Christ before the High Priest

(larger image)

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.

At the time in which the narrative is set, this body was an ad hoc gathering, rather than a fixed court (Brown 146), as in the latter Council of Jamnia, and its gathering in Caiaphas' home is historically plausible, though irregular. Daniel J. Harrington argues that being located in a home makes it more likely that this was a small first preliminary hearing and not a full trial. According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Sanhedrin of the Pharisees, probably a different sanhedrin, was led by Gamaliel from approximately the year 9 to 50. This is believed to be the same Gamaliel who appears in Acts 5:34 and 22:3. Shammai may have also played a role.

A depiction of the Sanhedrin trial of
Jesus, by Giotto
(larger image)

According to the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, the sanhedrin wish to condemn Jesus to death, but they find the lack of evidence against him to be unhelpful. Matthew and Mark state that many false witnesses made statements to the Sanhedrin, including a claim that Jesus had said he would destroy the man-made temple, and replace it with a non man-made one three days later; according to Matthew and Mark the statements did not agree with each other, and hence since multiple witnesses are required by the Deuteronomic Code, the Sanhedrin are unable to condemn him by this.

All the Synoptic Gospels state that Jesus was asked by the Sanhedrin if Jesus was Christ, Son of God, and Jesus responding with confirmation. Due to the nature of the Greek language, though, this could be translated simply as an anointed, a son of God, or as the Christ, the Son of God, with quite different implications. The former of these simply requires that Jesus had been anointed, and that Jesus was a religious leader (a son of God was a common Jewish term simply referring to any person who was particularly religious); since Jesus had been anointed at Bethany, when a woman poured expensive perfumed oils over him, an anointed, a son of God is simply a very naturalistic and fairly worldly statement for Jesus to confirm. This does, however, seem irrelevant to the case at hand and so the translation the Christ, the Son of God has consequently remained the preferred, more logical choice, seeing as how it is on par with the blasphemy charge driven against him by the members of the Sanhedrin.

The Synoptics also state that Jesus added that the Son of Man would be seen sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Many Christians interpret this as a reference to a future second coming of Jesus, though in ancient times the gnostics read it quite differently as referring to enlightenment reaching each individual - that each individual human (son of man) would spiritually escape the earthly realm and rejoin the world of the monad (mighty one). Apparently, though, the Sanhedrin saw this as Jesus once more attributing Messiahship to himself, enraging them. The Synoptics state that these responses were sufficient for the Sanhedrin to be able to legally argue that Jesus was guilty, with Matthew and Mark adding that the high priest (see High Priests of Israel) rent his clothes and said that Jesus' responses were blasphemy. In Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrin then angrily beat Jesus, and then blindfold him and challenge him to prophesy who it is that hits him. In Luke this blindfolding, and challenge to prophesy, also occurs, but it is the guards who do this, and it occurs before the question is posed to Jesus by the Sanhedrin.

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 treats the Jewish authorities as being responsible for Jesus' death, stating 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, according to John 18:31 yet Acts 6:12 records them ordering the stoning of Saint Stephen and also James the Just according to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."(John 18:31)

Criticism of the Sanhedrin Trial

• Bribery (Deut 16:19; 27:25);
  

• Conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Exodus 23:1-2; Exodus 23:6-7; Leviticus 19:15; Leviticus 19:35);

• Bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived. (Exodus 20:16); 

• Letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Numbers 35:31-34;  Deut 19:11-13);

• Mob action, or 'following a crowd to do evil' (Exodus 23:2, 3); 

• In crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Leviticus 18:3-5; Deuteronomy 21:22); 

• They accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (Deuteronomy 17:14, 15); and finally,

• They were guilty of murder (Exodus 20:13).

The Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court was forbidden to sit at night (Exodus 18:24) nor could it meet during a festival, as it was the first night of Passover (Numbers 28:18). Scholars in the area of biblical criticism take these inconsistencies with Jewish practice to indicate that such a trial most likely did not take place.

Holding all Jews, past and present, accountable for these violations, is characteristic of Christian antisemitism, and is also called the doctrine of deicide.

The Scholars Version notes for Mark 14:53-72: "..It is difficult to reconcile much of Mark's picture with known Jewish judicial procedures: a secret court session, at night, with trumped-up and contradictory evidence. Jesus' initial refusal to speak is no defense. Finally Jesus' avowal of his messiahship (Mark 14:62) provokes the desired verdict."

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus: The Last Supper:

There could be no question of anything corresponding to a trial taking place on this occasion before the Sanhedrin. Whatever inquest was made must have occurred during the Thursday night and outside Jerusalem (for on entering the city a prisoner would have had to be given up to the Roman garrison), and can not have been held before a quorum of the seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin. It is more probable that the twenty-three members of the priestly section of the latter, who had most reason to be offended with Jesus' action in cleansing the Temple, met informally after he had been seized, and elicited sufficient to justify them in their own opinion in delivering him over to the Romans as likely to cause trouble by his claims or pretensions to the Messiahship, which, of course, would be regarded by them as rebellion against Rome. Nothing corresponding to a Jewish trial took place, though it was by the action of the priests that Jesus was sent before Pontius Pilate. The Gospels speak in the plural of the high priests who condemned him — a seeming contradiction to Jewish law which might throw doubt upon their historic character. Two, however, are mentioned, Joseph Caiaphas and Annas (Hanan), his father-in-law. Hanan had been deposed from the high-priesthood by Valerius Gratus, but he clearly retained authority and some prerogatives of the high priest, as most of those who succeeded him were relatives of his; and he may well have intervened in a matter touching so nearly the power of the priests. According to the Talmud, Hanan's bazaars were on the Mount of Olives, and probably therefore also his house; this would thus have become the appropriate place for the trial by the Sanhedrin, which indeed just about this time had moved its place of session thither.

Sanhedrin Trial as Motivating Anti-Semitism

Although the Bible and secular historical record that the Roman Empire actually put Jesus to death, there is curiously little anger directed against Italians or the multi-national Roman Empire in connection with Jesus' death.

Jesus assigns some of the guilt to Pontius Pilate but places the majority of the guilt on the High Priest Caiaphas. In John 19:11, "Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." It has been widely but inaccurately said that Jesus referred to "the Jews" collectively although in fact Jesus referred only to a singular person as "he" or "the one" who was responsible.

The New Testament emphasizes the Jewish authorities as being morally responsible for Jesus' death, while noting that the Roman actually killed Jesus. In Acts 2, Peter calls on the crowd to repent for allowing Jesus' death, while also noting that Jesus was put to death "by the hands of wicked men" referring to the Romans (literally "godless" in the Greek).

Blaming Jews for Jesus' death has been a major historical phenomenon, particularly in Europe, even though this violates the teachings of Jesus. Jesus commanded his followers to love and forgive even their enemies in Matthew 5, and openly prayed for God to forgive those who put him to death in Luke 23:34. In Luke 9:51-56, Jesus sharply rebuked his followers for wanting to punish a town that had rejected Jesus. Furthermore, the Bible states that sins are not passed down from father to son so as to make Jews today guilty of actions 2000 years ago: Ezekiel 18:20 "The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.", though this would also contradict the concept of Original Sin.

Before his arrest, Jesus had prophesied repeatedly that his death was essential for the salvation of humanity, and declared in John 12:27: "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour." See also Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, and Luke 9:22.

Anti-semitic charges against the Jews portray all Jews alive at the time collectively participating as one body in Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate. However, in fact, most Jews did not even live in Jerusalem but were scattered in towns and cities throughout the region. Those who traveled to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover would be expected to be returning home that Friday in anticipation of the Shabbat beginning Friday evening.

Only a very small minority of the Jewish people at that time participated in Jesus' trial. Ordinary Jews were not permitted to challenge their rulers, who had been hand-picked or approved by the Roman Empire. No more than a few hundred Jews gathered in the courtyard before Pontius Pilate's judgement seat, while millions of other Jews were busy working and preparing for the Shabbat beginning that Friday night at sundown. As no work could be done on the Shabbat, extra meals had to be cooked on Friday to be eaten on Saturday, extra feed provided for cattle, etc. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Jews were consumed with working and Shabbat preparations, and not all gathered together before Pilate.

Critics correctly emphasize that Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jewish leaders and that Pontius Pilate initially sought to release Jesus as innocent. These comments are accurate, but overlook the absolute dictatorial power of the Roman Governor, and overlook the decision of Pilate to crucify Jesus when reminded that Jesus' followers posed a threat of sparking a rebellion that could disrupt Roman authority over the Judea. The belief that Jesus was sent to rule Israel as King, as a direct royal descendant of King David, led the Jewish people to expect Jesus to kick out the Romans and re-establish Israel as an independent nation.

References

• Isaac Newton, 1733, Of the Times of the Birth and Passion of Christ, in "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John" (London: J. Darby and T. Browne)
• Bradley Schaefer, 1990, Lunar Visibility and the Crucifixion Quarterly. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 31.
• Astronomers on the Date of the Crucifixion http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/000736.html Retrieved 03/09/2009
• Romanian astronomers determined the time of Jesus Christ's death, pinpointed it to the exact minute and also named the time of his miraculous resurrection http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/16-05-2003/2819-christ-0 Retrieved 03/09/2009
• John Pratt Newton's Date For The Crucifixion "Quarterly Journal of Royal Astronomical Society", Sept. 1991
• Newton's Date For The Crucifixion http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/newton.html Retrieved 03/09/2009
• Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament Doubleday 1997 ISBN 0-385-24767-2, p 146
• Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man God, ISBN 9992645571
• Valtorta on Luke 22:66 http://www.valtorta.org/synoptic_puzzle_solved_defaultpage.asp Retrieved 03/09/2009
• Reconciling Mark 14 with Luke 22 based on the explanation of the Poem of the Man God http://www.valtorta.org/synoptic_puzzle_solved_defaultpage.asp
• Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
• Crossan, Dominic Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, 1995, ISBN 0-06-061480-3
• Kilgallen, John J. A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark Paulist Press 1989 ISBN 0-8091-3059-9
• Miller, Robert J. Editor The Complete Gospels Polebridge Press 1994 ISBN 0-06-065587-9