Judea was a separate kingdom for a long time, and in Jesus’ time, was part of a larger Roman province, comprising Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. The Herodian client kingship included Galilee, where Jesus was born.  It was important to Matthew and Luke to say he was born in Judea, because that was where the Messiah was supposed to be born. 

Even in Old Testament times, there were two major Jewish nations, of which Judea was one. 

If you meant Palestinian Jews in ancient times, probably best to say that.  The term was sometimes used to refer to all of Palestine, but generally by Romans who didn’t take the time to know the history of the people they’d conquered. 

That’s why I asked, because it was unclear if you meant specifically Jews in Judea proper, or all Jews in Palestine.  It seems you meant the latter, but still not sure what you mean by day-to-day affairs.  Most Jews in that time period couldn’t read, of course.  Do you mean did they ask local rabbis what the Torah instructed them to do in certain areas?  I think many probably did, since of course there were the dietary codes and other religious strictures that required interpretation.  That would be true of all observant Jews to some extent, but that doesn’t mean everybody born Jewish was equally concerned with such matters, as would be true with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. 

It’s an interesting question, properly put.  However, how could the religious texts of any conquered people be considered binding in Roman courts?  And clearly Roman courts got the last word. 

Jesus was technically condemned by the Sanhedrin, as we have the story, in part for allegedly claiming to be the Messiah or perhaps even a divine being (I suppose this could be interpreted as violating ‘thou shalt have no other god before me’)–but there is no reason to trust any of the gospel accounts about this, since none of Jesus’ followers would have been present, and beliefs about Jesus had changed a great deal by the time the gospels were written.  We don’t have any records from Jewish sources, and Josephus apparently didn’t know.  

And in any event, the death sentence still had to be passed by Pilate.  Jewish courts had some limited authority over their own, but real authority was reserved for Rome.   

In a religious tribunal, religious documents–or rather, interpretations of those documents–carry weight.  But nowhere else.  Even during the time of the Inquisition, they would condemn someone for heresy,  then hand that person over to the secular arm for punishment. 

Evidence of many things about that time period is lacking, and not just regarding the administration of Jewish Law. But in that case, how are you so sure of the nature of the first Sanhedrin? A cursory search indicates there’s a lot we don’t know about the nature of that body.  In any event, the earliest Jewish legal bodies clearly were religious in nature, and in Jesus’ time the Sanhedrin was pretty much entirely limited to matters of the Jewish Law, the secular law being Rome’s. 

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Aren’t many of today’s secular laws often loosely or inconsistently enforced?  Do most Catholic parish priests really check to see who has taken confession and refrained from divorce before administering communion?  And who keeps track of that, in this information age we live in?  Best as I can tell, nobody.  I would assume that this is not unique to our time, and that from time to time and place to place, laws might be strictly or laxly enforced. 

There’s not much doubt about whether the Jerusalem Sanhedrin’s authority was diminished under Roman rule, though.  Caiaphas the high priest, presided over the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus, as we are told, and served entirely at Rome’s pleasure, had to hand Jesus over to Pilate for punishment.  In rural areas, perhaps sometimes such bodies exercised more power and got away with it.  It was never a body that had absolute power (since originally it would have been controlled by a Jewish king), but its power under a Roman Emperor was quite limited, and they had to tread very softly indeed. 

It would be helpful if you could be more specific about what sparks your curiosity on this matter.  This is not an area I know much about, but at least I know what I don’t know.  🙂

FMV, just to follow up, Wikipedia articles on subjects of this type are generally very well vetted, and based on past experience with articles devoted to far less weighty subjects, I doubt anyone without significant scholarly credentials would find his edits lasting very long.  This is an area in which scholars are not necessarily always in agreement, so everybody is going to see some problems with the conclusions others have made. 

Obviously Josephus is our best source, but not an adequate one to answer all the questions at hand. 

The Sanhedrin had to consider Rome’s authority at all times–as did Pilate himself.  Both Caiaphas and Pilate were replaced not long after Jesus died (though not because of Jesus, I’m pretty sure). 

Yeah, you know I’m not bren, right?

Better save your energies for the next time he gets to his computer.  😉

He would notice none of them say Mark edited Matthew.

But he’s still a better conversational match for you than I.

Adieu.

😉

I’m not the one who reopened communications with the word ‘butthurt’. 

There is no way anyone who uses that term gets to talk about ‘personal slights’.  (And I assure you, none of your posts have ever made me feel the least bit anally violated.)  You take things personally, then accuse others of doing so.  For me, it’s about interesting conversations.  I have yet to have one with you.  And yet you seem to keep trying to re-engage me.  Why?  Well, never mind why. 

Work day’s done, see you in another life.  Hopefully a better one.  🙂