Talk:Sanhedrin trial of Jesus

message: I have some doubts about the passage "For Jesus to permit anyone to worship him as God would itself be blasphemy both by Jesus and those he allowed to worship him". I insist that there should be some quotation here. As far as I know, from the point of view of most christian theologians, it is part of Jesus' message that those who acknowledge his divinity and that he and Father are one (John 10:30), fulfil God's will concerning Jesus. Would it be then a blasphemy to worship Jesus as God?     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.179.44 (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: JohnI agree with almost all you said. Oub 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to mention that the High Priest or the Priests were not part of the/a Sanhedrin since 191 bce. --Alessio.aguirre (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Section 1 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: Correct, the Torah forbids a court to convene at night.  Also forbidden to convene on the eve of a sabbath or festival for capital cases, since a guilty ruling must not be issued the same day.  Tractate Sanhedrin 32a cited to this effect in a new section /* Jewish law on the conduct of capital trials */  The obvious conclusion is that it was not the "Sanhedrin" that conducted the midnight inquest, it was an unlawful assembly of the chief priests (who were also sadducee heretics and Roman collaborators) and their allies.  I'm sure  and I are not the first scholars to come to this conclusion, so please tell us if there are other published sources that make this "evaluative claim" that we can include in the article per WP content policies.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other violations of Jewish law not mentioned here 

message: "The Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court was forbidden to sit at night (Ex 18:24) nor could it meet during a festival, as it was the last night of the Passover Festival that had begun seven days earlier (Num 28:18). See "seder service is planned for the last night of Passover" [11] and "the last night of Passover... Observant Jews make a festive meal that night."[12]" 
Neither Scripture reference in the preceding paragraph is correct. Neither one talks of the rules for court processes or trials. Exodus 18:24 actually reads, "Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said." and Numbers 28:18 reads, "On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work."(New International Version).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.119.253 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripture quotations are wrong

message: This article has written "In the Synoptics, Jesus is taken to the Sanhedrin, with Matthew adding that the Sanhedrin had assembled where Caiaphas was located, possibly implying that the gathering occurred at the home of Caiaphas"
This breaks the rule of not interpreting the bible. Caiaphas could have been located anywhere at the time. Its an unnecessary interpretation and should be removed.86.4.59.203 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preventing interpretations

message: http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/po-eat.htm
http://ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Articles/Yeshua/lastsupper.html
http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/wheneat.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astral (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the guy yelling at me about dates of the last supper... 

message: I know that this doesn't sound very academic, but I just wanted to put my two cents in here and say that this section in particular is well done.  It has always surprised me that the notion of Jews as "Christ killers" could be drawn from the trial and crucifixion.  After all, if it was the crucifixion / resurrection that formed the new covenant / permitted salvation / atoned for man's sins, then why is there ire directed at those who were instrumental in making this happen?  I have heard -- don't ask me for a source -- that Judas was revered (perhaps revered is too strong a word) among some early Christians because he was seen as being critical to the crucifixion, that is, if he had not betrayed Jesus, the crucifixion might not have taken place.
This section may be a place for exploration of a similar idea.  Were it not for the actions of the Sanhedrin (and Pilate), there would not have been a crucifixion, and thus no resurrection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.165.15.131 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Sanhedrin Trial as Motivating Anti-Semitism" is very well done 

message: This article comes across as an attempt of independent analysis (by that I mean compiling biblical or other evidence and then suggesting its own conclusions), where what it really should be is synthesising the analyisis provided by others, and comparing and contrasting that where necessary.  It's not just a matter of providing cites to specific biblical passages, it's a matter of getting reputable commentary (ie. books) into the picture and presenting their views as a synthesis. Where there is scholarly agreement on what happened, that should be noted; where there is scholarly disagreement, that should be noted as well. Slac speak up! 00:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with citations

message: I feel this article is not neutral in that it does not even mention any of the problems of historicity and seriously downplays the problems of consistency which have long been discussed with the various Gospel accounts of the Trial of Jesus. To start with, the lede immediately refers to "A Gospel Harmony" but "Gospel Harmonies" are attempts to harmonize into one account texts that narrate different events and times. Why not start the article off by saying "The Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial do not agree with each other" which would be true. I don't suppose I have to quote the many glaring differences, do I? Mark and Matthew say Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin at night, Luke and John make no reference to a night trial. Why does the article say "The trial as depicted in the Gospel accounts is temporally placed informally on Thursday night and then again formally on Friday morning"? What is the source for this "informally" at night, "formally" in the morning? I have never seen this "informal/formal" distinction before, I would be interested to know where it comes from. There are many other differences in the three different accounts of Jesus trial in the Gospels. 
Then it has long been observed by many that the Sanhedrin (a word not used in the Gospel accounts but agreed to be what Mark is referring to in Mark 14:53 "They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and teachers of the law came together" at night and in Luke 22:66 "At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together) did not hold night trials (Craveri, Life of Jesus: p381,Guignebert, Jesus: p463,Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p202), only met at the Chamber of the Hewn Stone in the Temple (Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p202) and would never have convened on Passover Eve, which was Passover already according to Jewish Law (Guignebert, Jesus: p463,Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: p202
Nineham, Saint Mark: p400-401). I admit these references are taken from the website http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/sanhedrin.html as I do not have a lot of books on this subject just sitting around but I have seen these arguments in many different places and they are very well known. "We quote the Jewish scholar, Joseph Klausner from his book Jesus of Nazareth (New York 1925):"the Sadducees themselves would not have conducted even a simple judicial enquiry either on the night of the passover or the first day of the passover...the mishnah lays it down that capital cases may not be judged on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a festival to avoid delay should the case not be finished that day, since all trials were forbidden on a Sabbath or a festival." I feel it is disrespectful to Jewish history and tradition for this wikipedia article not even to mention any of these difficulties (and there are lots of others too.) I have placed a "neutrality disputed" tag on the article and hope that it can be improved soon to reflect the serious problems of historicity that the varying accounts in the Gospels of the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus present.Smeat75 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many problems with this article in  my opinion 

message: Paul may likely have been a False Christ, to die for the Jewish Nation. commissioned by the Jewish Council or Sanhedrin.
LOOK AT ALL THE MIRACLES the 12 Apostles (Matthias - ACTS 1, and the 11) are performing !!
Soon, everyone will believe in Jesus, and the Roman authorities will take action and tear down our Temple, and our Nation.
WHAT FOOLS YOU ARE !! DON'T YOU REALIZE? that it is better for one(1) man to die for the sake of the Jewish Nation, than for the whole Jewish Nation to be destroyed?
So the Jewish Council/Sanhedrin cast lots, and the lot fell on Saul, and Saul was commissioned by the Council to preach Jesus to the Gentile nations, to divert the attention of the Roman government towards the Gentile nations, and away from the Jewish Nation.
Thus, Saul became a type of Savior to the Jewish Nation. (a False Christ)
And Saul/Paul went about this work preaching Jesus to the Gentile nations with as much zeal as he previously had dragging the followers of Jesus from their homes, and throwing them into prison for their faith in Jesus.
Jesus warned of False Christs coming. And Jesus gave the warning: BEWARE THE YEAST OF THE PHARISEES To understand Jesus's miracle feeding the 4000 and 5000, we must do some math addition:
5 loaves of bread + 5[000] fed + 12 baskets collected
7 loaves of bread + 4[000] fed = 7 baskets collected
12 + 9 + 19 = 40
Now we go to ACTS 1:3 to see the fulfillment of Jesus' 40 Day Prophecy. Jesus (God in the Flesh) appeared to man for 40 days ONLY after his death. He ate and drank with them, and was touched by them. ("Put your finger here") touch the scars in my hands and side. In ACTS 1:11, the angel of God testifies that Jesus will return "one day" i.e. the Last Day, just as he had now left i.e. rising into the clouds as a flesh and blood man.
Thus, it can be surmised from all this that Saul/Paul did not see Jesus as a bright light on the road to Damascus.
When Jesus appears again, ALL will see him coming, not 1 (Saul/Paul), not a few.  ALL.
71.123.255.226 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sanhedrin's Great Commission upon Jesus' death 

message: I'm far from being a Biblical scholar, but it seems there is are, at the very least, competing interpretations to the rending of the High Priest's robe described (inter alia) at Mark 14:63. 
The article (at May 2020) claims that the High Priest "[broke] Mosaic Law" by "[tearing] his own robe".
However, some Biblical commentators claim the High Priest is acting legtimately in the specific circumstances here (namely, the High Priest was in his casual garments, not his pontifical robes, and his ripping his clothes was an typical expression of outrage and disgust at Jesus' [arguable] blasphemy). 
So the claim that the High Priest's action directly contravenes Mosaic law is debatable at least, and inaccurate at worst.
For discussion and a range of sources, see: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/14-63.htm
Josip888 (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also not a scholar, but isn’t the original Hebrew something closer to the priest not being allowed to mourn, where torn clothes are considered a sign of mourning? It might be completely legitimate for the priest to tear his clothes, as long as it’s not part of mourning. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rending of Chief Priest's Robes 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Trial of Jesus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Trial of Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Bacon 02:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trial of Jesus" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]