mark9950

Was Roman law and jewish law two seperate laws for the romans and jews?

What I mean is in the US if you are in a satanic cult and you sacrifice a human being for your religion you are legally guilty of murder(even though ther is contraversy between church and state and freedom to practice religion)

Did the jews have to follow roman law?

Because if they did have to follow roman law the people who had jesus crucified should have been charged with murder.

Asha'man

Think of it like the US: There is a Federal Law and a State Law. The states can write any law that does not conflict with the federal.

Everyone in the Roman Empire was subject to Roman law, and the Jews also held themselves subject to their own law.

Also, I should point out that Jewish law does not allow for capital punishment by crucifixion, only stoning. Only Roman law provides for crucifixions. Rome allowed the Jews to use capital punishment until the year 40 CE, after which they forbade it.

According to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin (Jewish legal authority) found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and therefore stoning was legal. Pilate found Jesus innocent of any Roman crime, and therefore crucifixion was not legal. The actual recorded result is incomprehensable to me, which is why I reject it as anything but myth.

Peter Kirby

Unless, of course, Jesus was crucified on Roman order. The prefect held that power.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Did the Sanhedrin have the authority to impose capital punishment for the crime of blasphemy? What's the primary evidence on this score? I was under the impression that the Romans disfavored allowing local governments to impose the death penalty. It's been a while since I looked into it, though.

Asha'man

Sorry, I've loaned that book out to a friend, so I don't have the exact reference. As I recall, a Israeli legal historian showed that the Sanhedrin had that power until the year 40, when Rome took it away.

Layman

My understanding is that after Rome took direct control of Judaea, the Jewish authorities lost the authority to impose capital punishment. With the possible exception of descrating the Temple.

Toto

There is the stoning of James the putative brother of Jesus in 62 CE to counter this.

From this errancy site:

The Straight Dope:

Layman

I didn't say that it never happened. I said they likely did not have the authority to impose it.

Though I'm glad to see you accept the historicity of one of Acts' accounts.

Toto

I don't necessarily accept Acts' historicity, and neither did my source - it only pointed out the conflict between John's Sanhedrin which claimed it could not impose a death penalty, and Acts portraying the Sanhedrin carrying out the death penalty publicly. If the authority to carry out the sentence did not matter for Stephen, why did it matter for Jesus?

The story of the stoning of Stephen may have been based on the stoning of James recorded by Josephus, which may not have been carried out in a fully legal manner.

Layman

Well and good Toto, but I wasn't trying to turn this into another debate about errancy.

Stephen's death was a rather spontaneous event. More of a mob rule. Jesus' death was not. And it seems that Jesus was better known than Stephen.

What is your evidence for this?

Only "may not"? Josephus seems quite clear that the killing of James was disapproved by the Roman authorities. Once again, it is very probably that James was much better known than Stephen.