Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why Crucifixion and not Stoning? Summary: Some Jewish comments Message-ID: Date: 19 Dec 89 07:22:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , 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]