Historical problems in the Gospel account of Trial (Ignorance of the Jewish legal system)
[๐งต]
[๐งต]
1/ World leading Scholar on the Historical Jesus of recent time, Geza vermes a jew by birth says the following,
โPractically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts both procedurally and substantively with any known Jewish lawโ.
โPractically every detail of the synoptic account conflicts both procedurally and substantively with any known Jewish lawโ.
2/ The Mishnah, in which the Jewish laws is codified, discusses trials involving capital sentences
(Sanh. 4:1-2)
(Sanh. 4:1-2)
3/ (i) Nocturnal Trial
Mark (14:30-53) and Mathew (26:31-57), say Jesus' trial was took at night, which violates the law.
(See the above Tweet)
Mark (14:30-53) and Mathew (26:31-57), say Jesus' trial was took at night, which violates the law.
(See the above Tweet)
4/ (ii) Festival-day Trial
Mark and Mathew state Jesus was tried by the sanhedrin on the passover night, and Luke makes it morning. During Festivals trials can't be held,
and would be an embarrassment that the Jewish leaders choose this date.
Mark and Mathew state Jesus was tried by the sanhedrin on the passover night, and Luke makes it morning. During Festivals trials can't be held,
and would be an embarrassment that the Jewish leaders choose this date.
5/ (iii) Same-day verdict
In the synoptics, Jesus' trial is not only conducted the same day but lasted for one session only.
John suggests different sessions but happened on the same day. All three are Historical legal problems in the Gospels.
In the synoptics, Jesus' trial is not only conducted the same day but lasted for one session only.
John suggests different sessions but happened on the same day. All three are Historical legal problems in the Gospels.
6/ (iv) No Witness
Mishnah makes guilt invalid without confirmation by the witnesses
Mark (14:63-64) โno witness were neededโ and according to Matt (26:59-61), no witness are called to confirm the charge except false witnesses at the beginning of trial.
Mishnah makes guilt invalid without confirmation by the witnesses
Mark (14:63-64) โno witness were neededโ and according to Matt (26:59-61), no witness are called to confirm the charge except false witnesses at the beginning of trial.
7/ (v) Sentencing by proclamation
The Mishnah states judge had to cast vote for the verdict he reached individually,one after another.
Announcing capital sentence by common proclamation, as we see in the Gospels, is unhistorical.
The Mishnah states judge had to cast vote for the verdict he reached individually,one after another.
Announcing capital sentence by common proclamation, as we see in the Gospels, is unhistorical.
8/ (vi) Trial in the abode of the High priest
The Gospels place Jesus' trial in the house of the high priest.
There is no evidence from the 1st-century Josephus writing or rabbinic literature to Sanhedrin
The usual place of assembly is the hall of cut stone within the temple.
The Gospels place Jesus' trial in the house of the high priest.
There is no evidence from the 1st-century Josephus writing or rabbinic literature to Sanhedrin
The usual place of assembly is the hall of cut stone within the temple.
9/ (vii) Two high priests
Math and mark imply one high priest only, John calls both Annas and caiaphas hight priests. (John 18:24,26)
Caiaphas, High-priest of that year. (john 11:49)
Annas, Caiaphas father-in-law, high priest. (John 18:15-16,19)
Math and mark imply one high priest only, John calls both Annas and caiaphas hight priests. (John 18:24,26)
Caiaphas, High-priest of that year. (john 11:49)
Annas, Caiaphas father-in-law, high priest. (John 18:15-16,19)
10/ (viii) Accusation of Blasphemy
According to the Gospels Jesus claiming to be the messiah and the 'son of God' convicted him of blasphemy
Claiming to be the Messiah and the son of God wasn't blasphemous in the first century, which is anachronistic
According to the Gospels Jesus claiming to be the messiah and the 'son of God' convicted him of blasphemy
Claiming to be the Messiah and the son of God wasn't blasphemous in the first century, which is anachronistic
11/ so in conclusion, the Gospels not only contradict themselve in the crucifixion narratives, but are in odds with History as well
They've managed to break every single Jewish legal system. Another reason why Gospel account on crucifixion can't be taken as Historical
They've managed to break every single Jewish legal system. Another reason why Gospel account on crucifixion can't be taken as Historical
12/ Next time a Christian says Qur'ฤn contradict history by denying the crucifixion of Jesus, turn the tables on them and show who's in error.
Surely they have no knowledge except assumptions (Qur'ฤn 4:157)
Surely they have no knowledge except assumptions (Qur'ฤn 4:157)
Loading suggestions...