood
are so improbable as to border on the ludicrous. Pilate was eventually relieved
of his post for brutality in his administration excessive even in Roman eyes.
(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17:85-89) It is not easily conceivable that
this administrator, who did not shrink from massacres, would have gone through
scruples of conscience on whether it was legitimate, in view of the nobility of
Jesus' character, to yield to Jewish demands for the crucifixion of one
individual.
Matthew adds an even more devastating but no
less improbable touch when he has the crowd shout, "His blood be on us and
our children", words that have been used down through the centuries to
justify many a pogrom and persecution...
The upshot of the Gospel accounts is to
divert attention from a solid historical fact, nevertheless unmistakably
present even in their own accounts, that Jesus was condemned in a Roman court
on a Roman charge, and put to death by a method of execution only used by the
Romans. So successful is this diversion of attention that to this day countless
Christians believe that the Jews killed Christ.
No one today blames the Italian people, the
putative descendants of the Romans for what their ancestors did in crucifying
Jesus. The supposed guilt of the Jews has echoed down history, justifying
innumerable massacres..
