All four of the gospels state that Jesus was tried for blasphemy in front of the Sanhedrin but then passed on to the Roman authorities for execution. It has been debated for some years as to whether the Jews were actually permitted to execute criminals. Many Christian publications seem to take the view that the Jews were allowed to stone criminals, but not to crucify them. This raises the question of why, if the Sanhedrin could execute criminals, did they bother to get the Romans to execute Jesus?
The Sanhedrin is supposed to have originated with Moses, according to the Mishnah, but is thought by most scholars to have originated in the Persian era when the Jews were under a foreign power. The Sanhedrin is defined by Emil Schürer as "an aristocratic council, with its seat in Jerusalem and endowed with total or quasi total power in matters of government and jurisdiction over the Jewish people" [1]
Herod the Great, when he came to power, is said by Josephus to have executed all the members of the Sanhedrin (Ant. xiv 9, 14) so the new Sanhedrin was submissive to the Roman government. The Sanhedrin consisted of scholars (Pharisees), high-priestly aristocrats and laymen (Sadducees). At the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin was restricted to Judĉa, and so Jesus was not under their control while he was in Galilee. Depending on their attitude at the time to the Sanhedrin, Jews outside Judĉa might or might not obey its commands.
The Sanhedrin was the supreme court, not only for religious matters, but for administrative and judicial matters not dealt with by lesser courts, or reserved for the Governor. If lower courts could not reach a decision on Jewish law, then the case was passed to the Sanhedrin (there was no appeal system) as the highest court. Once an issue was decided by them, the lesser courts were obliged on pain of death to obey them. According to the Mishnah there were several cases and persons which could only be decided by the Sanhedrin:
The Sanhedrin had its own police force with the ability to make arrests, in order to fulfil this duty.
There have been many questions as to whether the Sanhedrin had the right to both try capital cases (which would be indicated by those above) and also to execute punishment for them. ySanh 18a, 24b states that the right to try capital cases was taken from Isrĉl forty years before the destruction of the Temple. This would put it about 30CE, which is three years before the traditional date for Jesus' execution. Scholars such as J. Lehmann have defended this saying as correct, but scholars such as Lohse and others think it is a round figure for the beginning of direct rule by the Romans (either 63, or 6bCE, depending on your view). This would bear out the claim made in John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death". There are, however, some scholars who argue that the Jews were able to execute:
Schürer comments that neither side can be effectively proven, given the lack of contemporary documents (the Mishnah was written after the destruction of the Temple and may represent what an 'ideal' Sanhedrin ought to do, as they could no longer have one based in Jerusalem). The Johannine statement that the Jews could not execute, is unparalleled. The view that the Sanhedrin had lost its power to execute in 30CE is a late interpretation of an uncertain and obscure passage - stating that the high court had to evacuate its traditional seat, the Hall of the Hewn Stone, and move to the Bazaar. Philo's letter is of a theorectical nature. The threat of death to Gentiles who trespassed in the Temple can be seen as legalised lynching, as can the execution of Stephen (only, legalised in the writings of the NT authors, it could well have been 'mob justice' at the time). The notice on the Temple could also have been a warning from the Jewish authorities that they could not be held responsible by the Romans for whatever might happen to a Gentile who disobeyed the order. Josephus also seems to suggest that the notice was put there with Roman approval - so it might not be that Jews had the right to execute, but that the Romans understood how important an issue this was to them (there had been and were to be several riots and insurrections over the issue of the Temple) and made an exception. Josephus also narrates a case of one Jesus, son of Ananias who had been saying that doom would come upon the Temple. He was arrested and flogged by the Jewish leaders, but when they took him to the Governor, he was let go - they were not able just to execute him, but required the approval of the Governor.
It is also worth noting that none of these arguments that the Jews could execute necessarily preclude them having to get Roman confirmation of a capital judgement after the Sanhedrin had reached a verdict.The case of the adulterous woman in John (and of the priest's daughter) suggests that the Jews were able and willing to execute - a contradiction of John 18. R E Brown suggests that it is possible that an exception was made for this as for Temple trespass by the Romans. Acts also has examples of Sanhedrin judgements to execute - again contradicting John - which may mean that the Jews were able to execute under certain conditions. Either that or the NT writers decided to demonise them at various points and it was just mob justice.
Brown posits several reasons why Caiaphas did not order Jesus' execution (Brown believes the Jews were able to execute for transgressions of moral or cultic laws):
In some examples of other Roman provinces, this appears to be the case. In Egypt, Jews could sentence people to death, but only subject to a Roman ruler. HOwever, in the province of Cyrenaica (Grĉco-Roman province), an edict has come to light which says that in a capital case involving a Greek, the jury should be half-Hellene and half-Roman, which suggests that in some cases local courts were allowed to sentence people to death without consulting the Governor. This edict defined two types of capital case, one which could be decided by trial by jury, and another which the Governor had to investigate/choose the jury for himself.
So it seems there is not a clear-cut answer to be found on this issue. John categorically states at one point in his gospel that the Jews could not execute, but at other times in the same gospel, and at other points in the NT it is said that they could execute people. The Mishnah states they could, as do Philo and Josephus. To my mind, these constitute enough proof to say the Jews could execute. If, as Brown suggests, the Jews could only execute for moral or cultic offenses, Jesus, on a charge of blasphemy, would certainly fall under that heading. If this was the case, and they could legally execute, why did they not do so with Jesus? There was no particular reason for them having to execute him at Passover, they could have waited until the feast was over if possible political embarrassment to Pilate was their motivation. As I mentioned above, there are easier and better ways to silence or discredit an opponent than killing them - because a person's reputation does not end with death, it has an unfortunate tendency to grow with time. If the Jews could execute and the gospel-writers choose to say they could not, it could be that - as most of the gospels are supposed to have been written post-70ce, that they were demonising the Romans because they were the enemy of the Jewish people. It could also have been that they thought Jesus would appear to be a more important figure if they had him executed by the Romans rather than killed by the Jews like a common criminal. Whatever their reason, to my mind, the Jews could have executed Jesus, but the gospels state that they did not.
The Governor of Judĉa was either a Procurator or a Prefect (Tactitus mentions Pilate as a Procurator). According to R E Brown ("The Death of the Messiah") a procurator was the personal representative of an individual and governed the province, whereas a prefect dealt with financial matters. Whatever his title, it is known that the Governor of a province held the "ius gladii", a term about which there is some debate. Some people have taken this as meaning simply that the Governor could execute, but A H M Jones contends that the ius gladii referred to the right to put to death, without consulting the emperor, a soldier who was a Roman citizen. However, ordinary use of this term appears to support the idea that the ius gladii was the right to execute all provincials with the exception of aristocrats. Josephus wrote that the first Roman Governor was sent with the right to execute any, and there is nothing that seems to imply this was then revoked.
1. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ" Emil Schürer, (Revised Edition, T & T Clark, 1979) p200