kgf2173@uunet.uu.net (Kerry G. Forschler) (12/15/89)
> Mark and Matthew claim that the > Sanhedrin accused Jesus of blasphemy, however the punishment for > blasphemy was stoning. Why was Jesus not stoned then? > The Bible doesn't say why Jesus was crucified and not stoned. I think it was because the Jews wanted to show that Jesus was cursed of God. In both the Old and New Testiments the Bible says that anyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed of God. I believe they wanted Him to die the worst kind of death and to totally discredit Him. -- Kerry G. Forschler | Voice: 206-237-1274 (work) Boeing Commercial Airplanes | Voice: 206-235-1435 (home) P.O. Box 3707, M/S 96-02 | UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!kgf2173 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 | Boeing net: kgf2173@tahoma [John 18:31 suggests that in this time period only the Romans could carry out death sentences. --clh]
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/19/89)
In article <Dec.15.01.53.12.1989.17534@athos.rutgers.edu>, bcstec!tahoma!kgf2173@uunet.uu.net (Kerry G. Forschler) writes: > > > Mark and Matthew claim that the > > Sanhedrin accused Jesus of blasphemy, however the punishment for > > blasphemy was stoning. Why was Jesus not stoned then? He was not accused of blasphemy. He was accused of claiming to be King of the Jews. This was in no way a religious crime. > > The Bible doesn't say why Jesus was crucified and not stoned. > on a tree is cursed of God. I believe they wanted Him to die the worsta > kind of death and to totally discredit Him. > > [John 18:31 suggests that in this time period only the Romans could > carry out death sentences. --clh] The Sanhedrins were notorious for not imposing death sentences. The requiremnts for conviction were interpreted so as to be almost impossible. Also, the execution modes were modified to be more humane. Stoning was not done by a mob throwing stones. Crucifixion would have been considered too cruel a method of death to be allowed. Herod had already taken the power to give death sentences away from the Sanhedrins because they were not being imposed, and gave it to the civil courts operating under Roman law. However, death by crucifixion was not considered an "honorable" death at that time. Also, I do not know of any appropriate references, but I cannot see that either Judaism or Christianity would consider that the manner of someone's death at the hands of others could produce a curse of God. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) [I took a look at a commentary on John (the Anchor Bible). The question of how much power the Sanhedrin had continues to be dated among scholars. First, the issue is not Herod. Jerusalem was within the jurisdiction of Pilate, a Roman governor. Second, the rules you cite that make it almost impossible to pronouce a death penalty come from the book "Sanhedrin", which describes the Sanhedrin as it was somewhat later, after the destruction of Jerusalem. It's by no means obvious that it operated in quite as ideal a fashion in the early 1st Cent. Nevertheless, there seems no reason to doubt John's statement (Jn 18:31) that the Sanhedrin at this time had no power to pass the death sentence. There is a bit of corroborating evidence: (1) a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud that the power of capital punishment was removed from Israel about 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, (2) some studies of Roman jurisprudence that suggest that procurators delegated a lot of judicial tasks to groups like the Sanhedrin, but reserved crimes involved death, exile, etc., for themselves (though there is some uncertainty about this and scholars still disagree), (3) according to Josephus, James (the brother of Jesus) was killed during a period between two procurators, and when the new one arrived, he punished the high priest involved for it. This might not necessarily prevent stonings when someone was caught in the act of adultery, etc. That would be essentially a lynching, and as long as it was a matter among the Jews, the Romans might not make an issue of it. But it seems likely that the Sanhedrin could not formally sentence someone to death. As to the reference to being cursed, Deut 21:23 says "A hanged man is accursed by God". Based on a comment in Schoeps "Paul", I take it that this is based on the LXX translation, and represents 1st Cent. Jewish interpretation. Of course the actual Heb. is "a dead body hanging on a post brings God's curse on the land" (TEV), which is a rather different thing. I have seen in a number of sources that 1st Cent. Judaism considered crucifixion equivalent to hanging in this regard. I don't have any citations for it, but from what the commentary says you might find it in Josephus. He describes an episode where Alexander Jannaeus crucified the Pharisees. This was looked on with horror at the time for this reason. Mark 14:63-64 implies that the primary charge in front of the Sanhedrin was blasphemy. There are also suggestions that he was believed to be a false prophet. Clearly such a charge would not do when bringing him to the Romans. That doesn't mean that the charge of sedition they made to Pilate was trumped up. Claiming to be "king of the Jews" would have its political as well as its religious overtones. There is nothing wrong with emphasizing the one that would be relevant to Pilate. --clh]
MATH1H3@uhvax1.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) (12/21/89)
In article <Dec.19.02.22.17.1989.14706@athos.rutgers.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > > He was not accused of blasphemy. He was accused of claiming to be > King of the Jews. This was in no way a religious crime. I don't know what your source of information is on this, but in Matthew 26:59-66 we find the following (see also Mark 14, as pointed out by clh): The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' " [Comment by dhw: What Jesus actually said referred to the temple of his own body] Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" "He is worthy of death." they answered. Note that in Acts 7, a similar 'trial' before the Sanhedrin is recorded. This was the trial of Stephen. When Stephen said: "Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God," they 'lost their cool' and dragged him out of the city and stoned him. Maybe by then they had reviewed the right way to handle blasphemy? David Wagner My opinions and beliefs are completely separated from my employer's. [The issues involved here are sufficiently sensitive that I think I should comment. The account in Mark suggests that the Sanhedrin was looking for evidence against Jesus, but would not accept false evidence. The account in Mat. implies that at least some people were willing to accept fraud, but it still looks like the number of such people was limited. After all the Sanhedrin rejected the false evidence and had to depend upon Jesus' own comments. In Acts 7 it looks to me like the final execution was not exactly an official act of the Sanhedrin. As I commented before, even if you accept that the Romans reserved capital cases for themselves, I have a feeling that they might not have bothered to pursue every case of a mob taking the Law into their own hands, as long as no Roman citizens were involved and the issues involved were just "that incomprehensible Jewish religion". Perhaps the difference was the amount of support from the populace at the time, such that the only way to deal with Jesus would have been official? On the other hand, it may be hopeless to reconstruct reasons for something that happened that long ago. --clh]