Question about capital punishment in Jesus' story

[Maestrophil]

The recent post about 'bloodless' Jesus being a theory got me to thinking about something esle I haven't thought of before - and want to know if anyone has insight.

I recall that the Jews were seeking help from Pilate becasue they had no law that allowed them to put a man to death.  But I just realized, they tried to stone Jesus, and we see examples of other stonings and attempted stoning of the adulterous woman etc. (and later the stoning of Stephen).

Why did the Jews need to go to the Romans to have Jesus killed?  If they had no law to condemn someone to death, then were thier stonings illegal?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

The recent post about 'bloodless' Jesus being a theory got me to thinking about something esle I haven't thought of before - and want to know if anyone has insight.

I recall that the Jews were seeking help from Pilate becasue they had no law that allowed them to put a man to death.  But I just realized, they tried to stone Jesus, and we see examples of other stonings and attempted stoning of the adulterous woman etc. (and later the stoning of Stephen).

Why did the Jews need to go to the Romans to have Jesus killed?  If they had no law to condemn someone to death, then were thier stonings illegal?

Haven’t come across anything conclusive, seems like there is a lot of debate.

It may have been because of how they justified killing him, by breaking a Roman law rather than Jewish…a possibility is his miracles.  https://rsc.byu.edu/celebrating-easter/legal-cause-action-against-jesus-john-1829-30

However, they had accused him of blasphemy and that was punishable by death by Jewish law…if Jews could stone.

Some claim it was because leaders wanted him crucified which only Romans could do or didn’t want angry followers to come after them.  By having the Romans kill Christ, maybe they got protection from the Romans because the Romans would see any protest as a protest against them where if they had stoned him, the Romans might have seen it as a local matter not involving them.

[Calm]

This suggests they did not have the legal right to execute, but because Stephen was a nobody they knew they could get away with it where if they had tried that with Jesus, the Romans would have blamed them for any protesting, etc.

https://www.gotquestions.org/stoning-of-Stephen.html

[Maestrophil]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

This suggests they did not have the legal right to execute, but because Stephen was a nobody they knew they could get away with it where if they had tried that with Jesus, the Romans would have blamed them for any protesting, etc.

https://www.gotquestions.org/stoning-of-Stephen.html

Interesting - so killing a person of low noteworthiness might have been 'winked at' by the officials?

[provoman]

IIRC, in the book "Jesus The Christ" it was explained that Rome had forbidden the Jews from killing people according under "Jewish law".

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

IIRC, in the book "Jesus The Christ" it was explained that Rome had forbidden the Jews from killing people according under "Jewish law".

Yet apparantly they were killing plenty of folks by stoning

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Balaam said:

Strange as it may sound, I believe the Jews were inspired to crucify Jesus because crucifixion was the only legal way to kill him by the shedding of his blood as well as one of the most painful ways to die.

I realize he shed his blood in the garden of Gethsemane, and maybe that could have satisfied the need for his blood to be shed, but I think most of this world thought Jesus deserved an ignominious death just as thought he deserved a humble birth.

Stoning sheds a lot of blood. 

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Why did the Jews need to go to the Romans to have Jesus killed?  If they had no law to condemn someone to death, then were their stonings illegal?

The New Testament scholar Raymond Brown examined this question in some detail. After reviewing evidence from Roman sources, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah, and dozens of secondary sources, he concluded the following:

Quote

The Romans permitted the Jews to execute for certain clear religious offenses, e.g., for violating the prohibitions against circulating in certain quarters of the Temple, and perhaps for adultery. Beyond this specified religious sphere the Jewish authorities were supposed to hand over cases to the Romans, who would decide whether or not to execute a death sentence. . . .

Inevitably there were tensions between the Jews and the Romans over crimes that would have brought a death penalty under Jewish law but not under Roman law. When Jews took it into their own hands to execute criminals for such crimes, the Romans upon hearing of this judicial action might or might not punish those involved, depending on the notoriety of the crime or of the criminal. Great notoriety would not permit the Romans to pass over the issue in silence, nor would complaints by respectable citizens.

If the complicated situation I have just described is accurate, one may still wonder why the Jewish authorities who condemned Jesus would not have taken a chance and executed him, trusting that Pilate might choose not to make trouble. That question can be answered only by speculation, but the following factors should not be forgotten.

Caiaphas lasted as high priest the whole length of Pilate's prefecture; perhaps the two of them had worked out a modus vivendi that would allow some Jewish actions to be overlooked so long as they would not endanger Roman governance or be publicly embarrassing to Pilate. Execution at Passover time when hordes of pilgrims were in Jerusalem and Pilate himself was there could scarcely have been overlooked. Pilate could have been all the more sensitive about this because he had had conflicts with the Jews in Jerusalem during a feast.

The Gospels indicate that the Jewish authorities feared the ire of the crowds if they moved against Jesus, and so it may have suited their purpose to have the Romans carry out the execution so that they themselves would not be the direct target if there was an angry reaction. In addition, the Romans would crucify Jesus and that manner of death, equivalent to the hanging on a tree mentioned in the Law, would place Jesus under a curse and thus discredit him. In any case, one should recognize that the procedure of the Jewish authorities in dealing with Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels can scarcely be considered unusual; Josephus describes almost the same procedure thirty years later in dealing with Jesus son of Ananias.

— Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, vol. 1 of A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 371–372.

 

[Maestrophil]

On 1/6/2023 at 6:48 PM, Nevo said:

The New Testament scholar Raymond Brown examined this question in some detail. After reviewing evidence from Roman sources, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah, and dozens of secondary sources, he concluded the following:

 

Good stuff - thank you.  Lots of potential politics happening liekly

[Eschaton]

On 1/6/2023 at 4:06 PM, Maestrophil said:

The recent post about 'bloodless' Jesus being a theory got me to thinking about something esle I haven't thought of before - and want to know if anyone has insight.

I recall that the Jews were seeking help from Pilate becasue they had no law that allowed them to put a man to death.  But I just realized, they tried to stone Jesus, and we see examples of other stonings and attempted stoning of the adulterous woman etc. (and later the stoning of Stephen).

Why did the Jews need to go to the Romans to have Jesus killed?  If they had no law to condemn someone to death, then were thier stonings illegal?

If indeed Jesus was claiming (privately) to be the messiah, that would have been treason against the state of Rome (understanding that the messiah was the King of Israel and Rome appointed its own puppet leaders over Israel, under Caesar). Pilate himself was known as a harsh ruler. He's portrayed as dove-like in the gospels while the Jews are cast as villains, but other early sources on Pilate paint him as eager to enact executions and violence. He even got in trouble for it from Rome. In reality he probably executed Jesus without a second thought - maybe without trial. 

If Jesus was claiming to be divine, Jewish leaders could have just stoned him without involving Rome. But it's not thought that Jesus claimed to be divine, but rather that came to be thought of him after his death. 

Was Jewish leadership involved in Jesus' death, historically? Unclear. Lots of scholars think the antagonism between Jesus and the Pharisees might actually represent contemporary hostilities between Christians and Jews at the time the gospels were written, from 70 CE and later. For context, in the early 60s James the brother of Jesus was executed by Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, at the behest of Ananus ben Ananus. At some point in the late first century, Christians were kicked out of Jewish synagogues. After the first Jewish-Roman war in the late 60s/early 70s, it was heavy political disadvantage to be associated with Jews, which would further cement the break of early Christians from any Jewish identity. The gospel writers go to great lengths to blame the Jews and absolve Rome. In fact, the only criticism of Rome in the New Testament comes in the highly coded language of Revelation, which equates Nero with the beast. It was dangerous to criticize Rome, so the Jews were an easier target. 

On the other hand, Jesus did seem to have something against the wealthy and powerful, and against the temple, so some kind of beef with the Sadducees (a powerful group that controlled the temple) seems at least plausible. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Eschaton

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Balaam said:

Have you seen that first hand, in person?  I haven't but I imagine being pounded with rough stones produces broken bones and damaged internal organs, with bleeding occurring inside the body that was pounded.  I think the skin would need to be pierced somehow before blood would come outside of the body.  Maybe you're thinking of internal bleeding and supposing that would be shedding of blood?

Just movies unfortunately (sarcasm here if anyone misses that). The Lottery was required for my English class.  Yech.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Calm