Why was Jesus crucified and not stoned?

[patrick457]

I am not sure what you mean by mid-moring but the gospel says the 9th hour which is not the same as 9 in the morning. The ninth hour was about three in the afternoon.

Read Mark 15. “It was the third hour and they crucified him.”

 

[patrick457]

I think that the cruxifiction date is not clarified, right?
Because Mark’s gospel says it was on the day after passover meal, in mid-morning…
And John’s says it was on the afternoon on the day before the passover meal.

I think scholars are more in agreement with Mark’s date of after passover…since that gospel was written decades earlier and was the first one written, so is likely to be more correct. And it’s thought that John was attempting to creatively tie in his “lamb of God” metaphor.

.

No, what you have in the synoptics (going by a literal reading) is a crucifixion on the day of Passover itself (in Jewish reckoning the day starts at sundown), while John has a crucifixion during “the day of the Preparation of the Passover.” And I’ve seen it both ways: some think that the synoptic chronology is historically correct, others that John’s is correct. In both cases AFAIK people usually point to symbolism which would have influenced the retelling: the synoptics has Jesus dying on the Passover itself (in itself quite significant), while John has Jesus dying on the day before that, when the passover lambs are brought to the Temple and sacrificed. Note that as early as St. Paul we already find Christians linking Jesus with the passover lamb (“Christ our passover has been sacrificed”), so the tradition is fairly early.

 

[steve53]

There’s two possible ideas. One is that Jews did have limited right to give out death sentences, but only did so in the traditional methods (stoning, beheading, burning, and strangulating) and mostly in religious matters; secular cases being tried under Roman law. The other is that Rome had reserved the right of capital punishment to itself. I personally think the latter is more likely, since in other areas Rome usually withdrew the right of capital punishment or gave only limited use of it in order to prevent local courts from legally turning against sympathizers and collaborators to Roman rule. A decree of Augustus to the proconsul of Cyrene, dated 7-6 BC, which made provision for provincial courts to practice “delegated jurisdiction except in capital cases,” which are to be kept in the hands of the proconsul himself, shows just how picky the Romans were about restricting the power.

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. 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. 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.

Whichever camp you take, the only exception to this rule that we know of is when a non-Jew trespasses into the ‘Jews-only’ part of the Temple (non-Jews were forbidden to enter anything other than the outermost parts of Herod’s temple; the Court of the Gentiles was the furthest they could go): “No outsider shall enter the protective enclosure around the sanctuary. And whoever is caught will only have himself to blame for the ensuing death.” This is keeping in line with the Roman custom of granting provincial subjects as much freedom as possible in practicing their religion, and besides, the Jews would wish to maintain the purity and sanctity of the Temple hence, the special exception.

Assuming that the second possibility is correct, what are we then to make for Stephen’s death? One could argue that the stoning of Stephen is not so much an official execution as a lynching: at least as Luke records it, there was no verdict and no sentence (Acts 7:57-58). We need not go to lengths to assume as some people did that the passage of the death sentence was omitted by a copyist. Which goes to the question: why didn’t the Romans step in to stop this? The answer is simply because the Romans could not police the internal life of the provinces closely, and even if they could, they would have simply batted a blind eye. In other words, provincials frequently took matters into their own hands and illegally executed natives on criminal charges, but government officials simply ignored them - as long as Roman citizens were not involved.

To put things into perspective, Judaea was a province ruled by a prefect (or after AD 41, a procurator), who commanded auxiliaries recruited from peregrini, local non-citizens: being an equestrian, he was not of high rank enough to command a legion; his immediate superior, the legate of Syria, meanwhile, had four legions under his belt. And even then, unlike in standard retellings of the Jesus story where Romans are barbarians who roam, loot and pillage around the countryside, all the while kicking old men and forcing people to carry their loads, in reality the prefect and the majority of his soldiers stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima for most of the year far away from the sight of Jews, preferring instead to let native magistrates (in the case of Jerusalem, the high priest and his advisory council) run daily affairs for him. These locals were the responsible officials for the area and was normally in charge of ordinary police and judicial procedures, though the prefect would have the final word. All in all, the prefect only had 3,000 troops at his disposal, which is not sufficient to handle serious trouble, thus in emergencies he would need the aid of the Syrian legate and his legions.

In Acts, Jerusalem and the Temple is under the power of a single Roman Captain. Why would Pilate stay in Jerusalem? Caesarea was a much nicer town. And the Jews were peculiar lot of people. Didn’t mingle with the romans much at all, where the Germans did.

Pilate, if he needed to on an emergency basis, would not have much trouble commandeering Antipas’ and Philip’s auxiliary armies in Galilee and the Trachonitis. But the President of Syria was always ready to lend a hand. The High Priests usually kept him informed of potential trouble.

Jesus wasn’t stoned because Caiaphas simply didn’t have the consensus of either the Sanhedrin, or the common Jews during that final Passover. So Caiaphas called in a favor and had Pilate crucify Jesus on ridiculous capitol charges.

A year later, it was a different story, apparently, when Stephen was stoned to death by a mob endorsed and encouraged by High Priest Jonathan.

 

[Glacies]

The Church Fathers have various explanations for the Cross. For example St. Augustine says the wood of the Cross is like the wood in Ark of Noah, the Staff of Moses or the Ark of the Covenant; (Pseudo) St. Jerome compares the wood to that in the ship of Jonah or those brought by Isaac to Abraham for the sacrifice; St. Anselm tells that the shape is like the Church expanded to the “four quarters of the earth”; St. Hilary calls it a Tree of Life, also mentioned in the Book of Genesis; St. Bede says Christ on the Cross is like a trophy to the eyes of the faithful; St. Athanasius argues that the execution had to be public, and Christ dies with outstretched hands to draw the Jews and Gentiles alike to Himself; St. Theophyl teaches the tree of the Cross saves us in contrast to the tree by which death was brought to the world; St. John Chrysostom says Christ carried the Cross like a trophy and a badge of victory.

Cf. Catena Aurea St. Matthew 27, St. Mark 15, St. Luke 23, St. John 19

 

[504Katrin]

Its called misread the times and the signs. They are in for one rude awakening.

You as a Christian and a Catholic apparently just have a different interpretation of this matter than a Jew might have

 

[adrift]

Read Mark 15. “It was the third hour and they crucified him.”

You are correct I was thinking of the time of death. Mark is the only one who mentions the time of the Crucifixion.

"How Do We Explain the Passover “Discrepancy”?

 

[Jozefo]

Jesus wasn’t stoned because Caiaphas simply didn’t have the consensus of either the Sanhedrin, or the common Jews during that final Passover. So Caiaphas called in a favor and had Pilate crucify Jesus on ridiculous capitol charges.

A year later, it was a different story, apparently, when Stephen was stoned to death by a mob endorsed and encouraged by High Priest Jonathan.

It’s true, Pilate caved from political pressure. But the charges weren’t ridiculous. Matthew 27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

After that admission, Pilate had legal grounds to execute him. That’s why the titulus had written on it the charges. And what could be more fitting? The god of this world (spurious authority) executing God’s only begotten Son, for daring to be king under a different authority. Guilty as charged! I love it.

 

[patrick457]

In Acts, Jerusalem and the Temple is under the power of a single Roman Captain. Why would Pilate stay in Jerusalem? Caesarea was a much nicer town. And the Jews were peculiar lot of people. Didn’t mingle with the romans much at all, where the Germans did.

The answer was - it was Passover, when people from all over the world crowd ol’ Jerusalem.

Jesus wasn’t stoned because Caiaphas simply didn’t have the consensus of either the Sanhedrin, or the common Jews during that final Passover. So Caiaphas called in a favor and had Pilate crucify Jesus on ridiculous capitol charges.

Steve, you of all people should know that we can’t just accept the Mishnaic vision of the ‘Sanhedrin’ at face value.

A year later, it was a different story, apparently, when Stephen was stoned to death by a mob endorsed and encouraged by High Priest Jonathan.

That is - if we go by your assumption that the crucifixion happened in AD 36.

 

[patrick457]

You are correct I was thinking of the time of death. Mark is the only one who mentions the time of the Crucifixion.

"How Do We Explain the Passover “Discrepancy”?

Actually John does too, although his is a more indirect reference. “[Pilate] brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.”

 

[steve53]

Patrick- I was referring to most of the time- Pilate stayed in Caesarea.

But, yes, the Passover was THE big festival in much of the East, and the place where trouble was most likely to happen. Pilate relocated to Herod’s Palace then- a very nice place in itself. Most of his personal guard- maybe a couple hundred men, camped out on the grounds, which Herod had landscaped.

YOU should know by now that I and my favorite author ignore the Talmud. If it is not in Josephus, well…

It was a ridiculous charge in fact, but a necessary one if Jesus was to be executed. Pilate probably chuckled when he first saw this supposed “King” of the Jews, who was so bold as to challenge Caesar. But Caiaphas and his chief priests were not to be denied, so Pilate acquiesced, hanging the sign over the cross proclaiming Jesus such.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well the Jewish Talmud (I think Babylonian**?**) wrote that Jesus was stoned:

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b – “Jesus the Nazarene is
  going forth to be stoned” (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1,
  Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)

However, I think Jesus suffered the punish-
ment mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

 

[Jozefo]

Well the Jewish Talmud (I think Babylonian**?**) wrote that Jesus was stoned:

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b – “Jesus the Nazarene is
  going forth to be stoned” (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1,
  Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)

However, I think Jesus suffered the punish-
ment mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

It’s an interesting passage, Deuteronomy 21. You know, God is Sovereign, and even though Jesus was executed according to Roman law, it’s interesting that God’s law called for death on a tree. Even though Christ was sinless, dying a sinners death is somehow appropriate. He was guilty of being the ruler of a power foreign to Rome.

 

[patrick457]

Well the Jewish Talmud (I think Babylonian**?**) wrote that Jesus was stoned:

• Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b – “Jesus the Nazarene is
  going forth to be stoned” (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1,
  Firenze II.1.8–9, Karlsruhe 2)

However, I think Jesus suffered the punish-
ment mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

That is correct - more precisely, “Yeshu” according to the Talmud was stoned and then hanged on the eve of the Passover. Aside from the fact that the Talmud is too late a source to have unadulterated, reliable historical information in this regard, perhaps this Talmudic tradition that Jesus was stoned was more of an inference either from the fact that He was known to have been hung (i.e. crucified) or from a Mishnaic injunction to the effect that “all who have been stoned must be hanged”.

The original advice in Deuteronomy 21 - which speaks of people being hung on trees after they have been stoned to death - is basically that those exposed corpses should not be left hanging all night but taken down and buried the same day they were hung (note of course that the Israelites, and later the Jews, considered the day to begin at sunset). Reason being that “a hanged man is cursed by God” and his corpse will defile “[the] land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”

Just before the time of Jesus however, we see this command in Deuteronomy reinterpreted in light of crucifixion - which involves hanging people in order to kill them. Jews did practice crucifixion at a former time: the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (103 BC-76 BC), for one, hung 800 rebels according to Josephus (War 1.97-98; Antiquities 13.380). However, during the time of Jesus we have no hard evidence of any Jews using crucifixion - which was probably something only the Romans performed. The Temple Scroll (11QT, 11Q19) from Qumran rewords the command in Deuteronomy as follows:

If a man slanders his people and delivers his people to a foreign nation and does evil to his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die. On the testimony of two witnesses and on the testimony of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree.

If a man is guilty of a capital crime and flees (abroad) to the nations, and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree, and he shall die. But his body shall not stay overnight on the tree. Indeed you shall bury him on the same day. For he who is hanged on the tree is accursed of God and men. You shall not pollute the ground which I give you to inherit.

These two ordinances provide a creative expansion of the command in Deuteronomy by the sectarians of Qumran. The two crimes specified are among those the Roman law punished by crucifixion: betrayal of state secrets and desertion to the enemy. Whereas in Deuteronomy, the condemned is hung and exposed after death, here hanging on “the tree” is the way to kill the condemned.

It is also because of this command in Deuteronomy that some scholars think that the Jews were granted a concession from the normal practice of crucifixion - where the corpse would either be left hanging on the cross until it rots away or thrown away unceremoniously either as fodder for wild animals or in a pit. (Non-burial was after all, a part of the horror of crucifixion, for a world which so valued giving dead people a proper burial.) Instead, they think it more likely that in Palestine, crucified victims were allowed to be buried as soon they were dead - because, as per Deuteronomy, any unburied corpse will pollute the Promised Land. Unlike in other parts, leaving the bodies hanging on crosses would have been more the exception rather than the rule. Josephus in one place even said that “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun” (War 4.317).