Mail.Jewish Mailing List Volume 27 Number 03 Produced: Tue Sep 23 6:24:11 1997 From: Akiva Miller Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:42:29 -0500 Subject: Capital Punishment - When and Why was it abolished? Preface: Discussion of Christian theology and history are clearly outside the realm of Mail-Jewish, so if you disagree with my premises below, rather than cluttering up MJ, please write me *privately*, and I'll issue one public retraction. But the conclusion which I draw from those premises do relate to Jewish theology and history, so feel free to debate that part publicly. Mark Steiner wrote, and I have seen it elsewhere also: <<>> Something strikes me as very odd about this particular date. Forty years before the destruction would be either 28 CE or 30 CE, right about the time when Jesus died. And an important part of the story of his death is that the Sanhedrin sentenced him to death, but they were not empowered to perform the execution, so the Romans did. Coincidence? Could it be that in addition to other reasons, the Sanhedrin may have suspended the death penalty as a way of dealing with the political situation? Could it be that in addition to general considerations about the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime, it was suspended specifically to avoid executing this particular individual? Is this a totally crazy theory, or what? Akiva Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eehrlich@ndc.co.il[SMTP:eehrlich@ndc.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 8:41 AM To: Ken Miller Subject: Capital Punishment - When and Why was it abolished? Hi Akiva, You raised an interesting question about the timing of the abolish of the death penalty. (By the way, where in the Talmud does the abolition take place? I always thought that the death penalty remained "on the books", but almost was never carried out.) If I was looking for an historical reason for the abolition of the death penalty I would concentrate more on Pontious Pilate than Jesus. 1) First of all Pilate was definitely an historical figure. I've seen his named on a small stone in the Israel museum. He was considered so cruel that he was recalled to Rome before his term was ended. Maybe the death penalty was abolished as a reaction to his regime. 2) There is no proof that Jesus actually lived. The only nearly contemporary reference to him (other than the New Testament which was compiled a list a few hundred years later) is in one of Josephus' books and that might have been added during a much later period. If Jesus did actually live, he was probably not a particularly prominent person during his own life time. Why would the Sanhedrin make such an important decision because of such a relatively unimportant (at the time) person? I'm no expert on the topic, but when you come to a conclusion, I certainly would like to read it. Regards, Ed Ehrlich From: Ken Miller Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:02 PM To: 'eehrlich@ndc.co.il' Subject: RE: Capital Punishment - When and Why was it abolished? Dear Ed, Thanks for responding! Two sources in English which mention the abolition of the death penalty are R. Aryah Kaplan's "Handbook of Jewish Thought", which gives quite a few sources in the sforim, and a two-volume set by ArtScroll on Jewish history (I forgot the title of the book) which was a translation of a recent Hebrew work. I was very intrigued by the procedure they used to accomplish this abolition: An ordinary beit din is not qualified to pass a death sentence. There are certain requirements, such as a minimum quorum of 23 judges, and so on. One of the lesser-known requirements is that court must actually be holding session on the Temple Mount itself. (Perhaps to insure a requisite amount of awe and fear on the part of the judges?) So all the Sanhedrin needed to to do, was to stop meeting where they had been (which was ON Har Habayit, but ADJACENT to the Beit Hamikdash rather than INSIDE it) and instead move to a location elsewhere in Yerushalayim. This enabled them to continue with all (most?) of their functions, yet be unqualified to perform executions. I've heard people say that there's no proof about Jesus ever existing. I prefer not to use that argument, mostly because it enables others to tell me about the lack of proof that Moshe ever existed. It seems to me that for the great majority of historical figures, a certain amount of *evidence* exists, but everyone has his own opinion on whether that evidence constitutes proof, or whether it can be ignored entirely. I would not be surprised to find people who claim that George Washington didn't exist. Therefore, since I have nothing to gain by saying that Jesus didn't exist, I am willing to presume that he did. Regarding your point about Pilate, it seems to me that despite his cruelty, the rabbis would have neither a reason, nor even a pretext, for executing him. As I recall, he *was* a legitimate government official. Killing Haman or Pilate or Hitler out of self-defense is one thing; but I don't see how one could make a court case out of it. In contrast, the rabbis of the day saw Jesus as a false moshiach, and as one who led his fellow Jews away from the Torah, which is a capital crime in Halacha. In closing, let me point out that even if Jesus' following was very small in numbers, the centuries since then attest to the powerful impression he must have made on those few people. And our rabbis have shown themselves to be awfully good at finding one small source for a gigantic disaster. Look at your question again: <<< Why would the Sanhedrin make such an important decision because of such a relatively unimportant (at the time) person? >>> Indeed, perhaps he *was* unimportant at time, but they accurately saw how important he'd become in the future, and tried to stop it while there was still a chance. Thanks again for writing Akiva Miller From: eehrlich@ndc.co.il[SMTP:eehrlich@ndc.co.il] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 5:15 AM To: Ken Miller Subject: Re[2]: Capital Punishment - When and Why was it abolished? Hi Akiva, Thank you very much for you reply. I found your information about the Sanhedrin very interesting. There is one thing that I would like to clarify. You wrote: >Regarding your point about Pilate, it seems to me that despite his >cruelty, the rabbis would have neither a reason, nor even a pretext, >for executing him. As I recall, he *was* a legitimate government >official. Killing Haman or Pilate or Hitler out of self-defense is >one thing; but I don't see how one could make a court case out of it. >In contrast, the rabbis of the day saw Jesus as a false moshiach, and >as one who led his fellow Jews away from the Torah, which is a >capital crime in Halacha. I think you misunderstood my point regarding Pilate. I don't think that the Sanhedrin had any intention of condemning him to death. They certainly didn't have any such authority over a major Roman official. My idea was that Pilate was an important part of the process of carrying out capital punishment. When the Sanhedrin sentenced someone to death they needed Pilate's assistance to carry out the sentence. My guess (and it's no more than a guess) is that the Sanhedrin might have wanted to distance themselves from the very cruel Pilate. This way they couldn't be accused of associating or cooperating with him. >In closing, let me point out that even if Jesus' following was very >small in numbers, the centuries since then attest to the powerful >impression he must have made on those few people. And our rabbis have >shown themselves to be awfully good at finding one small source for a >>gigantic disaster. Look at your question again: <<< Why would the >>Sanhedrin make such an important decision because of such a >relatively unimportant (at the time) person? >>> Indeed, perhaps he >*was* unimportant at time, but they accurately saw how important he'd >become >in the future, and tried to stop it while there was still a >chance. You might be right on this, but I still disagree. How much of the Christian religion is based on the historical Jesus is hard to guess. But I think that its success is based on its adaptation to conditions in the Roman empire and later in Europe. I find it hard to believe that the Sanhedrin could have anticipated this. Of course, Judaism at the end of the period of the Second Temple was quite popular itself (many Romans excepted the Noachide laws and some converted), so I could certainly be wrong. Good luck again on your research and if you come up with any conclusions, I would very much like to hear them. Regards, Ed