Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!mit-eddie!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: MATH1H3@uhvax1.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why Crucifixion and not Stoning? Message-ID: Date: 21 Dec 89 05:10:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , 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]