Are you referring to the incident when Ananus ben Ananus ordered James, ‘brother of the Lord’ to be executed (and probably others as well) ? He did order his stoning, but he did so in a time when there was no governor resident in Judaea. He took advantage of the intervening period between the death of the procurator Porcius Festus and the arrival of Lucceius Albinus in AD 62, when there were no Roman officials who could curtail their right to sentence people to death.
And in any case, Ananus’ actions were widely criticized: a delegation sent by citizens upset over the perceived breach of justice met Albinus before he reached Judea, and Albinus responded with a letter informing Ananus that it was illegal to convene the Sanhedrin without Albinus’ permission and threatening to punish the priest. Ananus was deposed by Agrippa II before Albinus’ arrival (
Antiquities 20.199-203):
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
The Roman apparatus of government in the provinces was minimal and assumed the maintenance of existing administrative structures. In Judaea, the high priest was considered to be the responsible official and was normally in charge of ordinary police and judicial procedures, while the prefect visited Jerusalem only during great festivals or at times of urgent need to check for potential trouble.
However, with at least one exception, only the prefect (later, procurator) had the right to sentence anyone to death. Rome allowed the priests to post notices in the Temple in both Greek and Latin, warning gentiles to enter no further than a given point. Anyone - and I mean
anyone - who transgressed this was put to death, even if he be a Roman citizen. But apart from this, the prefect’s right to sentence people to death was not only exclusive but also absolute; he could execute a citizen, and he did not have to formulate a charge that would stand up in a court at Rome. John 18:31 even has the priests say to Pilate: “
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”
In these outposts of the empire, the prefect had to be able to do whatever he thought necessary for the good of Rome, and this included the power to discipline the army. If he had the right to execute a Roman citizen without a full trial, he could treat members of the subject nation more or less any way he wished. During the 1st century, the provincial ruler’s power was very considerable; it was only in the following century that authority was severely limited by the emperor himself.
That’s why I said ‘lynch mob’.
