Pre-crucifixion Scourging? Add-on Or Necessity?

[Marcius]

I'm doubtful whether scourging was a standard pre-crucifixion procedure.
In the case of Jesus, remember

• When Pilate ordered him to be scourged, he was hoping that would satisfy the Temple priests as sufficient punishment
• When carrying his cross to Golgotha he collapsed and had to be helped by Simon of Cyrene
• He died in less than 3 hours, the condemned were expected to live at least 6 (till beyond sunset)

...

Then there's the Puteolan law; one can infer from it that whipping and perhaps other not so pleasant things involving pitch, wax and candles were common as the preliminary to the execution itself.

Jesus' scourging was a separate sentence, which is quite often forgotten.

 

[Eulalia]

Exactly, Pilate thought and probably hoped, it would be the end of the matter.

I can well believe that I'd be whipped along the way,
and - especially as a woman - subjected to all sorts of abuse and sadism,
but if convicts were seriously scourged,
then crucifixion was simply a matter of hanging them up to finish dying,
they'd already have been half-dead.

 

[Marcius]

...but if convicts were seriously scourged,
then crucifixion was simply a matter of hanging them up to finish dying,
they'd already have been half-dead.

Sometimes it must have happened that way. Philo of Alexandria describing the persecution of Alexandrian Jews in 38 CE:

[Prefect of Egypt Avillius Flaccus] ordered the crucifixion of the living, to whom the season offered a short-lived though not permanent reprieve in order to postpone the punishment though not to remit it altogether. And he did this after maltreating them with the lash in the middle of the theatre and torturing them with fire and the sword.

Now that's Alexandria, where it was a long way from the theatre somewhere near the port to wherever outside the gates the crosses were raised. They must've been three-quarters dead.

 

[Tygorn]

Good points.
Well, we all are aware that the "taste" regarding our "special interest" is different.

I think that there was a difference between a public Roman execution by crucifixion and bloody spectacles for "enternainment" purposes, conducted (for example) in the arena with gladiators or wild animals.
In a crucifixion a prisoner was tortured to death by inflicting as much physical pain as possible over a relative long period of time. But the victim had to die. That was first priority. The entertainment value was secondary, deterrence and execution by torture was the main goal.
In the arena it served different purposes, I would presume. As far as we know, crucifixions were also conducted in the arena and they may have been different from executions conducted (for example) at "Calvary".

I presume, many of you know the famous movie "QUO VADIS" from 1951 with Peter Ustinov in his best role, as Emperor Nero.
That discussion reminds me very much of a scene in this movie, when the first "Christians" are being crucified and burnt alive in the Colosseum, they start singing and chanting and Nero is most irritated by that and complains why the victims have not been tortured or flogged to prevent that and his Praetorean guard commander agrees - and in later scenes we see that further victims are indeed getting tortured before led in the arena.

So we see, that even classic Hollywood filmmakers were aware of this "problem" in ancient Rome punishment procedure and the question, to flog or not to flog...

best regards
Ty.

 

[cire]

I'm doubtful whether scourging was a standard pre-crucifixion procedure.
In the case of Jesus, remember

• When Pilate ordered him to be scourged, he was hoping that would satisfy the Temple priests as sufficient punishment
• When carrying his cross to Golgotha he collapsed and had to be helped by Simon of Cyrene
• He died in less than 3 hours, the condemned were expected to live at least 6 (till beyond sunset)

If scourging were part of my sentence, I think it would have to be carried out separately,
and I'd spend some time in a death cell recovering sufficient strength
to put up an exemplary final performance on my cross.

That is a good aspect, Eulalia.
I'm an atheist and have my doubts about the complete issue, but you are right.
When the condemned was flogged to heavy, it would have been taking away a lot of the entertainment effects.
It must have taken specialists that knew exactly what they ere doing, in case the victims where whipped before the
march to the crucifiction.
Concerning the propaganda, the whipping could have made sense.
Sure not like in some Jesus movies.
Nobody would survive such violence shown there in the first place, and then even carry the Crossbeam to the Crucifiction site.
But a public stripping, and some well dosed lashes before the march, with the chance to put the clothes back on after the whipping, could have been an option.
There has probably been many ways, how the crucifictions were handled.
When there was maybe just a small group of Victims, the Executioners were able to give some quality treatment.

 

[GabriellaSivilla]

I have always been wondering if somebody could undergo a heavy scourging and anyhow give a good show during the crucifixion thereafter. My understanding is that whipping was quite wide spread in the Roman times, and for centuries later, and hardly it has been considered as a death penality. It was rather a punishment, of various degrees. Even for Jesus, this was supposed to satisfy the Pharises, and after that He should be set free. And everybody was surprised that He could not survive more than 3 hours on the cross, even after this ordeal. So that it seems that even if hard whipping was something horrible and gruesome, the condamned should survive and have enough strength for the rest.

Scourging on the back, even administered with a whip loaded with bones shreds, pieces of metal or even hooks, would tear the skin, the tissues underneath, cause unbearable pain and blood loss, but it is hardly possible that could cause fatal injuries, unless carried out to the extreme. Blows given to the buttocks or the limbs are painful, but both are well padded with tissues. Weights on the whip tails could even break a rib or two, but it is difficult to directly cause death, unless they are given at the front of the condamned, where direct hit could compromise a vital organ in the chest or abdomen. And in fact it is quite rate to see a condamned undergoing a frontal whipping.

So I guess that in order to make the ordeal of a condamned to death by crucifixion as gruesome and painful as possible it is very likely that scourging, even heavy scouring, was widely administered, probably with other tortures suitable for the occasion.

Sweet sweet kisses Gabriella

 

[thehangingtree]

I have always been wondering if somebody could undergo a heavy scourging and anyhow give a good show during the crucifixion thereafter. My understanding is that whipping was quite wide spread in the Roman times, and for centuries later, and hardly it has been considered as a death penality. It was rather a punishment, of various degrees. Even for Jesus, this was supposed to satisfy the Pharises, and after that He should be set free. And everybody was surprised that He could not survive more than 3 hours on the cross, even after this ordeal. So that it seems that even if hard whipping was something horrible and gruesome, the condamned should survive and have enough strength for the rest.

Scourging on the back, even administered with a whip loaded with bones shreds, pieces of metal or even hooks, would tear the skin, the tissues underneath, cause unbearable pain and blood loss, but it is hardly possible that could cause fatal injuries, unless carried out to the extreme. Blows given to the buttocks or the limbs are painful, but both are well padded with tissues. Weights on the whip tails could even break a rib or two, but it is difficult to directly cause death, unless they are given at the front of the condamned, where direct hit could compromise a vital organ in the chest or abdomen. And in fact it is quite rate to see a condamned undergoing a frontal whipping.

So I guess that in order to make the ordeal of a condamned to death by crucifixion as gruesome and painful as possible it is very likely that scourging, even heavy scouring, was widely administered, probably with other tortures suitable for the occasion.

Sweet sweet kisses Gabriella

It would certainly save on the guards' hourly and overtime wages...

 

[Gibbs505]

I have always been wondering if somebody could undergo a heavy scourging and anyhow give a good show during the crucifixion thereafter. My understanding is that whipping was quite wide spread in the Roman times, and for centuries later, and hardly it has been considered as a death penality. It was rather a punishment, of various degrees. Even for Jesus, this was supposed to satisfy the Pharises, and after that He should be set free. And everybody was surprised that He could not survive more than 3 hours on the cross, even after this ordeal. So that it seems that even if hard whipping was something horrible and gruesome, the condamned should survive and have enough strength for the rest.

Scourging on the back, even administered with a whip loaded with bones shreds, pieces of metal or even hooks, would tear the skin, the tissues underneath, cause unbearable pain and blood loss, but it is hardly possible that could cause fatal injuries, unless carried out to the extreme. Blows given to the buttocks or the limbs are painful, but both are well padded with tissues. Weights on the whip tails could even break a rib or two, but it is difficult to directly cause death, unless they are given at the front of the condamned, where direct hit could compromise a vital organ in the chest or abdomen. And in fact it is quite rate to see a condamned undergoing a frontal whipping.

So I guess that in order to make the ordeal of a condamned to death by crucifixion as gruesome and painful as possible it is very likely that scourging, even heavy scouring, was widely administered, probably with other tortures suitable for the occasion.

Sweet sweet kisses Gabriella

Indeed, when you consider that many a sailor has survived a beating from the cat!
And they were usually given more then 39 strokes!

 

[nux581]

I believe the Romans had lead balls and pointy bits of bone worked into their scourges. Must have really torn up the skin.

 

[Gibbs505]

I believe the Romans had lead balls and pointy bits of bone worked into their scourges. Must have really torn up the skin.

It would have been really nasty!

 

[GabriellaSivilla]

Well, I have also read somewhere that Roman law prescribed scourging before crucifixion; anybody here know more about that?

 

[King Diocletian]

Mark's gospel, chapter 15, suggests Christ lasted six hours on the cross not three (3rd hour to 9th). Matthew and Luke say there was darkness from 6th hour to 9th, when Christ died, but he'd clearly been on the cross for some time before the 6th hour. John gives no indication. I'm not sure any of that proves anything but it does suggest that even if a victim is so exhausted they have to be helped to carry the cross, 6 hours is a reasonable time to last.

Personally I'm pro-scourging (if that's not too ridiculous a phrase) partly because it adds to the whole ritual. It's an extra phase. I realise that there need to be limits and that a Mel Gibson-style flogging is almost certainly over-the-top, but I wonder also if there's a law of diminishing returns. If you want to make the execution an event people watch, if you want to impress the state's authority, is it really more effective to have somebody last two or three days or to have their bloodied body expire in a few hours? As a spectator, I'd want to watch the prisoner flogged, then have the humiliating march, then be nailed and hung, rather than extra hours of hanging. Plus, the longer the victim lasts, the longer somebody has to guard the cross.

On a slightly different point, a scourge with pieces of bone or lead obviously would do serious damage, but if you used a lighter whip, how much time would it really take off the crucifixion? In the British army, sentences of several hundred lashes were not uncommon and soldiers survived (I think I read somewhere that the army cat was made of leather and was far less feared than the navy cat which was made of rope, but I can't find the source now). Or there are plenty of links on this site to videos of actresses taking 50 or more lashes or strokes of a (lightish) cane. They clearly hurt - a lot - but those actresses afterwards aren't half-dead. My point being that there are ways of beating a victim before crucifixion, hurting, humiliating and subduing them, that wouldn't take hours off their survival time.

 

[PhilX]

Yes I always thought Christ lasted six hours on the cross suggesting they raised him up around nine in the morning. If this was a surprisingly short time then for me it suggests that it wasn't the scourging that shortened his ordeal but some other injury, most likely internal bleeding or something like that from a wound received in the beating up he underwent or falling whilst carrying the patibulum, smashed ribs, punctured lung? I am no medical expert so these are guesses.

Whipping or scourging to lacerate the skin of the shoulders, back, buttocks, & even perhaps the soles of feet seem very likely adjuncts to crucifixion, after all it was intended to be no picnic, in fact it seems to be the most sadistic punishment ever devised; lengthy torture using all manner of nasty features less administered for hastening death but rather just to cause more prolonged pain. The nakedness added a cruel addition of shame for the victims together with their bodily functions of pissing & shitting publicly in front of onlookers. The possibility in this portfolio of degrading torture of anal or vaginal penetration by an upturned spike or carved phallus attached to the stipes seems more than likely to me.

 

[nux581]

Again, I keep thinking back to the need to "prep" the victim for event-free nailing. As a pudgy, 5'2" over-fed and under-exercised female, I am sure the alto section of a small church choir could subdue me. And I WANT to be crucified! ( ;-o ) But a desperate, burly field-hand? A brutal scourging ala Gibson's movie would be just the thing. Put the poor lad into hypovolemic shock, then prod him along weighed down by his cross, and the carnifex crew can hammer the iron spikes through his flesh without undue exertion or nasty surprises.

I wish I could remember where it was that I read that women were scourged on our buttocks and thighs , because our backs could not support the deep tearing-apart inflicted by the whip. Personally, I find the thought of hanging from the wood with an intact back but torn-up bum both unsettling and exciting to contemplate.

 

[naildance]

What about branding wounds before crucifixion?

 

[nux581]

What about branding wounds before crucifixion?

Not sure what you mean. If branding prior to execution had been standard practice, I would have expected some accounts would have come down to us. My own guess is that branding was used for those expected to continue on in society in.some form (slave, whatever).

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

Not sure what you mean. If branding prior to execution had been standard practice, I would have expected some accounts would have come down to us. My own guess is that branding was used for those expected to continue on in society in.some form (slave, whatever).

"Branding wounds" sounds like he's talking about cauterizing with a hot iron to stop bleeding.

 

[nux581]

When I was young, I saw a life-sized, ultra-realistic depiction of a crucified Jesus, evidently carved in Spain. His entire torso was covered in wounds from scourging. The wounds were mostly scoops dug out of his skin, with the flap of skin hanging there. My idiot grandfather, a religious fanatic, had dragged me to this church and that painted carving haunts me to this day. No way would anyone survived a hot iron cauterizing all those tears. There were too many to count!

Of course, I have no idea if this was a realistic depiction or not, but the priest told me it had been carved, "Long ago, by people in Spain who would know."

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

No way would anyone survived a hot iron cauterizing all those tears.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[dismasdolben]

Yes I always thought Christ lasted six hours on the cross suggesting they raised him up around nine in the morning. If this was a surprisingly short time then for me it suggests that it wasn't the scourging that shortened his ordeal but some other injury, most likely internal bleeding or something like that from a wound received in the beating up he underwent or falling whilst carrying the patibulum, smashed ribs, punctured lung? I am no medical expert so these are guesses.

Whipping or scourging to lacerate the skin of the shoulders, back, buttocks, & even perhaps the soles of feet seem very likely adjuncts to crucifixion, after all it was intended to be no picnic, in fact it seems to be the most sadistic punishment ever devised; lengthy torture using all manner of nasty features less administered for hastening death but rather just to cause more prolonged pain. The nakedness added a cruel addition of shame for the victims together with their bodily functions of pissing & shitting publicly in front of onlookers. The possibility in this portfolio of degrading torture of anal or vaginal penetration by an upturned spike or carved phallus attached to the stipes seems more than likely to me.

You should take a look, then, at this website: http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com.eg/2010/06/crucifixion-bodily-support-part-1.html