The details of the Sanhedrin trial are clearly fictitious. One possibility is that the trial did not take place when stated but at another time. The Gospels inherited the Passover Seder trope from Paul, IMO part of his strategy to make an execution into a sin atonement sacrifice to have it make some kind of sense even though the Korban Pesach is not a sin atonement sacrifice. This suggests to me that the Passover link already existed in the story prior to Paul and he was twisting it for his own ends.Goat wrote:Well, there are tons of reasons not to believe to story about the trial. It breaks all the Jewish laws when it comes to how it was conducted, and when it was done. Who ever wrote the story did not know the Jewish law when it came to how trials was conducted, and they had the Sanhedrin violating the Passover... as well as the process for conducting a trial.ThatGirlAgain wrote:The story told in the Gospels (true or not) is that the Jewish authorities tried to convict Jesus on grounds of blasphemy. When that failed they turned him over to the Romans, apparently telling them that Jesus was representing himself as King of the Jews, definitely a quick path to crucifixion. Pilate would have been more than ready to carry out a few executions after the recent uprising.Goat wrote:Well, I will point out that crucifixion is a Roman style of execution, and is not legal in Jewish law. There are 4 forms of execution legal for the Jewish people of that time frame would be, and crucifixion is not one of them.Holyspirit213 wrote: I think Judaism Judaism consists of obiedience and faithfulness. I think they were disobedient to god in a sense that murder was committed. If the Jews believed in the Torah do much at the time, how can they castrate a man so badly? What happens to the laws of the Torah when they commit murder? Isn't that like the number one rule for all faiths except Muslims of course. ?
The reasons that the several Jewish authorities wanted Jesus out of the picture is also found in the Gospels. Jesus spared no pains in criticizing the Pharisees for over emphasis on the letter of the law and neglecting the spirit, and for general hypocrisy. The Sadducees were upset over that business at the Temple, interfering in the lucrative (as well as religiously motivated) money changing business during its peak season. That Jesus had huge crowds following him around and believing what he said did not help, especially that dramatic entrance into Jerusalem during the Passover preparation cycle no less when attention should have been on the Temple.
No surprise that Jesus ended up dead. True, this is how the story got told several decades after the putative event. Yet it does hold together neatly.
The story was written well after the Christians were no longer welcome in the Jewish places of worship. It appears to me to be 'let's blame the Jews, and make nice to the Romans'.
It is the loose ends that make me suspect that the story is based on something that actually may have happened. The mysterious betrayal of Judas for one. What did he actually do, identify someone already well known by sight, who could easily have been followed, and was â€˜hidingâ€™ out in the open at a place they had obviously had been before since Judas knew to go there? Or did he maybe â€˜pick Jesus out of a lineupâ€™ as the one who had previously said in private that Jesus and the Apostles would rule the 12 tribes of Israel while sitting on thrones? Pilate starts off asking Jesus if he was the King of the Jews and later puts a sign on the cross repeating that accusation. Where did this come from? Maybe from Judas.
And then there is that mysterious uprising referred to so nonchalantly with no further details. What was that all about? Did some of the Jesus crowd go overboard?
Could be a real original story that got developed to suit later agendas.