A few years ago, Mel Gibson made quite a stir when he released his film, "The Passion of the Christ."
Gibson repeatedly told interviewers that he was prompted to make the film because of a personal dedication to the truth. But, while I found the film to be very moving, there's a part of it that has always concerned me, even though I will freely concede that I have had no formal education in theological matters — unlike my father and my grandfather, both of whom were religion professors.I'm not referring to complaints that Gibson's movie was anti-Semitic, although it would be hard for Jews to argue against the fact that their ancestors played a significant role in the Easter story.
No, what I refer to is the depiction of the scourging of Jesus.
For most of my life I have been under the impression that Jesus endured 39 lashes before the crucifixion. I'm not sure where that number came from originally — I assume it is something I was told in Sunday school when I was a child, but in my readings of the Gospels since that time, I have not found a passage that explicitly confirms that was the number. The Gospels talk about the severe beating Jesus was given, but I have found no reference to the exact number of lashes that were inflicted.
When I was about 10 or 11 years old, Andrew Lloyd Webber collaborated with Tim Rice on the rock opera, "Jesus Christ Superstar." It was enormously popular and was responsible for reconciling many young people — who felt alienated by the war in Vietnam and the generational/cultural conflicts of the 1960s — to the story of Jesus. And, in the composition "Trial Before Pilate," a specific reference to 39 lashes was made, and those 39 lashes were depicted in the music.
In my mind, that confirmed what I had been unable to confirm elsewhere, although I didn't know where Webber and Rice came up with that number.
I watched Gibson's movie closely, particularly when it reached the point of the scourging. But I lost count of the number of lashes that were administered long after the total passed 39. Before seeing the movie, I have to admit that I defended Gibson against charges that the film was unduly violent. My reasoning was that one could not depict the story of the crucifixion in a manner that was not violent. But, after seeing the film, I concluded (based on my lifelong presumption that the scourging involved 39 lashes) that it was, indeed, more violent than it needed to be.
Gibson's film made me wonder, though, where the idea of 39 lashes came from. What, if any, was the significance of that number? Most of the numbers that one encounters in the Gospels have some additional symbolic meaning. From time to time, as an adult, I have tried to find an answer. The closest I have come to it is this:
It was understood, in those days, that 40 lashes would be enough to kill a man. Therefore, in order to avoid sentencing someone to death, the most severe punishment that could be administered was 40 lashes minus one — or 39 lashes.
This, I have been told, was Moses' Law. But, while the Old Testament has a lot to say about Moses — specifically, in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — I have found no references to his recommendation for scourging. Perhaps it is there and I simply haven't found it.(As an aside, I will point out here that my grandfather died when I was 6 years old, but my father, who is still living, hasn't been able to clear up this matter for me.)
Writer Jim Bishop, who wrote engrossing, journalistic hour–by–hour accounts of the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, wrote a similar book about the crucifixion. It was called "The Day Christ Died," and it was punctuated by general chapters that enlightened readers about the Jewish world, Jesus and the Roman world.
In his book, Bishop wrote this about scourging:
"Roman scourging was called the 'halfway death' because it was supposed to stop this side of death. It was not administered in addition to other punishment. The two 'thieves' who would die on this day were not scourged. And the Jewish law — Mithah Arikhta — forbade any manner of prolonged death for condemned criminals, and exempted any who were to die from the shame of being scourged.
"The Jews called their scourging the 'intermediate death' although it was far less severe than the Romans. The custom in Palestine was to administer to the prisoner '40 stripes save one.' It was done by a paid executioner, who, armed with a long supple rod, beat the prisoner 13 times on each shoulder and 13 times on the loins. The prisoner seldom died but, although in time the scars might fade, the shame and humiliation seldom did.
"The scourging of Rome was more deadly. It was administered by a trained man, called a lictor — there were none in Palestine — and he used a short circular piece of wood, to which were attached several strips of leather. At the end of each strip, he sewed a chunk of bone or a small piece of iron chain. This instrument was called a flagellum. There was no set number of stripes to be administered, and the law said nothing about the parts of the body to be assailed."
That reference to three 13s made some symbolic sense to me when I read the book as a teenager. Three, of course, is significant for Christians — the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. And it seemed to link up with the superstition about Friday the 13th, since Friday was the day of the scourging and the crucifixion.
But I later learned that numerologists, regardless of their religious beliefs, view the number 12 as a number of completeness (since it can refer to the number of months in a year, the number of hours on a clock, the signs of the Zodiac as well as the number of disciples) and the number 13 is considered irregular.
I have also heard of another superstition, which supposedly originates from the Last Supper or from a Norse myth (possibly both) — if 13 people are seated at a table, one of the diners will die.
Which, I suppose, brings me back to my original dilemma.
Is it possible to determine how many lashes were administered to Jesus?
For the last couple of months, I have been attending the Methodist church where my mother was a member in the years before her death. I even joined the congregation last month.
I don't think I am particularly religious, but I do feel that I have become more spiritual in recent years. And I've always been curious about historical issues.
This is one such issue for which I would like to find an answer. So I'm hoping my regular readers can enlighten me on this.
And I know the minister of my church has read my blog in the past. I hope he will read this and he will have some illuminating thoughts he can share.
No comments:
Post a Comment