Jesus' trial:

[Fr.Mike]

In a meeting with a young Jewish man, he asked if I could explain how it is the Jesus went before the Sanhedrin for a trail. The young man explained to me that the Sanhedrin does not meet the week around major Holy days, and they are expressly forbidden to conduct trials during this week. This is a new question and I have no idea where to go. Does anyone have information about this at the time of Jesus’s life?
Fr. Mike

 

[whowantsumadebo]

I think that may have been one of the points made by the Gospel authors: that the Sanhedrin broke jewish ritual laws to condemn Jesus to death.
That’s about it.

 

[contemplative]

Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen
Page 330
It was thus evident that he (Caiphas) and the Sanhedrin had resolved upon the death of Christ before the trial took place. A night trial of the Sanhedrin was illegal, but in the mad desire to do away with Christ, it was held nevertheless. though it had no right to proceed to a capital execution, it did retain, however, the power to institute trials.

 

[patg]

Practically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts procedurally and substantively with Jewish law:

• No court hearing was legal at night, let alone on the feast of Passover
• The words attributed to Jesus do not amount to blasphemy.
• Next, without any further explanation, the supreme Jewish authorities dispatched Jesus, already found guilty as a blasphemer, to appear before Pilate on the previously unmentioned charge of political agitator.
• Once again, there was only a summary hearing not a proper Roman trial.
• And the trial and death - the synoptics place this on the passover but John’s gospel places it on the day before!

These are just some simple examples of how the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history. That does not, of course lessen their importance or deny the truths they are teaching.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

patg:

These are just some simple examples of how the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history.

People break the law, even religious law, all the time. Simply stating that “it was against Jewish law, therefore the Sanhedrin couldn’t have done it” doesn’t prove much of anything. The same with your assertion that the words attributed to Christ were not blasphemy.

 

[Fidelis]

patg:

Practically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts procedurally and substantively with Jewish law:

That is the previous posters point.

No court hearing was legal at night, let alone on the feast of Passover

This was addressed in the previous post

The words attributed to Jesus do not amount to blasphemy.

Apparently in the minds of his accusers, it did. They also had other motives, among them jealousy and fear of social agitation.

Next, without any further explanation, the supreme Jewish authorities dispatched Jesus, already found guilty as a blasphemer, to appear before Pilate on the previously unmentioned charge of political agitator.

That is explained in the gospels. As an occupied people they had no power to put anyone to death and so they wanted the Romans to do it for them.

Once again, there was only a summary hearing not a proper Roman trial.

Jesus was not a Roman citizen and not entitled to one. Even if he were, the participants evidence enough political motivation and lack of scruples that this would not be surprising.

And the trial and death - the synoptics place this on the passover but John’s gospel places it on the day before!

This is pretty old hat and can be explained (among other possibilities) by the fact that different groups within Palestine at that time, in addition to their many other disagreements, observed Passover at different times. This is similar to the situation of Catholics and Orthodox having different Easters.

These are just some simple examples of how the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history.

It is true that the gospels (and the Bible in general) is not written as history as we would understand it, but not for the reasons you have stated.

That does not, of course lessen their importance or deny the truths they are teaching.

 

[Liberian]

Fr.. Mike:

In a meeting with a young Jewish man, he asked if I could explain how it is the Jesus went before the Sanhedrin for a trail. The young man explained to me that the Sanhedrin does not meet the week around major Holy days, and they are expressly forbidden to conduct trials during this week. This is a new question and I have no idea where to go. Does anyone have information about this at the time of Jesus’s life?
Fr. Mike

Fr. Mike,

Other posters on this thread have addressed the question that the Sanhedrin’s actions here were clearly illegal in some ways. A second issue is when the procedures were instituted for the Sanhedrin not to meet the week around holy days. I have heard from several Jewish friends that shortly after the trial of Jesus (meaning within a few years) the Sanhedrin changed its procedures so that it would not be able to condemn a person to death under the Jewish law. I’m a little vague on the details (this was over 20 years ago that I heard it), but it had something to do with being allowed to pass death sentences only if it met in a particular place, and changing the procedures so that they would not meet there. So the question is: when was this procedure instituted?

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

patg:

Practically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts procedurally and substantively with Jewish law:

• No court hearing was legal at night, let alone on the feast of Passover
• The words attributed to Jesus do not amount to blasphemy.
• Next, without any further explanation, the supreme Jewish authorities dispatched Jesus, already found guilty as a blasphemer, to appear before Pilate on the previously unmentioned charge of political agitator.
• Once again, there was only a summary hearing not a proper Roman trial.
• And the trial and death - the synoptics place this on the passover but John’s gospel places it on the day before!

These are just some simple examples of how the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history. That does not, of course lessen their importance or deny the truths they are teaching.

Hello patg!

(For everybody else: the good patg and I crossed swords in a discussion of the historical nature of the four Gospels over on another, much longer thread. We have figured out that he has a bias in favor of the historical-critical method of Scriptural analysis while I have a bias in favor of taking the Gospels as literal history. We also figured out that arguing specific events in the Gospels is much more enlightening than throwing generalities back and forth; we were thrashing out the supposed donation by Joseph of Arimathea of his tomb. We concluded that patg could not produce any evidence to show that it did not happen, while I could not produce any evidence outside the Gospels to show that it did. patg, please correct me if I have distorted anything; I’m going from memory.)

I’d appreciate a little clarification here, please. How do these points show that the Gospels by their very definition are not history? What is the very definition of a Gospel? I can appreciate that these are generalities, but since they have been raised they should be explained.

I can appreciate that I am sounding a little cavalier and challenging here, and I apologize for the tone. I am trying to chase down the truth, and I don’t want to let slip by unchallenged such a broad statement as “the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history.” I understand the meaning of “the gospels, by their content, are not history,” but I am asking about the definition.

• Liberian

 

[didymus]

Fr.. Mike:

In a meeting with a young Jewish man, he asked if I could explain how it is the Jesus went before the Sanhedrin for a trail. The young man explained to me that the Sanhedrin does not meet the week around major Holy days, and they are expressly forbidden to conduct trials during this week. This is a new question and I have no idea where to go. Does anyone have information about this at the time of Jesus’s life?
Fr. Mike

This is ages ago, but I remember a priest at a Bible study I attended who suggested that it was a “rump” meeting of the Sanhendrin – i.e., called by the faction that wanted Jesus convicted. They may have called the meeting at night on short notice precisely so that most members would not be in attendance.

He also raised the possibility that even at that they were acting under pressure from the Roman authorities (and Pilate’s “I find no guilt in this man” was a cruel charade).

I don’t know. Fr. Gary went to seminary in Rome and also the Sorbonne after that. OTOH I don’t know how popular he’d be on these forums because he’d probably be against reading the Gospels in a strictly historical way.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Liberian:

Hello patg!

(For everybody else: the good patg and I crossed swords in a discussion of the historical nature of the four Gospels over on another, much longer thread. We have figured out that he has a bias in favor of the historical-critical method of Scriptural analysis while I have a bias in favor of taking the Gospels as literal history. We also figured out that arguing specific events in the Gospels is much more enlightening than throwing generalities back and forth; we were thrashing out the supposed donation by Joseph of Arimathea of his tomb. We concluded that patg could not produce any evidence to show that it did not happen, while I could not produce any evidence outside the Gospels to show that it did. patg, please correct me if I have distorted anything; I’m going from memory.)

I’d appreciate a little clarification here, please. How do these points show that the Gospels by their very definition are not history? What is the very definition of a Gospel? I can appreciate that these are generalities, but since they have been raised they should be explained.

I can appreciate that I am sounding a little cavalier and challenging here, and I apologize for the tone. I am trying to chase down the truth, and I don’t want to let slip by unchallenged such a broad statement as “the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history.” I understand the meaning of “the gospels, by their content, are not history,” but I am asking about the definition.

• Liberian

Thanks for the heads up, I dont know ptag, but that post he put out, If I read it right had some serious problems. I guess I shouldnt be shocked, but it just amazed me when people put out such “facts”, especially ones that go against the CC. I cant understand it, that post was way out of line.

Other than that, back to the OP, Im in no way an expert on the, but If I had to guess I would say that that situation didnt come along every day. This situation was very important. As we know it wasnt standard operating procedure, wasnt there quotes on how they rushed things (or skipped procedures) at certain times so that they could still satisfy their religious obligations? And paying off the crowd to realease Barabbas, that shows that there was some unjust actions taking place.

 

[Liberian]

And paying off the crowd to realease Barabbas, that shows that there was some unjust actions taking place.

Actually Dorothy Sayers in her notes on her radio play cycle on the life of Christ “Man Born To Be King” makes an extremely good point about the crowd wanting Barabbas to be released. First, most of the people would have had no idea that Jesus had been arrested. Second, Barabbas had committed murder in an insurrection–meaning he was a revolutionary against the Romans. Most likely the people had come to Pilate’s place expecting already to ask for Barabbas, and when Pilate offered them Jesus instead they were surprised. Dorothy Sayers compares it to Ireland during the Troubles (a guerilla war against the English about 90 years ago): imagine the response to someone offered by the English Governor-General to the crowd for release. They would have chosen the other guy just to spite the Governor-General. The crowd in Jerusalem on Good Friday would have needed no stirring up at all for Barabbas and not much stirring up against Jesus.

This is not to blame the crowd at all. They acted very naturally, and if I had been there I would probably have been doing exactly the same thing they did.

• Liberian

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Fidelis:

That is explained in the gospels. As an occupied people they had no power to put anyone to death and so they wanted the Romans to do it for them.

I’m not sure this is exactly true, though I will have to check. Roman governors had jurisdiction over Roman citizens living within their province, as well as the jurisdiction to maintain order. Indeed, the fact that Jesus was crucified (Roman punishment) and had an inscription placed on his cross mocking him for being the “King of the Jews” suggests that his crime (from the Roman perspective) was sedition, which was a threat to the political order.

However, the Romans allowed a fair amount of local rule within the provinces, and would not have objected to the provincials executing a criminal who violated local laws–frankly, the Romans would not have cared so long as the individual was not a Roman citizen and the act did disrupt provincial order. Now, the local authorities might appeal to governor to act as a sort of arbitor in a local dispute, or (more often) they may have been paralyzed with fear lest their actions accidentally anger the Romans and yield their heavy-handed response. You can get a glimpse of this by readung Pliny the Younger’s letters.

So, in this context, there may have been a number of motivating factors for the Jewish authorities to hand the matter over to Pontius Pilatus, one of which might have been that if they handled the matter badly (after all, Jesus was a popular figure in Jerusalem in the days leading up to the crucifixion, and there was the chance that Jesus’ death might lead to a more general uprising of the sort that Josephus records), the Romans would punish them.

 

[Liberian]

Catholic Dude:

Thanks for the heads up, I dont know patg, but that post he put out, If I read it right had some serious problems. I guess I shouldnt be shocked, but it just amazed me when people put out such “facts”, especially ones that go against the CC. I cant understand it, that post was way out of line.

Catholic Dude,

I’d like to emphasize that patg is, to the best of my knowledge, a good and serious Catholic who is in union with the Pope and the teachings of the Magisterium as best as he can be. He is most manifestly NOT trying to undercut the teachings of the Church; he simply has a slightly different interpretation of Scriptures than I (and apparently you) do. Simply put (and please correct me if I’m wrong, patg) he cannot bring himself to believe that some of the more outlandish Bible stories are literally true.

If I may give an example, according to what I have read and heard in various places, there are many infancy narratives of great people in the ancient world that recount signs and wonders at their births. The purpose of these narratives is evidently to show what great people these people are, and how they were destined by the gods for greatness. Given this cultural background, patg tends naturally to conclude that infancy narratives in the Gospels are more of the same–that the writers of Matthew and Luke, having read this sort of thing and absorbed it with their culture, would have put their infancy narratives in as a way of showing Jesus’s greatness. (I have problems with this theory–for example, Matthew was Jewish–although this would not stop people who say that Matthew didn’t write the Gospel according to Matthew–but I can certainly understand how reasonable people can believe it.)

But please don’t attack patg. He is a sinner, like the rest of us, and he has his blind spots, as the rest of us have our blind spots, and we–you, he, and I–can all learn from each other if we will simply listen to each other.

• Liberian

 

[patg]

Liberian:

I’d appreciate a little clarification here, please. How do these points show that the Gospels by their very definition are not history? What is the very definition of a Gospel? I can appreciate that these are generalities, but since they have been raised they should be explained.

I can appreciate that I am sounding a little cavalier and challenging here, and I apologize for the tone. I am trying to chase down the truth, and I don’t want to let slip by unchallenged such a broad statement as “the gospels, by their very definition and content, are not history.” I understand the meaning of “the gospels, by their content, are not history,” but I am asking about the definition.

• Liberian

I know I shouldn’t have jumped in here - I just wanted to throw out a few more things for people to think about. I hardly have time to do justice to the similar thread we have going elsewhere and I should have just let it slide - I’ll try to stay better focused.

Anyway, to answer your question, I believe there are numerous genres that are included in the written Gospels: parables, miracle stories, infancy narratives, sermons, sayings, and the connected narrative of the passion, death, and resurrection. This does not, however, describe the genre “Gospel” as a whole.

The literary form Mark, for example, created as he molded traditional materials to meet the needs of his audience is unique. In striving to fulfill a particular need Mark produced a new kind of document. While we cannot point out a literary form familiar to contemporary Americans that is closely related to a Gospel, we can understand the form more clearly by comparing it to some genres with which we are familiar.

Some claim that the Gospel genre is really biography. It is true that if studied as biography the Gospel writers show amazing skill in the revelation of character. In fact, it was centuries, possibly not until the eighteenth century, before biography caught up with the Gospels. However, the motive of the Gospel writers is not simply to describe the person of Jesus. Their theme is the significance of Jesus’ identity and the fact that the act of revelation which took place in Jesus demands a response from the reader. There is no attempt to describe Jesus physically, and very little is said about the first thirty years of his life. Each Gospel writer assumes that a great deal is already known about Jesus. Disciples are introduced without the explanations of their identity that a biographer would give. In fact, the main emphasis in the Gospels is not on Jesus’ life but on his death.

Neither can the Gospels be classified as history. This is not to say that none of the events reported in the Gospel never happened. Many did. But the intent of the Gospel writers is not the intent of the historian. They are not trying to give an accurate historical account. Rather, they are trying to let the reader understand what those who were contemporary with Jesus did not understand. The Gospel writers do not limit their accounts to what was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries. Rather, they report the events of Jesus’ lifetime in such a way as to make their significance fully realized only in hindsight, visible to their readers.

The Synoptic Gospels were written for believers. Those who read the Gospels read them not out of historical interest but out of a desire to understand more fully events in which they themselves had become intimately involved. The early Christians did not simply remember Jesus in the sense of recalling to mind someone no longer present. They remembered Jesus in the sense of once again becoming members - remembering and uniting themselves to Jesus in order to become one with him in his life, death, and resurrection. For both the writer and the reader of the Gospels, the goal was not to learn history, not to recall past events, not simply to gain knowledge, but to achieve union and participation in a mystery through which the believer is joined to Jesus. Union and participation, not recollection, were the goals.

The written Gospel is a unique literary form called into being by a new message. Just as the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are unique events in human history, so the works that make these events present to successive generations and incorporate readers into these events are also unique. The need to come to terms with a new reality resulted in a new form, the Gospel.

Now I’ll see you back on the other thread…

 

[Zooey]

Dr. Colossus:

People break the law, even religious law, all the time. Simply stating that “it was against Jewish law, therefore the Sanhedrin couldn’t have done it” doesn’t prove much of anything. The same with your assertion that the words attributed to Christ were not blasphemy.

I think that this is the truth in a nutshell.
The trial before the sanhedrin was illegal. It was a kangaro court, held to find one thing: a way to get the Romans to execute Jesus, who was attracting too many followers…And the sanhedrin didn’t want to execute Him themselves. They could have gotten away with a stoning in a back alley someplace, but they wanted it to be public & they wanted crucifixion, because of the belief that anyone" hung on a tree" was cursed.
When you have all ready decided the verdict & the punishment, the law doesn’t really matter tooo much…

 

[Liberian]

patg,

What you are saying here makes an awful lot of sense. For example …

patg:

I believe there are numerous genres that are included in the written Gospels: parables, miracle stories, infancy narratives, sermons, sayings, and the connected narrative of the passion, death, and resurrection. This does not, however, describe the genre “Gospel” as a whole.

We may differ somewhat on what constitutes a “genre” here, but I will certainly agree with you that the Gospels include all of the things you have listed. This does not necessarily mean that Jesus did not tell the parables, perform the miracles, deliver the sermons, and so on. In fact, I would be very surprised if He didn’t tell the same parables time after time after time to different audiences, so that his disciples would have heard a dozen variations on the stories. Similarly, Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain are not at all contradictory since Jesus would have given sermons in both places over the course of a couple of years.

The literary form Mark, for example, created as he molded traditional materials to meet the needs of his audience is unique. … While we cannot point out a literary form familiar to contemporary Americans that is closely related to a Gospel, we can understand the form more clearly by comparing it to some genres with which we are familiar.

Here we have two weaknesses of the historical-critical method as it is usually explained. First, tradition has it that Mark wrote his Gospel from what he heard Peter say, rather that “molding traditional materials.” Perhaps the two processes are synonymous, but they are not usually presented that way. Second, I think most people would be a lot more comfortable with the historical-critical method if it were applied to other things besides the Bible and its results proven or disproven independently.

Some claim that the Gospel genre is really biography. It is true that if studied as biography the Gospel writers show amazing skill in the revelation of character. … Their theme is the significance of Jesus’ identity and the fact that the act of revelation which took place in Jesus demands a response from the reader. …

This is an excellent distinction, but it does not address whether the events in the Gospels actually happened. Certainly for the reasons you give, the Gospels cannot be considered as straight biography because of their emphasis on the meanings of events rather than simply the events.

Neither can the Gospels be classified as history. This is not to say that none of the events reported in the Gospel never happened. Many did. But the intent of the Gospel writers is not the intent of the historian. They are not trying to give an accurate historical account. Rather, they are trying to let the reader understand what those who were contemporary with Jesus did not understand. The Gospel writers do not limit their accounts to what was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries. Rather, they report the events of Jesus’ lifetime in such a way as to make their significance fully realized only in hindsight, visible to their readers.

And here, I think, we have the primary difference between your thought and my thought. I agree with you that the Gospel writers were trying to let the readers understand the significance of events as seen in hindsight (I have spoken elsewhere on the dangers of trying to guess the writer’s intent, but I will cite John 20:31). But I will disagree with you over whether they restricted themselves to things that actually happened in order to make their points.

The Synoptic Gospels were written for believers. Those who read the Gospels read them not out of historical interest but out of a desire to understand more fully events in which they themselves had become intimately involved. … Union and participation, not recollection, were the goals.

Again, I think you and I are largely in agreement on this.

…

Now I’ll see you back on the other thread…

Indeed and indeed!

• Liberian