Executive power 2000 years ago

[Blue Bird]

You can find informations about that in biblical commentaries.

Do you have a source? I have some commentaries but haven't found information about that issue so far.

[searchinmyroots]

Well, that still is a good question

Thanks!

I'm not sure if I want to see the Romans and probably get crucified as well. 

My Christian friends don't know why Jesus had to be killed by the Romans but Stephen not. And I like to discuss it here because you people lived in Israel at that time and it is part of your history (even if you doubt some facts).

Well, from what I've read, Pilate was a pretty ruthless leader and didn't really have a soft side so that is why I see doubt in the story. I haven't heard of any other instances in recorded history where Piltate had an annual event letting one person go free, although I may be wrong in my assumption.

Also, there were thousands of Jews and others who were crucified during his reign. I haven't heard of any other time when the Jews help to make a decision as to whether or not a person gets crucified.

Too many scenarios for me that don't seem to jive with how the Roman government was run at that time if you look at history outside of the Christian bible.

[robrecht]

Thanks a lot for this detailed information! So it could well be that Stephen was stoned in accordance with Roman law because Pilate wasn't around. 

It's very hard to say anything definitive about whatever events actually occurred from the legendary and highly stylized account in Acts.

1.) Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law. (John 18:31) 
2.) You take him and crucify him. (John 19:6). - Could this also be a statement out of despairation because he had trouble to silence the masses?

I don't think so. The Christian accounts of Jesus' trials, which are not historical, tend to excuse Pilate (with Pilate finding no guilt in Jesus) as a way of demonstrating to their audience that their movement was not a threat to the powers that be. Consequently they also exaggerate (or perhaps even invent) the responsibility of the Judean leaders (and even the Jewish people) for the death of Jesus. This also fed into the Flavian propaganda about their great defeat of the Judean revolt. The initial animosity of the messianic sect toward the Judean leaders may have begun out of a sense of persecution, but over the centuries it would eventually result in much greater, horrific persecution and mass murder of Jews by Christians.

[Ismq]

You can find informations about that in biblical commentaries.

Do you have a source? I have some commentaries but haven't found information about that issue so far.

You can download biblehub app.you can find commentaries online also.

[robrecht]

Helen Bond presented a nice concise summary of the state of this question and evidence in her 1994 thesis. You can also follow up on her references for more detail, but for now, see Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, pp 27-28:

The supreme judicial competence of the prefect or procurator of Judaea to execute capital sentences was linked in all probability with the curtailment of the rights of Jewish courts to execute capital sentences. Although the evidence from Judaea is not entirely conclusive and the precise competence of the highest Jewish courts is still a hotly debated issue(1), the prevailing scholarly opinion is that Judaean courts did not have the right to carry out a capital sentence. This would have prevented native courts from eliminating the leaders of pro-Roman factions. Sherwin-White argues that the only places which were allowed to retain the right of capital punishment were highly privileged communities known as civitates libertae, ‘communities which for past services to the Roman state were made independent of the authority of the Roman magistrates in local administration and enjoyed unrestricted jurisdiction over their own citizens’(2). No such extraordinary concessions were likely to be found in Judaea. The Jewish authorities may however have been able to convene a court to discuss a capital case and even to reach a verdict, but the final decision seems to have rested with the governor. The gospel accounts of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth back this up, indicating that after a preliminary hearing by a Jewish court the case had to go before the governor.
 
(1) Evidence generally brought in favour of the Jewish courts having capital powers under the Romans are: the rule concerning Gentile trespassers in the temple (War 6.124-226, Antiq 15.417; also confirmed by an inscription, RA 23 (1882) p 220) which may be an extraordinary concession; the execution of any Jew trespassing in the Holy of Holies (Philo, Leg 307) which may be simply hypothetical; the death of James (AD 62, Antiq 220.200-203) which occurred at a time when Judaea had no governor and may have been illegal; and the death of Stephen (Acts 6:12-15,7:57-59) which may have occurred during the reign of Agrippa I (AD 41-44). Winter suggests that the penalty of strangulation was introduced after the deprivation of the Jewish right to judge capital matters in AD 70 (Trial, pp 67-74); however, this theory has not been proved.
 
Arguments in favour of the curtailment of Jewish powers of capital punishment are: the statement of Jn 18:31 (though this could be theologically motivated); the gospel accounts generally; and several rabbinic sources, though it must be admitted that these can only be used with care – Mcgillat Taanit 16, Mekhiltas of R. Ishmael, Simeon ben Yohai on Ex 21:14, jSanh 1,1/18a, jSanh 7,2/24b, Avona Zarah 8b, Sanh 4/a. For a fuller analysis of these rabbinic texts see Lemonon, Pilate, pp 81-90. See more generally Catchpole, Trial, pp 236-234; Lohse, TDNT, 7 p 865; Kilpatrick, Trial.

(2) Such as that on Rhodes (which subsequently lost the right after crucifying a Roman citizen), Dio 60.24.4; Sherwin-White, Roman, p 37.