• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Pre-crucifixion Scourging? Add-on Or Necessity?

Go to CruxDreams.com
Sorry to keep harping on this theme of gospel reliability, but here goes.
Mark flat out says that the crucifixion occurred at the "third hour" of the day following the "first day of the unleavened bread". It gets dark at the sixth hour, and Jesus dies at the ninth.
Luke and Matthew concur on the day and a lot of stuff happens (the "evildoers" in Luke argue, for example, and they revile Jesus in unison in Matthew--and John agrees, and the priests mock him in both) before we are told it gets dark at the sixth hour and Jesus dies on the ninth.
In John Pilate is still dithering at the sixth hour on the day BEFORE the first day of the unleavened bread, but Jesus still dies at the ninth hour, and it is dark the whole time. Also, only John says Pilate uses scourging as an alternative.
Only Luke has Jesus sent to Herod (as the late Giza Vermes says, with the night trial and all the time is pretty tight--so maybe Jesus almost died of exhaustion from being rushed around?). Herod has him mocked--nobody scourges him, Pilate only suggests it as an alternative.
Matthew has soldiers mock him, but they do not scourge him (and it's the WHOLE cohort: 600 men, which seems more than a little ludicrous to me). Matthew is the only one who says the tomb was guarded.
Mark likewise doesn't say he was scourged, but only mocked by the whole cohort. In Mark, the Gospel ends with an empty tomb and no guard, and this was so unsatisfying to people that there had to be an additional ending tacked on to give the gospel we know today.
Sometimes the rooster crows three times for Simon, sometimes twice, sometimes once.
There are detailed scenes and precise dialogue with Pilate and Jesus and the Sanhedrin--Mark even has Pilate's wife come in and tell him about her dream. So, how did the gospel writers know all this? Memoirs? Pilate's wife wrote one? They also seemed to know exactly what happened in the night trial (which John does not have at all).
Only John breaks legs and pierces sides.
Vermes thinks Barabbas is historical, since he's mentioned in all four. But that doesn't mean he was an insurrectionist and murderer, a threat to order. Pilate (who was such a tyrant that Gaius (Caligula) of all people recalled him at the request of the Jerusalem authorities) would certainly not release such a person. Most likely, there was a Barabbas released coincidentally and this was seized upon, embellished, and made part of the legend. Paula Fredriksen points out that "the crowd comes from nowhere"--no hint of lots of people ready to kill Jesus after honoring him the Sunday before. It would be very foolish for Pilate be intimidated by a crowd cobbled together by the religious authorities--this is the same Pilate, after all, who marched into Jerusalem with imperial eagles and beat the hell out of protestors.
It is clear Jesus was crucified. It is clear that some people believed he rose from the dead (but the stories about it and the initial witnesses and the location of the apparitions vary wildly). The details are really problematic. Lots of history is distorted by additional fictitious detail written by the winners--especially ancient history. Is all the stuff about Alexander the Great really true--taming the wild horse, for example? We only really know Socrates from Plato. King Arthur and Robin Hood, "Good Queen Bess", Washington and Lincoln, all have lots of myth attached to them.
We aren't even sure how crucifixion was done, and methods probably varied. It surely defeats the purpose of an effective torture to scourge mercilessly beforehand. If one is supposed to carry a cross, why weaken the condemned so much that he can't do so?
There were three executed that day. If the whole cohort was busy with Jesus, who scourged the other two?

I should add something else. It took 300 years or so for people to settle on the Trinity and decide just who Jesus really was. The early Christian movement had every incentive to show that Jesus was not a threat, that if he hadn't been framed Pilate would have had no reason to even notice him, and that the Romans did NOT initiate the execution--leaving the Jews as the scapegoats. Also, Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and certainly by John's time there was every incentive to demonize the Jews who didn't go along (and John did just that). I'm not taking sides about whether Jesus was executed justly, I am only saying that as a John the Baptist type he was certainly someone the authorities would worry about. The Baptist, rightly or not, certainly threatened Herod's political legitimacy. Dictatorships like the Roman Empire can be unjust without being arbitrary or stupidly cruel. The gospellers had every reason to make Jesus out as an innocent, and their movement as a peaceful one respecting Roman authority. "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are God's." And they really had to come up with something to explain Jesus' crucifixion to potential converts. The Romans were actually pretty tolerant of all kinds of religion, as long as it didn't threaten public order or imperial interests. Nero was a tyrant, and certainly he used the Christians as scapegoats, but he wasn't just irrationally lashing out and could have just as easily picked on someone else. Josephus' "Isis" story about the crucifixion of Ide and the priests says that Tiberius acted because they scammed a Roman patrician, not because they were just there--they'd been there for some time without any molestation from the Emporer.
 
Last edited:
I think the scourging would be part of the process of the crucifixion used by the Romans because it contributed towards the warning for their enemies about revolting. How much the person would be scourged I think would be dependent on the person. I would think that a female or Roman citizen who was betraying the empire would receive less of a scourging. With men, criminals, prisoners of war, and slaves would receive a more harsh scourging. Also to consider would be how much torture a person would receive before the scourging (rape, whippings. torture devices etc.). The scourging I see as the first step of the crucifixion process and to get to the walk (2nd step) then the crucifixion itself (3rd step) a person would have to have enough strength to complete the whole process itself for the Romans to maximize the effect of the warning to people not to revolt against the empire. If people had to help with walk I think it would reduce emphasis that the Romans are in control. If the Romans used slaves to help with the walk they would have to be humiliated also to have the desired effect and I think the Romans would not care if their slaves were humiliated along with the person being crucified.
 
Last Easter I watched a television documentary that made claims to change the whole history surrounding the circumstances of Christ’s death. I cannot remember the channel, & of course a lot of these ‘histories’ need to be taken with a dose of salt!

This is about the limit of how I remember it..

What was claimed was that Herod Antipas was very dissatisfied with his legacy of only a quarter of his father’s will (Herod the Great), he only got Judea.

When the emperor Tiberius retired to an easy life in Capri he left Lucius Sejanus to run things from Rome. Herod Antipas & Sejanus became allies & Herod hoped that through this alliance he could regain the whole of the legacy divided amongst him & his siblings.

To placate Rome Herod actually encouraged Jesus because of his populist message. Herod hoped that allowing Jesus to go about preaching peace etc. he was minimising surrection (of course he wasn’t!).

There is a historical problem this programme reckoned with all the events of Easter Week happening so quickly. Also the entry of Christ into Jerusalem with palm fronds strewn in his way was (for some reason I cannot remember) not possible in the spring. It was far more likely to have been in October AD 31. They questioned how an individual causing a serious ruction in the Temple could have escaped immediate arrest there & then.

What they proposed was that Jesus was invited by Herod to bring his teaching into Jerusalem & that the event was built up beforehand, hence the welcoming crowds. Sometime shortly after he was there he challenged the money lenders using the Temple for their activity, something that Herod & his constables maintaining the peace ignored or perhaps even approved of. So for a while Jesus & his entourage were enjoying the hospitality of Jerusalem.

The problem was that because of corruption Lucius Sejanus fell foul of the senate & was arrested, strangled & torn to pieces by a mob in Rome late AD 31. Herod Antipas had suddenly lost his Roman backer. In fact to keep what he had & to seek support from Sejanus’s enemies in Rome Herod had to reverse everything he had been seen to have been doing. Jesus became a problem.

So the programme thought Jesus was arrested in late AD 31 or early the next year & held in prison, Herod not really knowing what to do with him. On Pilate’s arrival (I think) Herod decided that Jesus had to die, &, to show that he had changed what he was doing before, he ordered that Jesus was to die very publicly. This was most likely in the spring of AD 32.

The young female historian who was adding the expert stuff said at the end of the programme that the public execution for Jesus was decided to be crucifixion. I liked the way she added with an eager glint in her eye that Jesus was also crucified totally naked!
 
Last Easter I watched a television documentary that made claims to change the whole history surrounding the circumstances of Christ’s death. I cannot remember the channel, & of course a lot of these ‘histories’ need to be taken with a dose of salt!
Salt won't cut it here, I'm afraid.

What was claimed was that Herod Antipas was very dissatisfied with his legacy of only a quarter of his father’s will (Herod the Great), he only got Judea.
He didn't. Antipas got Galilee and Perea. Judea went to Archelaus. Whom Rome kicked out in a few years and established direct imperial rule by equestrian prefects.

When the emperor Tiberius retired to an easy life in Capri he left Lucius Sejanus to run things from Rome. Herod Antipas & Sejanus became allies & Herod hoped that through this alliance he could regain the whole of the legacy divided amongst him & his siblings.
Okay...

To placate Rome Herod actually encouraged Jesus because of his populist message. Herod hoped that allowing Jesus to go about preaching peace etc. he was minimising surrection (of course he wasn’t!).
Right, I follow Bermejo-Rubio in regarding Jesus as an anti-Roman seditionist as well. ;) However, there's nothing in the Gospels to show that Antipas (or at least Salome :beautiful:) was well-disposed towards Jesus.

There is a historical problem this programme reckoned with all the events of Easter Week happening so quickly. Also the entry of Christ into Jerusalem with palm fronds strewn in his way was (for some reason I cannot remember) not possible in the spring. It was far more likely to have been in October AD 31. They questioned how an individual causing a serious ruction in the Temple could have escaped immediate arrest there & then.

What they proposed was that Jesus was invited by Herod to bring his teaching into Jerusalem & that the event was built up beforehand, hence the welcoming crowds. Sometime shortly after he was there he challenged the money lenders using the Temple for their activity, something that Herod & his constables maintaining the peace ignored or perhaps even approved of. So for a while Jesus & his entourage were enjoying the hospitality of Jerusalem.
I've been to Israel in April, I think there are some palms -- and fronds enough to wave about. The Sukkot lulav is not really necessary. On the subject of Temple guards -- Antipas had no legal authority in Jerusalem; Jesus' trial before him appears to be a fond thing vainly invented).

The problem was that because of corruption Lucius Sejanus fell foul of the senate & was arrested, strangled & torn to pieces by a mob in Rome late AD 31. Herod Antipas had suddenly lost his Roman backer. In fact to keep what he had & to seek support from Sejanus’s enemies in Rome Herod had to reverse everything he had been seen to have been doing. Jesus became a problem.
Sejanus fell foul of Tiberius who had grown suspicious of his second in command. What follows sorta does not follow -- if Antipas was showing Sejanus that he can handle Galilee/Perea/whatever, why change up? Pilate, who likely was Sejanus' appointee, stayed in his palace doing the same.

So the programme thought Jesus was arrested in late AD 31 or early the next year & held in prison, Herod not really knowing what to do with him. On Pilate’s arrival (I think) Herod decided that Jesus had to die, &, to show that he had changed what he was doing before, he ordered that Jesus was to die very publicly. This was most likely in the spring of AD 32.
Okay, this is just a game of 'what if', looks like. :devil:

The young female historian who was adding the expert stuff said at the end of the programme that the public execution for Jesus was decided to be crucifixion. I liked the way she added with an eager glint in her eye that Jesus was also crucified totally naked!
I wonder who was adding the non-expert stuff. Anyway, well done, lady! :devil:
 
Last edited:
Salt won't cut it here, I'm afraid.


He didn't. Antipas got Galilee and Perea. Judea went to Archelaus. Whom Rome kicked out in a few years and established direct imperial rule by equestrian prefects.


Okay...


Right, I follow Bermejo-Rubio in regarding Jesus as an anti-Roman seditionist as well. ;) However, there's nothing in the Gospels to show that Antipas (or at least Salome :beautiful:) was well-disposed towards Jesus.


I've been to Israel in April, I think there are some palms -- and fronds enough to wave about. The Sukkot lulav is not really necessary. On the subject of Temple guards -- Antipas had no legal authority in Jerusalem; Jesus' trial before him appears to be a fond thing vainly invented).


Sejanus fell foul of Tiberius who had grown suspicious of his second in command. What follows sorta does not follow -- if Antipas was showing Sejanus that he can handle Galilee/Perea/whatever, why change up? Pilate, who likely was Sejanus' appointee, stayed in his palace doing the same.


Okay, this is just a game of 'what if', looks like. :devil:


I wonder who was adding the non-expert stuff. Anyway, well done, lady! :devil:



Thanks for that, I didn't believe it myself. thought it worth sharing though.
 
I agree with everything Marcius said. The fact that they got such a basic detail as what territory Antipas ruled wrong - the Gospels even refer to him as the ruler of Galilee - throws the whole thing into question.

I will admit that I have always been puzzled as to why Jesus wasn't arrested when he attacked the money changers.

The situation that outraged him was this: a sacrifice at the Temple could only be an animal that had been certified as clean. You couldn't just bring a goat from home. You had to buy an animal from an approved vendor at the Temple. Of course, these cost a lot more than an animal bought for food or breeding. The catch was that you couldn't buy these animals with ordinary coins. All coins at the time bore graven images of the Emperor or some other human or a pagan god and were therefore unclean and unsuitable for purchasing a sacrificial animal. So, the money had to be exchanged for temple money which was worthless elsewhere. The money changers were, in modern terms, selling tokens. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with many Jews.

Because the money changers were kicking back part of their revenues to the Sanhedrin - the Temple authorities and de facto rulers of Jerusalem - Jesus' attack on the money changers was an attack on the Sanhedrin and their control of the Temple. So, why wasn't Jesus arrested immediately?

One reason I can think of is that, because Jesus was echoing the outrage of many ordinary Jews, there was a fear that ceasing him in public at such a heated moment and during Passover to boot, would have precipitated a riot and perhaps an out right rebellion. Of course, there's also the possibility that the whole thing never happened at all.
 
Because the money changers were kicking back part of their revenues to the Sanhedrin - the Temple authorities and de facto rulers of Jerusalem - Jesus' attack on the money changers was an attack on the Sanhedrin and their control of the Temple. So, why wasn't Jesus arrested immediately?

One reason I can think of is that, because Jesus was echoing the outrage of many ordinary Jews, there was a fear that ceasing him in public at such a heated moment and during Passover to boot, would have precipitated a riot and perhaps an out right rebellion. Of course, there's also the possibility that the whole thing never happened at all.
The scale of the cleansing of the Temple is far from clear -- could've been a couple of money changers closest to an entrance roughed up, could've been a band of zealots storming the Temple and kicking out the Temple guard.

Most likely it was something in between. With screams, people running, coins flying around and sacrificial animals going crazy in the Court of the Gentiles, the Temple guards could've been shocked and baffled enough to not intervene in time.

Especially if, say, the sons of Zebedee flashed some ironmongery at them.
 
I agree with everything Marcius said. The fact that they got such a basic detail as what territory Antipas ruled wrong - the Gospels even refer to him as the ruler of Galilee - throws the whole thing into question.

I will admit that I have always been puzzled as to why Jesus wasn't arrested when he attacked the money changers.

The situation that outraged him was this: a sacrifice at the Temple could only be an animal that had been certified as clean. You couldn't just bring a goat from home. You had to buy an animal from an approved vendor at the Temple. Of course, these cost a lot more than an animal bought for food or breeding. The catch was that you couldn't buy these animals with ordinary coins. All coins at the time bore graven images of the Emperor or some other human or a pagan god and were therefore unclean and unsuitable for purchasing a sacrificial animal. So, the money had to be exchanged for temple money which was worthless elsewhere. The money changers were, in modern terms, selling tokens. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with many Jews.

Because the money changers were kicking back part of their revenues to the Sanhedrin - the Temple authorities and de facto rulers of Jerusalem - Jesus' attack on the money changers was an attack on the Sanhedrin and their control of the Temple. So, why wasn't Jesus arrested immediately?

One reason I can think of is that, because Jesus was echoing the outrage of many ordinary Jews, there was a fear that ceasing him in public at such a heated moment and during Passover to boot, would have precipitated a riot and perhaps an out right rebellion. Of course, there's also the possibility that the whole thing never happened at all.



Hold on though. I am a lot to blame in this. I am going on my memory of the programme so the ignorance on some of the points is my mistake. I was trying to give the gist of what the programme said, & it was nearly a year since I saw it. But one point I go along a bit with is the difficulty of all the events of the Gospel account happening in just a week. But I am no historian & what I really like about this site is the expertise that you all have & share with us.
 
But one point I go along a bit with is the difficulty of all the events of the Gospel account happening in just a week.
Unlike the Synoptics, John offers more than a week, and they must've started from there. It is the preference of one of the living greats of ancient history, too:

Either Jesus went only once to Jerusalem, for the fatal Passover,or he went several times, for a succession of festivals. Either we have no evidence at all which offers us any access to the earthly life of Jesus,or we must choose between John and the Synoptics. The only criterion of truth in the Gospels which a historian can offer is conformity with the world as portrayed by Josephus, and what we have in John may be no more than a convincing fiction. But, as we must choose, I suggest that the narrative of Jesus’ ministry which brings us closest to the real world of first-century Palestine is that of John.​

-- Fergus Millar, 'Reflections on the Trials of Jesus', in A Tribute to Geza Vermes (JSOT, 1990) 355-381 = Rome, the Greek World and the East 3 (University of North Carolina Press, 2006) 139-163.

I think Sir Fergus would've been horrified by the whole Sejanus/Antipas thing, though. :D
 
I posted this on a different thread but this is perhaps more its relevance;

Here is a good description of sadism. The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich of The Passion. Perhaps her fantasy of the events. Apparently Mel got ideas from this for his bloodbath movie.

http://www.jesus-passion.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
That's some hardcore old-time religion, I think the whole 'cruel Jews' stuff went out of theological fashion in the 1960s of thereabouts, but I guess Mel was okay with it.

'Gyptians get it good too.
 
Related news: judging by the reviews available so far, Mary Magdalene appears to be a presentist waste of talented actors.

Set in the Holy Land in the first century C.E., a young woman leaves her small fishing village and traditional family behind to join a radical new social movement. At its head is a charismatic leader, Jesus of Nazareth, who promises that the world is changing. Mary is searching for a new way of living, and an authenticity that is denied her by the rigid hierarchies of the day.​

:buenrollo: I'll watch it anyway, if only to see Pilate as a neoconservative.
 
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.
Could that be a communal cell, for all the following day's victims to lie groaning and lamenting our fate?
 
Could that be a communal cell, for all the following day's victims to lie groaning and lamenting our fate?
I see it much as Arcimboldo portrayed, a place where for most of the night before
we may be too busy entertaining visitors to spend much time lying groaning and lamenting

56The Day Before.jpg
 
At Dawn

Key in the lock
I quiver like it's turning in my flesh
then blink awake
Him
My Guard!
Moments
he gazes down
at my Torture-tallied flesh,
scum-smeared
from my "softening up"
I twist my sore loins
lay hands aside
let him see all of me
seconds
eternity
He nods
Up!
My Cross is waiting.
 
I have been noodling my way through various archives, and discussions in a number of threads center on what was "normal" in the crucifixion of Jesus, and what was unusual. I have come to believe that a brutal scourging of the condemned was a necessary component of a crucifixion using nails.

Quite simply, holding a strong, desperate male tight against the wood for nailing his limbs down would be no easy matter. Could a group of equally strong (but not so desperate) men accomplish the deed? Of course, but probably not without bloody noses, scratched faces, and various bruises to show for it. That is why the scourging is a necessity. Nothing like taking the starch out of a person than a horrific scourging.

Searing pain as skin is torn to shreds coupled with massive loss of blood and lymph would put the victim into shock. After the grinding, stumbling walk carrying the heavy patibulum (or perhaps the entire cross) to the place of execution, enduring further pain and blood loss, the condemned would be in no state to resist. Ensuing struggles would be weak and ineffective, if they took place at all.

I presume that women were subjected to a lesser level of pre-crux preparation. I have seen suggestions that the scourging was limited to buttocks and upper thighs, using a smaller, lighter flagellum. That would fit the picture; a woman would be easier to dominate during the nailing.

The Romans were definitely an efficient people. Scourging prior to crucifixion provides a memorable spectacle, and effectively preps the condemned for nailing to the cross. It was probably standard practice.

Anyways, those are my thoughts...
On the contrary.
In the holy texts if you read well when Pilate had Jesus scourged he did not want to crucify him. It must have been Barabas.
The flagelaltion dramatically shortened the life on the cross. The worst on the cross were the horrible cramps. It took time for them to appear and grow.
Jesus died very quickly (in three hours because he had been afflicted by the crucifixion).
 
The flogging I would receive would be flogged on my back from shoulders down then laid on a salt covered bench on my back writhing in agony as they whip me on my front naked as my loincloth was ripped off before hand
 
Back
Top Bottom