Why crucifixion? Wouldn't stoning be the prescribed punishment for Jesus under religious law?

[Twilight Hue]

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Why wasnt Jesus executed in accordance with religious law?

It was an interesting question that cropped up and was curious why crucifixion took presidence over other capital punishments of the time.

Thoughts?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

He was convicted of treason against the Emperor. He was crucified.

 

[outhouse]

Why wasnt Jesus executed in accordance with religious law?

Because he commited crimes against the Empire, not religious crimes.


You do not start trouble in the temple when Romans were policing the event to ensure it went off without riots and war, that would cut into the money going back to Rome.

Pilate and Caiaphas demanded peace, that was disrupted and a man paid the ultimate price.

 

[oldbadger]

The High Priest could order the execution of any Gentile who entered the inner Sanctums of the Temple without needing any further authority from the Prefect, but the Prefect was the only person oin Judea, Samaria or Idumea who could impose the penalty of execution, and the execution would therefore be a Roman one.

However, this presumably only applied to males, as women were still stoned by the people for various offences and actions..... indeed, Jesus is reported to have stopped a stoning.

Maybe an RF scholar can throw more light upon this angle?

 

[outhouse]

The High Priest could order the execution of any Gentile who entered the inner Sanctums of the Temple without needing any further authority from the Prefect, but the Prefect was the only person oin Judea, Samaria or Idumea who could impose the penalty of execution, and the execution would therefore be a Roman one.

However, this presumably only applied to males, as women were still stoned by the people for various offences and actions..... indeed, Jesus is reported to have stopped a stoning.

Maybe an RF scholar can throw more light upon this angle?

Stay away from specific rules and laws that might not apply.

There is little known about the laws and how they were carried out during this time period.

 

[oldbadger]

The High Priest could order the execution of any Gentile who entered the inner Sanctums of the Temple without needing any further authority from the Prefect, but the Prefect was the only person oin Judea, Samaria or Idumea who could impose the penalty of execution, and the execution would therefore be a Roman one.

However, this presumably only applied to males, as women were still stoned by the people for various offences and actions..... indeed, Jesus is reported to have stopped a stoning.

Maybe an RF scholar can throw more light upon this angle?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The High Priest could order the execution of any Gentile who entered the inner Sanctums of the Temple without needing any further authority from the Prefect, but the Prefect was the only person oin Judea, Samaria or Idumea who could impose the penalty of execution, and the execution would therefore be a Roman one.

However, this presumably only applied to males, as women were still stoned by the people for various offences and actions..... indeed, Jesus is reported to have stopped a stoning.

Maybe an RF scholar can throw more light upon this angle?

Right and if my memory is intact 2 unsuccessful attempts to stone Jesus was attempted. Since crucifixion was a final outcome according to the texts something happened imv that what started seemingly as a religious issue turned political.

At least that is how it appears to me. What turned it to a political outcome requiring Roman intervention?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why crucifixion? Wouldn't stoning be the prescribed punishment for Jesus under religious law?


They wanted to prove that Jesus was cursed:

22. If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 21 (Parshah Shoftim and Ki Teitzei) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Regards

 

[ChristineES]

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Why wasn't Jesus executed in accordance with religious law?

It was an interesting question that cropped up and was curious why crucifixion took precedence over other capital punishments of the time.

Thoughts?

It was the Romans who put him to death, and they used crucifixion to put people to death.

 

[oldbadger]

Right and if my memory is intact 2 unsuccessful attempts to stone Jesus was attempted. Since crucifixion was a final outcome according to the texts something happened imv that what started seemingly as a religious issue turned political.

At least that is how it appears to me. What turned it to a political outcome requiring Roman intervention?

Good points......
I'm just looking to see which scholars have written that only Pilate could order the execution of anybody, even a Roman officer, without seeking warrant outsuide of Judea. The same scholar(s) explain that the High Priest could only execute those who committed Temple indiscretions, but here we immediately have found accounts of stonings and attempted stonings.

I'll get looking.......

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was the Romans who put him to death, and they used crucifixion to put people to death.

Well yes. That is reflected in my op. To put in a better perspective Christine, I would ask as to why would the Romans even care about this at all?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Right and if my memory is intact 2 unsuccessful attempts to stone Jesus was attempted. Since crucifixion was a final outcome according to the texts something happened imv that what started seemingly as a religious issue turned political.

At least that is how it appears to me. What turned it to a political outcome requiring Roman intervention?

It was always political for Jesus, he wasn't just some religious teaching saying nice things like "love thy neighbor", he was a radical and revolutionary instructed people in the ways of non-violent resistance. He protested against the unfair taxation and levies imposed on the poor by the Priesthood and the Romans and that is what got him martyred.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why crucifixion? Wouldn't stoning be the prescribed punishment for Jesus under religious law?


They wanted to prove that Jesus was cursed:

22. If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 21 (Parshah Shoftim and Ki Teitzei) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Regards

Right if in context and in accordance with Jewish law. To put a man to death and (then) put him on a pole wouldnt require the Roman government. Just Jewish authorities.

 

[oldbadger]

Well yes. That is reflected in my op. To put in a better perspective Christine, I would ask as to why would the Romans even care about this at all?

....but Roman forces sorted out other insurrectionists; I believe the head of the insurrectionist Thuedus was hewn and produced to the Prefect, and Pilate got himself into loads of trouble later on for the way that he handled an insurrection, causing orders for his return to Rome to face charges. Ergo, he would have been the right person to make a decision about an arrested and convicted insurrectionist.

Also, the fact that the Christian authors of the Gospels made such a point of explaining that Pilate had ordered the execution when it did not really suit them, seeing as how they tended to want to blame the Jewish leaders for Jesus's death, but they still left that report in........ a strong case for Pilate death sentence to have been genuine.

Pilate is reported to have sent Jesus to Antipas, but Antipas seemed not to care about Jesus any more because he was no longer in Galilee, and so he sent Jesus back.... all these reports do sound 'right'.

I cannot explain how stonings get mentioned..... would need an authority to throw light on stonings.....

 

[outhouse]

....but Roman forces sorted out other insurrectionists; I believe the head of the insurrectionist Thuedus was hewn and produced to the Prefect, and Pilate got himself into loads of trouble later on for the way that he handled an insurrection, causing orders for his return to Rome to face charges. Ergo, he would have been the right person to make a decision about an arrested and convicted insurrectionist.

Also, the fact that the Christian authors of the Gospels made such a point of explaining that Pilate had ordered the execution when it did not really suit them, seeing as how they tended to want to blame the Jewish leaders for Jesus's death, but they still left that report in........ a strong case for Pilate death sentence to have been genuine.

Pilate is reported to have sent Jesus to Antipas, but Antipas seemed not to care about Jesus any more because he was no longer in Galilee, and so he sent Jesus back.... all these reports do sound 'right'.

I cannot explain how stonings get mentioned..... would need an authority to throw light on stonings.....

You have managed to skew everytrhing out of context, and there is not one thing of value in the whole reply.

Most of what you read in the NT has to do with the Hellenist trying to distance themselves from Judaism who were viewed by the Empire as trouble makers.

These books were written to and for the Romans, so you will not get the truth if it makes the Romans the bad guys.


Anyone who blames Jews for Jesus death is doing so from ignorance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They did try to stone Him before but He hid. (John 8:59)

 

[oldbadger]

................. To put a man to death and (then) put him on a pole wouldnt require the Roman government. Just Jewish authorities.

..This from one of the scholars that I have read:...........

'Jesus was a potential troublemaker who was stirring up the crowds and who thought of himself as a political usurper of the prerogatives of Rome. Without further ado, Pilate ordered him executed as an enemy of the state..'

...again.... the emphasis is upon the Roman Roman decision, which matches the Gospel's accounts.

But stonings are quite clearly Jewish executions....

 

[Sleeppy]

He was supposedly a big figure, even at the time.. Imagine trying to stone Justin Bieber.. There would be a thousand preteens jumping in front of those stones, ready to die. They may have wanted to, and tried to stone him-- but, I can see why they would've needed help. And after trying and failing so many times, they probably didn't care what method was used.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Jesus had followers, as Sleepy points out. The Jewish authorities couldn't gauge how much trouble executing him might cause, and they wouldn't want to jeopardise their good relations with Pilate by starting a riot. Jesus thought he was the messiah, the Bible said the messiah would be the king of the Jews, so it was easy to say "this man is a traitor to Rome, trying to restore the independence of Judah." If the Romans did the execution, they would deal with any trouble (which, in the event, never occurred) and take any blame. It was really a very clever move.

 

[fantome profane]

It was the Romans who put him to death, and they used crucifixion to put people to death.

The Romans actually used several different methods of executing people, stabbing, beheading etc. Crucifixion was reserved almost exclusively for the crime of sedition. The point of crucifixion was not just to kill the person, but to put their bodies on display to show what happens to those who challenge Rome. In fact there were instances where a person was executed first, and then crucified.