The Sanhedrin delivered Jesus to Pilate but condemned Stephen to stoning

  • Thread starter Thread starter JurisPrudens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stoning was not automatically fatal. Often, yes. But St Paul survived a stoning, if I remember. So my impression was that stoning was a grey area, since you can easily stone someone not to death. So you could always claim to the Romans that death was not intentional. Just like, I suppose, a mob beating isn’t considered a deliberate execution but more like ‘accidentally’ overdoing it.

So my impression is that they wanted Jesus guaranteed 100% dead, and the only way to do that was a Roman execution. 🤷
Well, it was sort of fatal in Stephen’s case. And with Paul, the mob thought he was dead and dragged his body out of the city. He may have actually been killed and then raised from the dead; the vision of the third heaven that he mentions in one of his epistles may have happened at this time.
 
Jewish stonings actually didn’t so much involve pelting somebody with stones as they involved pushing the person off a precipice (this was later specified as being twice the height of a man), then (if they didn’t die from the fall) dropping a huge rock/s onto their chest. Actual stone pelting only followed afterwards, and only if the person somehow survived the fall and the big rock.

That’s probably not the kind of stoning St. Paul experienced.
This does not seem to be how they were going about stoning the adulteress. If there was various methods, that just goes to show it wasn’t guaranteed fatal. 🤷

I never said it was doctrine, just the impression I had. Is it possible they changed their methods to be deliberately less fatal, since they weren’t allowed to officially execute anyone?
 
Well, He was easier on the Roman legionaries than on His own folks.

“Walking the extra mile” originally meant willingly accepted being ordered around by Romans.

The Romans seemed to be ok with Him; though the bad juju between them and Jews was thick enough to breathe, the centurion respected Him enough, despite his need, not to ask that He defile Himself by going to his home. This from a people who were legally entitled to order everybody around.

Even Pilate sought an excuse to let Him breathe, though lacking the courage to stand up to the masses.

For that place and time, I’d say He got on remarkably with the Romans (until everybody ganged up on Him).

ICXC NIKA
Hi!
…actually, Pilate’s issue was not with the masses (he had full authority to command Roman military); his concern was the inference of the Jewish leaders:
“If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” (St. John 19:12b)
…to be seen in such light (aiding and abetting Caesar’s opposition) would be to seek summary execution.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Jewish stonings actually didn’t so much involve pelting somebody with stones as they involved pushing the person off a precipice (this was later specified as being twice the height of a man), then (if they didn’t die from the fall) dropping a huge rock/s onto their chest. Actual stone pelting only followed afterwards, and only if the person somehow survived the fall and the big rock.

That’s probably not the kind of stoning St. Paul experienced.
Hi, Patrick!
…the problem with the “scholars” is that they always seem to know better than those who experienced the historical episodes:
"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to** throw a stone at her**.” (St. John 8:7b)
Maran atha!

Angel
 
Well, it was sort of fatal in Stephen’s case. And with Paul, the mob thought he was dead and dragged his body out of the city. He may have actually been killed and then raised from the dead; the vision of the third heaven that he mentions in one of his epistles may have happened at this time.
Hi, Dave!
…actually, it was not Stephan who had the vision. At Stephan’s stoning Saul had not yet been converted by Jesus–it’s doubtful that the experience happened at this particular time.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Well, it was sort of fatal in Stephen’s case. And with Paul, the mob thought he was dead and dragged his body out of the city. He may have actually been killed and then raised from the dead; the vision of the third heaven that he mentions in one of his epistles may have happened at this time.
Hi, Dave!
…actually, it was not Stephan who had the vision. At Stephan’s stoning Saul had not yet been converted by Jesus–it’s doubtful that the experience happened at this particular time.

Maran atha!

Angel
You completely misunderstood me. Only in my first sentence was I talking about Stephen; after that, I was talking only about Paul.
 
Hi, Patrick!
…the problem with the “scholars” is that they always seem to know better than those who experienced the historical episodes:

Maran atha!

Angel
Oh, that description was from the Mishnah. Granted, what scholars think is that applying the Mishnah’s very formalized description of stoning to an earlier time period is suspect, given that it dates from the 2nd century (something which I agree with) but its basic structure - drop the person from a height first before the actual stoning - actually quite fits with early Christian traditions about the stoning of James the Just: it is said that he was thrown down from a pinnacle of the Temple first before they dropped rocks at him.

Besides, I don’t think the woman is a good parallel. What the accusers wanted is not so much to actually stone the woman but to test Jesus, to see His reaction. It’s not exactly the same type as Stephen’s and James’ stonings. You might say the supposed stoning was just an excuse - what they really wanted was to trap Jesus.
 
You completely misunderstood me. Only in my first sentence was I talking about Stephen; after that, I was talking only about Paul.
…I was not sure… that’s why I covered both bases: Saul was beginning his persecution of the Church so he could not have had the vision at that particular time (the event of Stephen’s death).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Oh, that description was from the Mishnah. Granted, what scholars think is that applying the Mishnah’s very formalized description of stoning to an earlier time period is suspect, given that it dates from the 2nd century (something which I agree with) but its basic structure - drop the person from a height first before the actual stoning - actually quite fits with early Christian traditions about the stoning of James the Just: it is said that he was thrown down from a pinnacle of the Temple first before they dropped rocks at him.
This is what the Mishnah says (Sanhedrin 6):

Once the verdict is reached, they bring him out to stone him. The stoning area was outside the courthouse, as it says, (Leviticus 24:14) “Bring out he who has cursed.” One would stand before the entrance to the courthouse, his scarf in his hand; and another would ride on a horse before them at a distance, in order to see him. [If] one says, “I have an argument for acquittal,” then he waves the scarf, and the horse runs to stop him. And even if [the accused] says, “I have an argument for my [own] acquittal,” then he is returned; and this may happen even four or five times, so long as there is substance to his words. If he is acquitted, he is dismissed; and if not, he is brought out to be stoned. And an announcer comes out before him and announces, “So-and-so son of so-and-so is being brought out to be stoned for having committed such-and-such transgression, and so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who has any knowledge as to his innocence should come and argue for him.”

[Once the accused] was about ten cubit from the stoning area, they say to him, “Confess,” for such is the way of those sentenced to death to confess, for all who confess have a share in the World to Come. …] [Once] he was four cubits from the stoning area, they remove his clothing. [If it is] a man, his front is covered; [if it is] a woman, her front and her back are covered, according to Rabbi Yehudah. But the Sages say, a man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.

The stoning area’s height was that of two men. One of the witnesses pushes him on his loins. If he is turned on his heart, they turn him [over,] on his loins. If he dies from this, [the court] has discharged [its obligation]. If not, the second [witness] picks up the stone and puts it on his heart. If he dies from this, [the court] has discharged [its obligation]. If not, he is pelted with stones by all of Israel, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:7) “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.”

All who are stoned are hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, the only [offenders] who are hanged are the blasphemer and the idolator. A man is hanged with his face toward the people, and a woman with her face toward the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, a man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. Rabbi Eliezer said to them, Did Shimon ben Shetach not hang women in Ashkelon? They said to him, he hanged eighty women, and we do not [even] judge two [capital cases] in one day!

Obviously as mentioned, it’s a bit suspect whether this stoning was really practiced in real life 1st century Judaea - or even in the Diaspora, although if we assume that the tradition surrounding the death of James the Just (thrown down from the pinnacle of the Temple before being stoned and/or being clubbed in the head) is historical, then that would suggest that the basic idea behind this description - the person is thrown from a certain height first before being actually stoned - could be authentic. (In fact, some people even read Luke 4 - where the people of Nazareth try to throw Jesus off “the brow of the hill” as a stoning attempt because of this.)

As an aside, the interesting thing about the ritual as the Mishnah records it is how humane it is. People - even the condemned themselves - are allowed to plead for their innocence. The condemned person is given an opportunity to confess “for all who confess have a share in the world to come.” If you’ll notice even, the victim is thrown from a high place pretty much so that the witnesses would not have to throw rocks at them, and the reason why the witnesses threw a boulder onto their chest is pretty much to spare the person from being stoned by ‘all Israel’. It’s like they were trying to spare the person the actual fate of being stoned (as in pelted by rocks) for as long as possible. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top