From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:52:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.225149.13214@netcom.com> you write:
>In article <LEET.92Oct1175952@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>>The accused *did* have a trial before the Sanhedrin - a "full" trial,
>>and before that, during the night, a "partial" one (which, as I
>>recall, was itself not legal).  
>
>If Jesus *did* have a "full trial" before the Sanhedrin, then they
>probably pronounced him guilty, and had him stoned to death, then hanged
>on a tree.

Assuming that the Romans reserved the exclusive right to capital
cases, which is my understanding, how does your conclusion make
any sense?  Oh, they *could* have stoned him as they did Stephen,
but it would have been illegal as far as Rome was concerned.  Now
why they ceded to Rome in Jesus's case but not in Stephen's case
can lead to some interesting speculation about how the Sanhedrin
operated, IMHO.

>
>>
>>That Jesus could not be convicted on the same basis that Stephen was -
>>Jesus gave no clearly blasphemous statement until the judges
>>themselves illegally accused him, unlike Stephen, who freely gave them
>>the needed statement.
>
>Actually, they had plenty of latitude on this. The article "Capital
>Punishment" in The Jewish Encyclopedia cites Pentateuchal codes
>supporting execution for 15 different crimes. Either Jesus or Stephen
>could potentially have been framed up for: blasphemy (Lev. 24:16),
>false prophecy (Deut. 13:6), idolatry, actual or virtual (Lev. 20:2),
>insubordiantion to supreme authority (Deut. 17:12). Using modern terms,
>"heresy" of any sort was potentially a capital offense.
>
>And besides, we have *nothing like* a credible transcript of either
>trial, only some very probably inaccurate second-hand statements.

Again, you're citing Jewish law which wasn't worth very much as far as
the Romans were concerned.

>Does it matter?
>
>>  Another question: how do you
>>conclude that the trial was left unfinished?  And yet another
>>question: wasn't Stephen already guilty of what we would call today
>>"contempt of court", or at least of contempt of the officeholders?
>
>If the trial was FINISHED, then Steven was executed legally for
>his "heresy", immediately raising the presumption that Jesus was,
>as well.

Not at all, there was a different motivation for killing Jesus
then for killing Stephen.  Even in the US today, no one assumes
that two people who commit the same crime are given the exact
same sentence.  And you automatically jump to this conclusion as
far as Jesus and Stephen were concerned?

>       "As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed
>        to minister there to the LORD your God, or the judge, that
>        person shall die. So you shall purge the evil from within
>        Israel." [NRSV]
>

Fine, but again the Romans had different ideas.  You seem to
forget that...

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729