Monday, March 08, 2004
Scourging and Flogging / Flagellis and Excruciare
Mel's sadism prompted me to do a bit of research - I looked up the scourging passages in the Gospels - then checked the "flogging" term against the Latin and Greek (yes, I'm a geek with a Latin/Greek NT at the ready) - just as in english there are many terms for flogging, - scourging, whipping, etc. there are a few in Latin as well - but in English all the terms are used basically synonymously - in Latin they actually held gradations of severity.
"flagellis" is used in every mention in the Gospels, the more severe "excrucio, excruciare" roughly translated today as "torment" or" torture" is never used. And in Luke, the scourging is only inferred, it is Pilate saying "I will punish him and release him" they cry "No, crucify him!" and he relents, thus whether the whipping took place is not clear. Only in John is the flogging even given its own sentence. In Mark and Matthew (who simply copies Mark verbatim) the flogging is mentioned as a precursor to his crucifixion - and hardly any sort of extended process.
Mark 15:15
Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Matthew 27:26
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
John 19:1
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.
Luke 23:16 (in context)
13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." 18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" 19(Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" 22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. "
See? in Luke's account - we don't even know if it happened. And just fyi - the consensus chronological order is Crucifixion is c. AD 33, Mark c. AD 55, Matthew/Luke c. AD 75 (they shared sources, and each had Mark's account), and then John at around AD 100.
Now, having said this - it is still true that the Roman system was phantasmagorically brutal and a person without citizenship was truly at the mercy of a fascist military order. Even more so the thugs at desert outpost in a far flung backwater province with little to entertain themselves with. So it's all possible that it happened the way Mel wants us to think - but it's sure not in the text that way.
Mel's sadism prompted me to do a bit of research - I looked up the scourging passages in the Gospels - then checked the "flogging" term against the Latin and Greek (yes, I'm a geek with a Latin/Greek NT at the ready) - just as in english there are many terms for flogging, - scourging, whipping, etc. there are a few in Latin as well - but in English all the terms are used basically synonymously - in Latin they actually held gradations of severity.
"flagellis" is used in every mention in the Gospels, the more severe "excrucio, excruciare" roughly translated today as "torment" or" torture" is never used. And in Luke, the scourging is only inferred, it is Pilate saying "I will punish him and release him" they cry "No, crucify him!" and he relents, thus whether the whipping took place is not clear. Only in John is the flogging even given its own sentence. In Mark and Matthew (who simply copies Mark verbatim) the flogging is mentioned as a precursor to his crucifixion - and hardly any sort of extended process.
Mark 15:15
Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Matthew 27:26
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
John 19:1
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.
Luke 23:16 (in context)
13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." 18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" 19(Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" 22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. "
See? in Luke's account - we don't even know if it happened. And just fyi - the consensus chronological order is Crucifixion is c. AD 33, Mark c. AD 55, Matthew/Luke c. AD 75 (they shared sources, and each had Mark's account), and then John at around AD 100.
Now, having said this - it is still true that the Roman system was phantasmagorically brutal and a person without citizenship was truly at the mercy of a fascist military order. Even more so the thugs at desert outpost in a far flung backwater province with little to entertain themselves with. So it's all possible that it happened the way Mel wants us to think - but it's sure not in the text that way.
