jgreen44

Let us look at the laws of a Jewish Sanhedrin which judged capital cases. The sources are Talmud tractate Sanhedrin and Maimonides Laws of Judges:

No capital cases were allowed to be tried outside the court chamber in the Temple, certainly not in a private home. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of hewn Stone and from that point on ceased ruling on capital cases as well as on monetary cases involving fines;

No capital cases were tried at night; nor on the festival; nor the eve of a festival, as the guilty party had to be put to death the following day and executions were not allowed on Sabbath or festivals.. Anyone arrested on the eve of Sabbath or a festival was held in custody till after the Sabbath or holiday and then tried.

No defendant could be convicted on his own testimony or confession No defendant could be convicted unless he was warned by two qualified witnesses and then within seconds of the warning he ignored the warning and committed that sin which he was warned not to commit.

Then we have the question of what sin was Jesus accused. Was he a blasphemer or was he a Maysit U Maydeeach ― one who persuades a Jew to worship idols? To be a blasphemer one must curse god using the ineffable name, which Jesus did not do. Thus one more flaw in the fairy tale.

We also must discuss the issue of a Jew who turns over another Jew to gentile authorities to be killed. One who does this is called a mosair ― an informer and is punished by death. So any Sanhedrin that turned a Jew over to the Romans was signing their own death warrant.

Last but not least one must know that Sanhedrin had only four prescribed methods of execution:

Stoning

Burning

Beheading,

Strangulation.

Crucifixion was not one of them! Regarding crucifixion, most historians agree that that the Romans tied their victims to the cross and did not use nails.

Once an accused was convicted, Sanhedrin then sent out messengers for 40 days to announce that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. During that time witnesses who had proof of the accused’s innocence were allowed to come testify.

According to Jewish law, convicting someone of a capital crime requires a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. After hearing testimony from eye-witnesses, the judges vote. If at least thirteen of the judges vote “guilty” the defendant is executed.

There is a surprising exception to this; however if ALL the judges vote guilty, then the defendant is acquitted. Here is why:

There are two ways to look at everything. There is no situation in this world without some merit or positive side. If not one judge was able to see the good side and declare the defendant innocent, something is wrong. The positive side of the case must have been missing during the presentation of the evidence. Therefore, he is acquitted.

http://www.ajewwithaview.com/?p=2132

spin

You might find this thread interesting, as it touches on most of the OP issues.


spin

andrewcriddle

One problem with this is how far the rules in Sanhedrin and other rabbinic works correspond to actual practice before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

semiopen

Josephus suggests that a major reason for the popuilarity of the Pharisees was their mercifulness.

I think arguments that the Sanhedrin couldn't have done this are polemical.

The talmudic accounts go into such a song and dance about this, that they can't really be taken seriously.

DCHindley

I am winging this one, but I understand that Neusner has suggested that the Mishna was a guide book for the times of a future temple and Jewish state.

As a result, Rabbi's citations from authorities who preceded the destruction of the 2nd temple were simply the opinions that Rabbi thought should be adopted or at least considered when circumstances change for the Jewish people. It doesn't mean that all those opinions were actually being carried out in the days of the opinion. The gemera of the Talmuds, etc, is an extension and refinement of this idealized "law."

"Sanhedrin" is actually a technical term for ANY group brought together for decision-making purposes, not just ones associated with religious law. Thus a High Priest, as the head of the ethnos of the Jews, would have his own cabinet of advisers, and the various districts under jurisdiction to this authority would have appointed representatives who likely could be called to meet on this or that subject. This is discussed in detail in volume II of the revised edition of E Schuerer's Jewish People (or via: amazon.co.uk).

If the ethnos of the Jews headed by the High Priest were to be considered a puppet state for the Romans, are we to be surprised if behind the scenes irregularities occur? Besides, even if Sanhedrins were lawfully carried out, HPs were constantly criticized for following the "wrong" halacha.

Back to being miserable with this dang head cold ...

DCH

aa5874

But, in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, Josephus claimed some James was delivered to be stoned to death because of accusations before the Sanhedrin.

This is Josephus in AJ 20.9.1 on the Sanhedrin before 70 ce.

See http://wesley.nnu.edu

semiopen

Thinking about this last night, I remembered a famous IAJ gaffe where he mentioned the Romans crucifiying 800 Pharisees while the Roman officers had sex with their concubines. Someone then pointed out that this story was about the Hasmoneans.

http://www.bible-history.com/pharise...EESHistory.htm

Depending on what we make of this, it suggests that crucification could be employed by the Jews of that time. It sort of follows (and here I may be on thin ice) that such an act wold have been condoned by the Sanhedrin.

Minimalist

There is actual archaeological evidence of nails being used.

http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/htm....aspx?c0=13141

spin

Feet, not hands.


spin

Minimalist

The original comment was not specific about "where." Just said that nails were not used.