Why did the Jewish High Priests defer to the Romans?

[Caesar]

In all of the Gospels we find the Sanhedrin council bringing Christ before the Roman Governor under the pretense that it is not within the power of the Sanhedrin to dispense capital punishment (John 18:31).

However, in the Book of Acts we find the the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Deacon (Acts 7:56-59). Here, after Stephen delivers his speech before the High Priests, he is dragged outside of Jerusalem and stoned to death. There is no mention of any further trial before a Roman prelate.

How can this be explained?

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s my personal theory:

Probably the Romans didn’t really care about the Jews killing other Jews. They probably were lax about it. On the other hand, the head Jews figured since Jesus had a big following, killing him probably would have been viewed as martyrdom and would have turned the community against the head Jews.

By turning Him over to the state, an air of official legitimacy was given to the act and rather than dying the death of a martyr at the hands of the head Jews, He would receive the shameful death of crucifixion reserved for notorious criminals at the hands of the Romans. It helped the Jewish leaders lower public opinion of Jesus and lessen their own guilt in the eyes of the community by not killing Him with their own hands.

Of course, their plan had the opposite effect anyway

 

[LilyM]

Here’s my personal theory:

Probably the Romans didn’t really care about the Jews killing other Jews. They probably were lax about it. On the other hand, the head Jews figured since Jesus had a big following, killing him probably would have been viewed as martyrdom and would have turned the community against the head Jews.

By turning Him over to the state, an air of official legitimacy was given to the act and rather than dying the death of a martyr at the hands of the head Jews, He would receive the shameful death of crucifixion reserved for notorious criminals at the hands of the Romans. It helped the Jewish leaders lower public opinion of Jesus and lessen their own guilt in the eyes of the community by not killing Him with their own hands.

Of course, their plan had the opposite effect anyway

Exactly - killing someone by stoning for violating religious law is a different thing entirely from having him branded as a common rabble-rouser, criminal and threat to the civil peace and killed by the method reserved for the scum of the scum - mainly slaves.

Besides which, they wanted Rome to get involved as well, to send the message that both Jewish and Roman forces would crack down on Jesus and his supporters.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The people did not think Steven or John the Baptist were either desiring to be king, or justified to be so as Jesus was hailed to be. Previous failed messiahs only brought civil unrest and increased occupation.

The Jewish religious authorities knew if Israel were not united under the true messiah, the division that resulted in part of the population uprising against the occupation would result destruction of all to include the Temple. They obviously did not think He was the true messiah.

Christ humiliated the religious authorities by pointing out their hypocracy which incured further hatred. And, like when Jesus asked them where Johns authority came from, they feared a direct assult because they initially held Christ higher than John.

The political theater would allow them to deal with Christ. Herod was appointed king by Rome so any claim of a “rightfull” king, and any “peoples uprising” would also bring in, what eventually happened in 70 AD, so the threat was real.

 

[Grace_Angel]

In all of the Gospels we find the Sanhedrin council bringing Christ before the Roman Governor under the pretense that it is not within the power of the Sanhedrin to dispense capital punishment (John 18:31).

However, in the Book of Acts we find the the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Deacon (Acts 7:56-59). Here, after Stephen delivers his speech before the High Priests, he is dragged outside of Jerusalem and stoned to death. There is no mention of any further trial before a Roman prelate.

How can this be explained?

Hello Caesar,
I would say that the High priests wanted to make an example of Jesus so handed him away as a pagan to be killed like a pagan.
Jesus was the Messiah, they knew that. At least there was a claim to His Messiahship, to being son of David. Whereas Stephen, pointed out to them their great sin and they killed him in the manner legitimate to them. It would be good to write a paper on this wouldnt it.
Graceangel.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In all of the Gospels we find the Sanhedrin council bringing Christ before the Roman Governor under the pretense that it is not within the power of the Sanhedrin to dispense capital punishment (John 18:31).

However, in the Book of Acts we find the the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Deacon (Acts 7:56-59). Here, after Stephen delivers his speech before the High Priests, he is dragged outside of Jerusalem and stoned to death. There is no mention of any further trial before a Roman prelate.

How can this be explained?

If you read the text from the Victor Codex, correctly translated from the correct Latin, you will see that the JUDEANS, not the people we now call Jews, were Quisling traitors, and in this parable, Our Lord so condemns them.

This link refers you to the correct page:
sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Page202.htm

You might like to look at my Victor Codex posting for the second Sunday of Easter:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=595589#595589