I’m not saying 39 lashes was a limit. I was just qouting what I thought was the correct number(I don’t know if it was 39 or not).
Is a number given in the bible?
I am not a doctor, but I read an analysis of the crucifixion of Jesus by a forensic M.E. many years ago. If I recall correctly, his conclusion was that Jesus died from congestive heart failure. A lot of the other things mentioned are true, in that suffocation was the usual means of death, but if certain assumptions are made, it really was a horrible way to be put to death.
For instance, assuming the nails were driven through the wrists and ankle bones, directly into the crucifix (or even if there was a slanted pedestal for the feet - I actually suspect there were several methods used), then the nails intersected some major nerves there. As the victim was hanging there, in order to get a breath, he would have to push up with his feet, adding pressure to already-oversensitized and damaged nerves, which would cause the leg muscles to convulse, and drop his weight back on the nails in his wrists and thus not being able to breathe again. This is why Jesus saying ANYTHING on the cross is extraordinary - the amount of pain and effort involved in speaking, particularly in a voice loud enough to be heard, would be astounding.
As to the final cause of death, the bible says that when they pierced his side with the spear, that blood and water came out of the wound. The M.E. speculated that the water is the telling clue here: the pericardium (I think that’s the correct term) had filled with fluid and caused the heart to fail - essentially congestive heart failure, if memory serves.
There’s three out of four.
Sorry, when I said, “The Gospels says he was flogged, not scourged within an inch of his life,” I didn’t mean to imply that there was any meaningful difference between ‘flog’ and ‘scourge.’ In fact, there is no meaningful difference, since they both mean ‘to whip.’ (And for all you pendants, yes, I know that they have other connotations, but they’re irrelevant to the question at hand.) The NIV translation, e.g., uses ‘flog’ for those quoted verses and not ‘scourge.’
My point was that the Gospels mentioned that Jesus was simply scourged (or ‘flogged’), period. Not scourged/flogged within an inch of his life as portrayed in the Gospel according to Mel. It is in the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich that Mel gets the episode where the guards had to be stopped before scourging/flogging Jesus to death.
Peace.
There is no description in the Gospels of how many lashes Jesus received, so moriah’s point:
is correct.
But Jesus did die much sooner than usual - sooner than the two crucified with him - to the point that Pilate was surprised, and checked with the execution squad that He was indeed dead already.
Incidentally, the 39 lashes idea comes from Deuteronomy 25:2-4, where Jewish law limited the maximum number of lashes to 40 -
It was customary to stop at 39 to be sure the law was not broken by a miscounting. St. Paul mentions that he received the “forty lashes less one” on several occasions (2 Corinthians 11:24) and he survived.
But Jesus was flogged by Romans, not by Jews, so there is no reason to believe they abided by the Jewish limit. And since He died so quickly, there is reason to believe that He had been badly treated during the hours before His crucifixion.
I haven’t seen the movie, but all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) mention that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross for Him. It is hard to believe they were doing Jesus a favor by this, so Jesus must have demonstrated in some way that He was unable to bear the weight. And the three Synoptics also mentioned that the soldiers beat Jesus, although they report this as happening before the trip to Golgotha.
But you are correct, there is no evidence that the crowd beat Him. The only interaction I can remember between Jesus is His prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (as it is interpreted), and the offering of the wine mingled with gall by the Jewish hadassah, which Jesus refused. Is that covered in the movie?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, the soldier soaked a sponge/rag and held it up to Jesus after he said “I thirst”, but he didn’t attempt to drink any.
If Jesus actually sweated blood (instead of his sweat “flowing like blood”), I think
that would indicate some major heart-circulatory crisis occurred in Gesthemane (supporting the LDS belief that Christ’s sacrifice actually began there), thus making him a walking dead man already.
Incidentally, some Greek texts of Matthew have a passage about the spearing with the flow of blood and water occurring before JC died. It’s in such few texts that most Bible translations totally neglect it. The Worldwide Church of God under Herbert W. Armstrong taught that was actually how Christ died, fulfilling the pattern of the bleeding of the Passover Lamb. I have no idea if the WCOG now teaches that.
It is called “hematidrosis”. It is a rare medical condition in which a person exudes blood or blood pigments in his sweat. The capillaries under the skin dilate and burst under extreme emotional stress. The leaking blood is then emitted with the sweat.
It is not necessarily fatal.
Ref: Allen, A.C. - The Skin: A Clinicopathological Treatise, ed. 2, New York, Grune and Stratton Inc., 1967, pp. 745-747.
Regards,
Shodan
**John 19:32, 33, 36 **
"The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, **they did not break His legs;…**for these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken. "
bolding mine
The short answer to the OP is yes.
Isaiah 52:14 says he was/would be scourged beyond recognition. Of course, that is OT prophecy, not in a Gospel. But the Gospels are not inconsistent with this, they simply don’t state the degree he was scourged.
In The Case For Christ, the author interviews and MD who is also an engineer. He devotes nearly an entire chapter to the physical death of Jesus on the Cross. His conclusion is that there are several points in the passion that are consistent with shock from loss of blood, and that he nearly died before he was crucified. He also explains how one dies from crucifixition - suffocation. The poster above who mentioned the inability to breath and the need to use the legs is correct, although its a bit more complex than that. Even the details of the piercing of his side - water and blood poured out - are consistent with moder medical knowledge.
As for 39 lashings, I have heard some say that 39 may have been custom for Romans or was the maximum the Jews themselves could impose. I have not seen a definitive explanation of this number. I don’t think the number really matters.
The actual verse, as translated in the New American Standard version, says:
“14Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
So His appearance was marred more than any man
And His form more than the sons of men.”
Note that there is no mention of scouring or flogging or whipping here. It is obviously a matter of a particular and specific interpretation of one verse as prophecy regarding Jesus, but the verse itself does not indicate specifically who the speaker is referring to or the means by which he is ‘marred more than any man and his form more than the sons of men.’
Note also that John 19:32, 33, 36:
“The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs;…for these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.” is a prophecy that very likely was not fulfilled if nails were driven into his hands, wrists, or feet. I suppose it’s possible that the spikes wedged between carpal, metacarpal, or metatarsal bones and painfully moved them aside, but that seems very unlikely.
Then again, we’re talking about a story in which people walk on water and dead people come back to life, so if you’re willing to accept that then it’s a small matter for god to prevent spikes from breaking bones.
Rabbi Akiva had his flesh torn from his body with iron combs.
Having read The History Of Torture by Daniel P Mannix, it isn’t. I expected the book to be lurid with sensationalized descriptions. It’s actually a rather scholarly approach to the subject.
Re Flogging Vs Scourging
AFAIK there is a difference. A scourge, sometimes referred to as a scorpion, is set with small bits of bone or metal along its length. The whip used in a flogging is simply leather. Considering the force delivered, the size of the area its delivered to, and the descriptions of floogings, the scourge’s spikes and studs seem largely decorative.
I have actually read that book, and agree with your assessment.
The distinction between “whip” and “scorpion” appears elsewhere in the Bible - specifically 1 Kings 12:10-14, where the split between Judah and Israel happens under Rehoboam, son of Solomon.
Rehoboam is asked, upon assuming the kingship, to reduce the forced labor levies that Solomon imposed on the people to build the temple. Rehoboam, advised poorly by the companions of his youth, answers:
Regards,
Shodan
I just saw The Passion and I kept bearing this in mind during the scouring. I mean, maaaaaaan, Mr Gibson didn’t pull any punches on roughing up ol’ Jesus. Wouldn’t those blows, particularly around the arms and wrists, have a terrific chance of severing an artery ( regardless of the actual lack of spurting blood ) .
I know a good part of the movie was about his suffering, but what was depicted in the movie really blew away my suspension of disbelief.
The way I always understood punishment by flogging was that it took quite a bit of care on part of the flogger. Haphazard, random lashing on ones back was considered unprofessional and led to death. A ~true~ master would have the floggee’s back stretched out on something to maximize exposure surface, and then proceed to lash in long, parallel strokes down the length of flesh. Striking any area repeatedly could easily pierce down to the bone, cutting arteries, and leading the floggee to bleed to death. I’ll admit I don’t have a source on this, its just what I pick up over the years. . . Can any of ya’ sadists out there verify or disprove this perception? 
According to HoT and some others I’ve read, you’re correct. The torturer was trained to provide the most spectacle, the highest amount of pain, and to keep the victim alive. Care also had to be taken when nailing a victim to a crucifix. A nail through the wrong part of the wrist would sever an artery leading to a quick and easy death.
Just for the record, in the movie, Jesus is whipped with scorpions, and the metal studs (more like hooks) are definitely not protrayed as decorative. One of the torturers rather gratuitously strikes his sergeant’s desk with the scorpion, just so we can see how the hook at the end grips into the wood of the desk and rips out a large chunk when the soldier pulls back on it. For this flagrant unprofessionalism, the sergeant (who was sitting at the desk) gives him a mildly disaproving look, such as one might give an unfriendly clerk in a store.
Lacking any medical knowledge whatsoever, I found it to be quite unbelievable that such a beating with such a weapon wouldn’t have made him pass out, at least, and probably would have cut into bones and atreries, killing him. (I found the movie rather unmoving, as a result.)
BTW, the message I got from the movie overall is that being a Roman soldier in charge of torture is the best job in the history of the world! :eek: Man, I don’t think I’ve ever seen people take so much pleasure in their work. I can only hope I find something in life I love half as much as those guys seemed to love beating the Messiah into hamburger. :rolleyes: