The story that we have in the gospels of Mark and Matthew (Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68) of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin seems to contradict many passages in the Mishna in the tractate Sanhedrin, like, for example:

a. Capital cases could not be tried at night (Sanh. IV:1).

b. Capital judgments were to be delayed to the next day (Sanh. IV:1).

c. Therefore capital cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival day (Sanh. IV:1).

d. It was illegal to pass the death sentence anywhere except in the Hewn Chamber in the inner forecourt of the temple.

e. An attempt was to be made to find witnesses for the defense (Sanh. V:4).

f. False witnesses were to suffer condign penalties (Sanh. XI:6).

g. Capital cases had to open with arguments for acquittal (Sanh. IV:1).

h. The younger members were to speak first so as not to be influenced by the older members (Sanh. IV:2).

i. In capital cases all could not speak in favor of condemnation (Sanh. IV:1).

Some people argue that this would make the story an anti-semitic incertion/addition into the Gospels, just supposed to make the Jews look bad.

The same people argue that the fact alone that this trial was being conducted during the Preparation of the Passover makes the story impossible to have happen in a first century Palestine context.

Any thoughts on it?

The story that we have in the gospels of Mark and Matthew (Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68) of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin seems to contradict many passages in the Mishna in the tractate Sanhedrin, like, for example:

a. Capital cases could not be tried at night (Sanh. IV:1).

b. Capital judgments were to be delayed to the next day (Sanh. IV:1).

c. Therefore capital cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival day (Sanh. IV:1).

d. It was illegal to pass the death sentence anywhere except in the Hewn Chamber in the inner forecourt of the temple.

e. An attempt was to be made to find witnesses for the defense (Sanh. V:4).

f. False witnesses were to suffer condign penalties (Sanh. XI:6).

g. Capital cases had to open with arguments for acquittal (Sanh. IV:1).

h. The younger members were to speak first so as not to be influenced by the older members (Sanh. IV:2).

i. In capital cases all could not speak in favor of condemnation (Sanh. IV:1).

Some people, like Haim H. Cohn and skeptics on the internet, argue that this would make the story an anti-semitic incertion/addition/invention into the Gospels, just supposed to make the Jews look bad.

The same people argue that the fact alone that this trial was being conducted during the Preparation of the Passover makes the story impossible to have happen in a first century Palestine context.

Any thoughts on it?

The story that we have in the gospels of Mark and Matthew (Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68) of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin seems to contradict many passages in the Mishna in the tractate Sanhedrin, like, for example:

a. Capital cases could not be tried at night (Sanh. IV:1).

b. Capital judgments were to be delayed to the next day (Sanh. IV:1).

c. Therefore capital cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival day (Sanh. IV:1).

d. It was illegal to pass the death sentence anywhere except in the Hewn Chamber in the inner forecourt of the temple.

e. An attempt was to be made to find witnesses for the defense (Sanh. V:4).

f. False witnesses were to suffer condign penalties (Sanh. XI:6).

g. Capital cases had to open with arguments for acquittal (Sanh. IV:1).

h. The younger members were to speak first so as not to be influenced by the older members (Sanh. IV:2).

i. In capital cases all could not speak in favor of condemnation (Sanh. IV:1).

Some people argue that this would make the story an anti-semitic incertion/addition in the Gospels, just supposed to make the Jews look bad.

The same people argue that the fact alone that this trial was being conducted during the Preparation of the Passover makes the story impossible to happen in a first century Palestine context.

Any thoughts on it?

The story that we have in the gospels of Mark and Matthew (Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68) of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin seems to contradict many passages in the Mishna in the tractate Sanhedrin, like, for example:

a. Capital cases could not be tried at night (Sanh. IV:1).

b. Capital judgments were to be delayed to the next day (Sanh. IV:1).

c. Therefore capital cases could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival day (Sanh. IV:1).

d. It was illegal to pass the death sentence anywhere except in the Hewn Chamber in the inner forecourt of the temple.

e. An attempt was to be made to find witnesses for the defense (Sanh. V:4).

f. False witnesses were to suffer condign penalties (Sanh. XI:6).

g. Capital cases had to open with arguments for acquittal (Sanh. IV:1).

h. The younger members were to speak first so as not to be influenced by the older members (Sanh. IV:2).

i. In capital cases all could not speak in favor of condemnation (Sanh. IV:1).

Some people argue that this would make the story an anti-semitic incertion/addition into the Gospels, just supposed to make the Jews look bad.

The same people argue that the fact alone that this trial was being conducted during the Preparation of the Passover makes the story impossible to have happen in a first century Palestine context.

Any thoughts on it?