douglas

I'm having a discussion with someone who made the statement that the Sanhedrin could not have executed Jesus, because the Roman's reserved this right for themselves. They cited this line from the GJohn as evidence.

I have always seen the next verse...

... as indicating that the Jews could not crucify someone, but stoning was allowed according to their law. Stephen was apparently stoned by the Sanhedrin under the Romans, for example. I seem to remember reading in Antiquities that the Sanhedrin stoned people, but can't put my finger on the reference.

Is this a correct analysis?

God Fearing Atheist

I think Ray Brown's summary in Death of the Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk) is probably right: Jewish authorities were granted capital jurisdiction when it came to certain "clear religious offenses, e.g. for violating the prohibitions against circulating in certain quarters of the Temple, and perhaps for adultery" (pg. 371). Otherwise, it was in the hands of the Romans.

spin

In the Mishnah book Sanhedrin 4:1(8), we read that "[i]n capital cases they come to a final decision for acquittal on the same day,but on the following day for conviction." A previous comment in the same text says, "[i]n capital cases they try the case by day and complete it {by} day." These are two points that don't agree with the gospel indications.

M.Sanhedrin, as a book, features early figures, ie from the first century (and second), and legal description of sanhedrin procedures given as is, unquestioned, as law, ie as received by the rabbis from tradition. This should place the rules cited above as in operation prior to the fall of the temple.


spin

andrewcriddle

Jacob Neusner IIUC and IMS would regard very little from M.Sanhedrin as in operation prior to the fall of the temple.

Andrew Criddle

douglas

With this in mind, I have viewed this excerpt from Mark...

...as showing two things. The Roman charge against Jesus, the one by which he was crucified, is represented by the inscription "The King of the Jews." The Jewish charge against him is represented by the insults that were hurled at him - attempting to incite a riot in temple, and healing people. The Mishnah seems to indicate that Jesus could have been stoned for either of these charges.

Is this a fair assessment, or am I reading too much into this?

Toto

I don't think this represents the Roman charge against Jesus. I think it is part of the mockery and degradation, that he is labeled King of the Jews, or some allusion to a primitive ritual of killing the king.

I'm not sure of your purpose. Do you think that the gospels represent a version of history, and you can find a rational basis for the events? If the Jews had made these charges, and believed them, they would have stoned Jesus as James the Just was stoned, or Stephen. Jesus would not have been turned over to the Romans for a torturous, shameful death.

On the other hand, if the Romans had crucified Jesus, it would probably have been as a rebel.

When Justice Clarence Thomas said that he was subject to a high tech lynching, did you expect to find a noose on a tree outside the Supreme Court?

douglas

I guess I should back up a bit. I'm having a discussion with a Christian apologist about how the gospels show how Jesus knowingly incriminated himself, thereby giving the Sanhedrin no choice but to execute him. He did this by threatening the temple..."Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days..." and also claiming to be above the Torah. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

If Jesus was convicted by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, why was he not stoned? It seems odd that a hand-off to the Romans would have needed to happen at all. A Christian that I'm discussing this with responded by saying "Well, that's because the Romans would not let them execute anyone."

Could you not argue that the author of GJohn, knowing that this apparent contradiction might be viewed as odd by his readers who had an understanding of how the Sanhedrin operated, then adds the line about "This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled." as a sort of cover up?

In a nutshell, it doesn't seem that the gospel accounts jibe with what we know of how things would have worked back then. Does that make sense? I have little to know experience on this topic, so I'm just throwing my ideas out there to get some feedback.

spin

You've gotta do better than cite unadorned opinion, andrewcriddle.

M.Sanhedrin does have an oldest possible date of completion with the youngest sage cited, but that doesn't indicate when the legal material was in operation. You might get it from the fact that none of the sages needed to establish any of it. And most sages in it are early tannaim.


spin

Ben C Smith

Whoaaaa, there. If the discussion were about dating gospel materials, you, spin, would certainly, without doubt, and indisputably place the burden of proof on the one claiming that datum X derived from an early layer.

In the spirit of simply consistency, then, how would you, spin, go about showing that the data you quoted from the Mishnah date, say, to before 70?

Ben.

spin

You wouldn't question a number you found in a telephone directory, so your appeal to simple consistency is plainly misplaced. Obviously know something about genre is useful. You don't know the genre of the gospels (we've debated around the issue often enough without any conclusions), so you can't depend on that information to help you read the text. We do know something about the genre of the Mishnah tractates, and of those in the section of damages, specifically, where Sanhedrin is located. M.Sanhedrin is, I'm sure you'll agree, a legal text. The aim of a legal text is to explain the state of the law along with any amendments and clarifications. Amendments and clarifications are, as you can observe throughout the Mishna, supplied by sages. The first sage to comment on the section (4) was r. Judah (b. Ilai), giving a terminus ad quem of the mid 2nd c., though this is a very minor comment on the scribes for verdicts, so the body of the rulings on the structure of trials were already securely in place. However, the text gives the people eligible for hearing capital cases as "priests, Levites, and Israelites who are suitable to marry into the priesthood", 4.2. This supplies a status quo ante the fall of the temple. Laws by their nature are conservative.


spin