When Did we See You Naked?. Группа авторов
On the sexualized use of the picana and other sexual aspects in Argentinean torture, see Francisco Graziano, Divine Violence: Spectacle, Psychosexuality, and Radical Christianity in the Argentine ‘Dirty War’ (Boulder, CO, and Oxford: Westview Press, 1992), especially pp. 153–8.
16 The rape of women during torture has been well documented but recorded instances of the rape of men are less frequent. The frequency with which male prisoners were subjected to some form of rape is hard to determine. However, it is clear that rape was sometimes used to torture men as well as women. Dr Norberto Liwski, whose extended testimony starts the Nunca Más report, describes his treatment in detail: ‘Another day they took me out of my cell and, despite my [previously tortured] swollen testicles, placed me face-down again. They tied me up and raped me slowly and deliberately by introducing a metal object into my anus. They then passed an electric current through the object. I cannot describe how everything inside me felt as though it were on fire.’ Quoting Dr Liwski in Nunca Más, p. 24.
17 1 Samuel suggests that emasculation and sexual assault were also recognized practices at an earlier time in Israel’s history. On emasculation, see 1 Samuel 18.27: ‘David rose and went along with his men, and killed one hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law.’ On the fear of sexual assault, see 1 Samuel 31.4: ‘Then Saul said to his armour-bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through me with it, so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me”.’ I am grateful to John Jarick for pointing these out to me.
18 Josephus, War, V. 452 (see above); Seneca, To Marcia on Consolation 20:3, records: ‘I see crosses there, not just of one kind but fashioned in many ways: some have their victims with head down toward the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on their crossbeam.’ Cited in Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 25.
19 Although Mark 15.15, Matthew 27.26 and John 19.1 are not explicit on this (and Luke does not mention a flogging), the sequence of events they describe strongly suggests it. Mark and Mathew (who have the flogging at the end of the trial) and John (who has the flogging midway through the trial) each report that immediately after the flogging Jesus was handed over to the Roman soldiers to mock him. All three present the first act of mockery as the soldiers dressing Jesus in a crown of thorns and a purple cloak (Mark 15.17), purple robe (John 19.2) or scarlet cloak (Matt. 27.28). There is no mention in Mark of needing to strip Jesus before dressing him, but stripping Jesus is explicitly stated in Matthew 27.28. Both Mark 15.20 and Matthew 27.31 also explicitly mention that after the mocking Jesus is stripped of the garb and his own clothes are put back on him for the procession to Golgotha. Brown notes that the usual custom outside Palestine was for the condemned man to be paraded naked to execution but that exceptions to this in Palestine may have been a concession to Jewish scruples on public nakedness (see Brown, Death of the Messiah, p. 870). It is possible that this sensitivity was especially high within the limits of the holy city.
20 This is clearest in John 19.23–24, which records that after putting Jesus on the cross the soldiers took his clothes to divide among themselves and that these included his undergarment for which they cast lots so as not to tear it. The Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15.24, Matt. 27.35 and Luke 23.34) are vaguer and simply refer to the division of his clothes by lots. In a careful assessment of the evidence Raymond Brown offers cautious support for the likelihood of full nakedness. Although Brown reports that the evangelists are not specific on the matter, and that they might not have known for sure, he offers three reasons that would support the view that Jesus was fully naked. Brown, Death of the Messiah, pp. 952–3.
21 On the deliberate humiliation of enemies by genital exposure, see 2 Samuel 10.4–5 which describes how David’s envoys were seized by Ha’nun and sent back with their beards half shaved and their garments cut off ‘in the middle at their hips’. Jewish sensitivity over insulting displays of the body is also shown in a disaster which occurred during the time that Cumanus was governor (48–52 CE). Josephus reports that a soldier on guard on the Temple colonnade during the Feast of Unleavened Bread lifted his tunic, bent over indecently and exposed himself to the crowds below while making indecent noises (War II. 223–7). Fearing a riot in the commotion that followed, Cumanus sent for heavy infantry but this triggered a panic, and Josephus claims that 30,000 were crushed to death as they tried to escape.
22 For Mark and Matthew this happens at the end of the trial and both mention it taking place in the praetorium. For John the mockery takes place during the trial and it appears to have been done within Pilate’s headquarters (John 18.28).
23 Luke places the mocking of Jesus rather earlier in the story at a point that is unlikely to have involved Roman soldiers. According to Luke 22.63–64, the mockery takes place prior to the trial before the Jewish elders. The mocking, beating, blindfolding and challenges to prophesy (Luke makes no mention of spitting) were carried out by the men who were holding Jesus overnight before the trial before the Council. Presumably these were members of ‘the crowd’ mentioned as capturing him in Luke 22.47. Mark 14.65 and Matthew 26.67–68 also report that Jesus was spat at, struck and challenged to prophesy, but they put this immediately after the Council had condemned him, rather than before, and say it was carried out by members of the Council themselves. John does not mention any parallel treatment associated with the questioning by the High Priest (John 18.19–24).
24 In addition, Matthew 27.29 also mentions placing the reed in Jesus’ right hand prior to striking him. Although John makes no mention of a reed, John 19.3 records Jesus being struck.
25 This chapter is primarily concerned with how the texts present events. The picture of abuse they present is historically very plausible but further assessment of textual historicity will not be attempted here. In view of the shame and embarrassment that would have been associated with sexual abuse, it is probable that the Gospels understate it rather than exaggerate it.
26 The privacy of the praetorium (whether Pilate’s palace or the Antonia fortress) means that the details of what transpired inside are inevitably circumstantial and would probably not have been known even at the time. Furthermore, even if it was believed that Jesus had been sexually assaulted in the praetorium, the absence of this in the Gospel accounts is hardly surprising. Apart from the distance of years and the desire to pass over a shameful event, the Gospels are usually seen as notably biased in excusing the Romans for Jesus’ trial and death.
27 Despite the attempts of the Gospels to excuse Pilate from blame, if rape did take place in the praetorium presumably it would only have done so with Pilate’s positive approval or knowing indifference. It is quite possible that Pilate deliberately handed Jesus over to be sexually assaulted by his soldiers as part of the crucifixion sentence. Such an action might have served to reinforce his own status as a triumphant lord who was able to sexually vanquish his victims through the actions of his underlings. Richard Trexler notes that a Roman master might find it more insulting to have his slaves rape his adulterous wife’s young suitor rather than to rape the youth himself. Richard Trexler, Sex and Conquest: Gendered Violence, Political Order, and the European Conquest of the Americas (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), p. 22.