Yes, Virginia, there was a Sanhedrin.DCHindley wrote:However, I think that the temple authorities had the authority to rule on things pertaining to Judean ritual as it related to the temple.
As a matter of actual fact, this is of course the case.DCHindley wrote:There may even have been some cases where somebody, a priest or even a HP, had transgressed a tenet sacred to the majority by introducing a "novelty" to the sacred rituals, and suffered death for it.
As stated in some of the discussions linked, there was a popular feeling that the crime of blasphemy (or something similar) would even be justly answered by the lynching of the mob. This was seen as bringing God's justice upon the blasphemer. But that's just mob justice.
As stated in another, there was Talmudic discussion of symbolic execution, by touching the convicted with a stone. The actual execution, it is then implied, was left in the hands of the magistrate, even if the Sanhedrin had made deliberations (which were non-binding on the Roman governor).
And it is possible even for a Sanhedrin to convene and do things illegally.
The imagined distinction between death sentences for "religious" crimes as opposed to "civil" crimes is a fantasy imposed on the sources. It's strange that it does not occur to you that the illegality of the whole thing and the reason for doing it when there is no procurator present is that the Sanhedrin couldn't carry any such sentence without approval, since the supreme authority over life and death rested in this Roman governor.DCHindley wrote:Even if so, whatever Jacob the brother of Jesus the being-said Christ did to earn a death sentence at the hands of Ananus seems NOT to have been a religious novelty, as Ananus would then have the right to judge such a matter. He rather seems to have took it on himself to judge a civil matter in lieu of the Roman governor, clearly crossing boundaries of authority. Seems that the great Sanhedrin had other means for dealing with pesky folks that were not introducing serious religious novelties, such as 'accidental' falls and drowning.
In either case only the appointed governor, by means of his personal cognitio (investigation) or by carrying out punishment for a jury verdict (at the governor's discretion), would have the legal authority in the Roman province to execute the sentence of death.