Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jews - Our Christian Attitude - (was advice to David Buxton) Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 89 08:21:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 39 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu A good way of solving this problem (and I speak as a current Episcopalian and former Jew) is to realize that there are certain inaccuracies in the Biblical record. The Sanhedrin could not have possibly met when claimed in the New Testament because it would have been during the holiday of Passover. The record probably got distorted since the gospels at the earliest were written around AD 70, when there was Jewish persecution of Christians due to the latter's refusal to join in the revolt against Rome. This led to an anti-Semitism among the Christians of that day which is unfortunately reflected in the gospels. I would say that for today's Jews the main problem is not the Bible, but rather the persecution they have endured at the hands of Christians in medieval and modern times. For instance, the National Front in Hungary, which is currently the main opposition group, has exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies, and lest we forget, Hungary was allied with Hitler. Incidents such as these cause Jewish suspicion of Christians, and rightly so. Jason Albert Princeton University [I certainly do not want to be understood as supporting Biblical inerrancy. But I don't see any problem with the meeting of the Sanhedrin. First, there is some serious question about the relationship between the crucifixion and passover. If you accept John's chronology, Jesus was arrested and tried the day before passover (Jn 13:1). Second, it may not have been a full-dress official meeting. In John, it looks like a meeting of the High Priest and some cronies. Even in Mark, it could be interpreted as a an unofficial hearing. Note that they didn't pass an official verdict, but turned him over to the Romans. Finally, if they viewed it as a sufficiently serious emergency, the Sanhedrin might have been willing to meet in any case. There's a standard list of illegalities about the trial. However these are based on Talmudic information from somewhat later. In 30 A.D. the Sanhedrin was in a very different situation than after the destruction of Jerusalem. There are several reasons why it might have operated more informally than the Talmudic descriptions. --clh]