Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 09-23-2012, 12:27 PM

What's up, Doc?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Did executions for adultery happen in C1 Israel?

Do they happen today in Muslim countries? Yes to both.

Quote:

Was there any prospect of this execution actually happening, or was this a theory test?

There is evidence that "accidents" happen to those condemned. See this archived post.

Quote:

Where is the man in all this? What is the significance, if any, of his absence?

Already dispatched perhaps. The problem here seems to be a Judean form of "honor killing." No doubt there was suspicion that she willingly entered into an illicit carnal relationship. Maybe it was true, maybe not, but Jesus suggested that one should judge on the side of leniency, as everyone has sinned.

DCH

Bugs Bunny wins!

Duvduv · 09-23-2012, 01:21 PM

What happened to the subject of this thread??

sotto voce · 09-23-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What happened to the subject of this thread??

It has no subject, has it.

Why not pick a bit of Bible to discuss? :constern01:

Iskander · 09-23-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What happened to the subject of this thread??

Got a question?

A brief comment?

Jane H · 09-24-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

There is evidence that "accidents" happen to those condemned. Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

<snip>

"He [R. Eliezer] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]

DCH

Thanks for this, which suggests a solution to a problem I was pondering. On the one hand, the legal situation with regard to the Romans meant that formal Jewish authority death verdicts weren't going to be effective. On the other hand, certain NT passages suggest that quasi-extra-judicial execution did take place (e.g. stoning of Stephen Acts 7).

Now my views on the likely historicity of that event will likely differ from present company, but that Luke mentions it at all suggests that quasi-extra-judicial execution could conceivably occur, or did. Probably some form of mob 'justice' pre AD70, which became an accident with a baseball bat and a large toothy animal as the second century developed.

DCHindley · 09-24-2012, 07:33 PM

Jane,

Great post! We need more like that.

It turns out that Mr Jona Lendering, a historian, hosts the Livia.org site.

In the Strack-Billerbek volume referred to in his first quotation, the context was to explain Lk 13:2 by suggesting there was a Rabbinic system that allowed sages to deduce, from a man's suffering at the hand of God, what kind of sin he must have committed, referring to Sanhedrin 33a. Strack Billerbeck then add a comment that this is basically the doctrine that because the Sanhedrin was no longer hearing capital cases, those guilty of certain sins meet their end at the hand of God in an appropriate manner. This is enumerated in Kethuboth 30a, Sota 8b, and Sanhedrin 37a. This also includes sins such as murder that was not witnessed by two witnesses and thus could not justify a death sentence.

Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Aus Talmud und Midrasch. Zweiter Band, Das Evangelium Nach Markus, Lukas Und Johannes Lind Die Apostelgeschichte. (1924).

Google Translator:

[193] So you gain a formal record of punishment for individual sins. One did not merely follow what punishment belonged to a particular sin, but the nature of a man's sin could be deduced from the misfortune that befell him. [194] The sufferings one experienced came to identified what one was guilty of.f

[197 note] f Sabb. 33a Surely in Mt 5, 3 pp. 192«. || In a sense, here is the theory of the replacement of the four Jewish death sentences, connected to certain accidents. Keth 30a: Rabbai Joseph († 333) has said, and just as it was taught by R. Chijja (about 200) as a Tannaite tradition: Although since the day when the sanctuary was destroyed, which ended the (Great) Sanhedrin, the four executions (stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation) did not stop. She [the Sanhedrin] had not stopped? It had ceased (indeed)! But it meant this: the condemnation of the four executions (by God) has not stopped. Those whose guilt deserves stoning falls, either from the roof, or a wild animal trampled him. Those whose guilt deserves burning either falls into a fire, or a snake bites him. Those whose guilt deserves decapitation is guilty, either delivered to the (pagan) government, or robbers come upon him. Who is guilty of strangulation either falls into a river or dies of suffocation. - Parallels: Sota 8b; Sanh 37b.

As a result, I cannot be sure whether the Talmud passages refer to humans taking on the role of vigilante executioner to ensure the guilty don't get away scot free. There are actually three passages where this story of the continuation of the four means of death even after the Sanhedrin stopped ruling on capital cases.

That and the last passage on breaking the head of a transgressing High Priest with clubs is directly relevant to Hegesippus' account of the death of James the Just, who was both thrown from a "roof" *and* clubbed in the head.

I will have to look into whether the interpretation that the rabbis were speaking of the "continuation" of the four means of execution by divine providence is Strack & Billerbek's take on the subject or that of the rabbis.

Perhaps Duvduv cam chime in on this.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

There is evidence that "accidents" happen to those condemned. Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

<snip>

"He [R. Eliezer] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]

DCH

Thanks for this, which suggests a solution to a problem I was pondering. On the one hand, the legal situation with regard to the Romans meant that formal Jewish authority death verdicts weren't going to be effective. On the other hand, certain NT passages suggest that quasi-extra-judicial execution did take place (e.g. stoning of Stephen Acts 7).

Now my views on the likely historicity of that event will likely differ from present company, but that Luke mentions it at all suggests that quasi-extra-judicial execution could conceivably occur, or did. Probably some form of mob 'justice' pre AD70, which became an accident with a baseball bat and a large toothy animal as the second century developed.

sotto voce · 09-25-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jane,

Great post! We need more like that.

We had one just like it a few weeks ago, as it happens.

MrMacSon · 09-25-2012, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have always found this story unusual beyond the obvious didactic character of the lesson involved.

Here we have Jesus at the Temple in a case of an alleged adulterous woman. ...

Are you referring to John 8? -

Quote:

1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Interestingly, that passage is not in one of the first bibles, Codex Sinaiticus - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...e-1734439.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...extual_history

sotto voce · 09-25-2012, 02:00 AM

Welcome to a recycled thread.

Duvduv · 09-25-2012, 10:36 AM

All capital punishment under the authority of the Sanhedrin ceased around the year 30 CE. Of course this doesn't mean that someone might not be punished from heaven for a crime, but that would have happened under the previous system as well according to Jewish thought.

In other words, if a person was in fact guilty of a crime, but could not be convicted for lack of testimony (note that evidence is not the issue, but TESIMONY), God himself would see to it that a person is punished for whatever sins he committed. This is called the Beit Din Shel Mala (The Court of Heaven/Above) as opposed to the Beit Din Shel Mata (The Court Below) which was the Sanhedrin.

According to Jewish thought, this always applies. A person never escapes rectification (=punishment) for misdeeds without repentance - which is more than appropriate since tonight is Yom Kippur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jane,

Great post! We need more like that.

It turns out that Mr Jona Lendering, a historian, hosts the Livia.org site.

In the Strack-Billerbek volume referred to in his first quotation, the context was to explain Lk 13:2 by suggesting there was a Rabbinic system that allowed sages to deduce, from a man's suffering at the hand of God, what kind of sin he must have committed, referring to Sanhedrin 33a. Strack Billerbeck then add a comment that this is basically the doctrine that because the Sanhedrin was no longer hearing capital cases, those guilty of certain sins meet their end at the hand of God in an appropriate manner. This is enumerated in Kethuboth 30a, Sota 8b, and Sanhedrin 37a. This also includes sins such as murder that was not witnessed by two witnesses and thus could not justify a death sentence.

Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Aus Talmud und Midrasch. Zweiter Band, Das Evangelium Nach Markus, Lukas Und Johannes Lind Die Apostelgeschichte. (1924).

Google Translator:

[193] So you gain a formal record of punishment for individual sins. One did not merely follow what punishment belonged to a particular sin, but the nature of a man's sin could be deduced from the misfortune that befell him. [194] The sufferings one experienced came to identified what one was guilty of.f

[197 note] f Sabb. 33a Surely in Mt 5, 3 pp. 192«. || In a sense, here is the theory of the replacement of the four Jewish death sentences, connected to certain accidents. Keth 30a: Rabbai Joseph († 333) has said, and just as it was taught by R. Chijja (about 200) as a Tannaite tradition: Although since the day when the sanctuary was destroyed, which ended the (Great) Sanhedrin, the four executions (stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation) did not stop. She [the Sanhedrin] had not stopped? It had ceased (indeed)! But it meant this: the condemnation of the four executions (by God) has not stopped. Those whose guilt deserves stoning falls, either from the roof, or a wild animal trampled him. Those whose guilt deserves burning either falls into a fire, or a snake bites him. Those whose guilt deserves decapitation is guilty, either delivered to the (pagan) government, or robbers come upon him. Who is guilty of strangulation either falls into a river or dies of suffocation. - Parallels: Sota 8b; Sanh 37b.

As a result, I cannot be sure whether the Talmud passages refer to humans taking on the role of vigilante executioner to ensure the guilty don't get away scot free. There are actually three passages where this story of the continuation of the four means of death even after the Sanhedrin stopped ruling on capital cases.

That and the last passage on breaking the head of a transgressing High Priest with clubs is directly relevant to Hegesippus' account of the death of James the Just, who was both thrown from a "roof" *and* clubbed in the head.

I will have to look into whether the interpretation that the rabbis were speaking of the "continuation" of the four means of execution by divine providence is Strack & Billerbek's take on the subject or that of the rabbis.

Perhaps Duvduv cam chime in on this.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Thanks for this, which suggests a solution to a problem I was pondering. On the one hand, the legal situation with regard to the Romans meant that formal Jewish authority death verdicts weren't going to be effective. On the other hand, certain NT passages suggest that quasi-extra-judicial execution did take place (e.g. stoning of Stephen Acts 7).

Now my views on the likely historicity of that event will likely differ from present company, but that Luke mentions it at all suggests that quasi-extra-judicial execution could conceivably occur, or did. Probably some form of mob 'justice' pre AD70, which became an accident with a baseball bat and a large toothy animal as the second century developed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2012, 01:21 PM	#22
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What happened to the subject of this thread??

09-25-2012, 02:00 AM	#29
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Welcome to a recycled thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.