EVEN a single Jewish scourging might well entitle any man to be regarded as a martyr. Thirty–nine blows were inflicted, unless, indeed, it was found that the strength of the patient was too much exhausted to admit of his receiving the full number. Both of his hands were tied to what is sometimes called a column, but which was in reality a stake a cubit and a half high.1 The public officer then tore down his robe until his breast was laid bare. The executioner stood on a stone of behind the criminal. The scourge consisted of two thongs, one of which was composed of four strands of calf–skin, and one of two strands of ass’s–skin, which passed through a hole in a handle. The executioner, who was ordinarily the Chazzanof the synagogue, could thus shorten or lengthen them at will, so as not to strike too low.2 The prisoner bent to receive the blows, which were inflicted with one hand, but with all the force of the striker, thirteen on the breast, thirteen on the right, and thirteen on the left shoulder. While the punishment was going on, the chief judge read aloud Deut. 28:58, 59, “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God; then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed.” He then read Deut. 29:9, “Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all ye do;” and lastly, Ps. 78:38, 39, “But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned He His anger away, and did not stir up all His wrath.” If the punishment was not over by the time that these three passages were read, they were again repeated, and so timed as to end exactly with the punishment itself. Meanwhile a second judge numbered the blows, and a third before each blow exclaimed “Hakkehu” (strike him). All these particulars I take from the Treatise on Punishments (תוכמ, Makkôth) in the Mishna.3 The severity of the pain may best be estimated by the brief addition: “Ifthecriminal die under the infliction, the executioner is not accounted guilty unless’ he gives by mistake a single blow too many, in which case he is banished.”
These facts have an interest far deeper than archæological. They not only show how awful were the trials which St. Paul had to endure, if such as these were hardly counted worthy of narration amongst them, but also they illustrate to a singular degree the minute scrupulosity which reigned through all Jewish observances. If, for instance, only thirty–nine blows were inflicted instead of forty, it was not only, as is usually stated, to avoid the possibility of error in the counting, but also (such at least is the reason assigned by Maimonides4) because the Law says, “in number, forty,”5 not “forty in number;” whence they concluded that they might assign a smaller but not a larger number; and, perhaps, also because the word “thy brother” (ויודא) stands by Gematria for thirty–nine.6 Another assigned reason is that the passage of the Psalm (78:38, 39) which was recited on the occasion ends at verse 39. The scourge was made partly of ox–hide, partly of ass’s–hide, for the astounding reasons that immediately after the passage in Deuteronomy which orders the infliction of scourging follows the verse, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn;”7 and that in Isa. 1:3 we find, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.” And thus it was thought right that those who do know should punish him who does not know!8 The criminal was to receive only thirteen blows on his breast, but twenty–six on his shoulders, because it was inferred from Deut 25:2 that it was only on the back that he was to be beaten, “according to his fault,” so that the back received a double number of blows.9 The duty of reading aloud while the scourging continued was also a minute inference from the words of Scripture.10
A person was liable to this penalty if he wilfully violated any of the negative precepts of the Law, and inadvertently any of those which, if deliberately transgressed, involved the threat of excision from among the people,11 or “death by the visitation of God.12 Under which of the numerous offences for which this punishment was assigned Paul five times suffered, is by no means easy to say. Looking through them all as enumerated in the treatise Makkôth,13 and as expanded by Maimonides,14 I cannot find any of which the Apostle could possibly have been guilty. Where, however, the will to punish him existed, the pretext would not long be wanting. His flagellation must have been that minor but still terrible punishment which was called “the legal scourging” or the “scourging of forty,”15 because the yet deadlier flagellation with rods, which was called the Rabbinic, or the flagellation of contumacy,16 was never inflicted within the limits of the Holy Land, and is expressly stated to have been a beating to death.
When once an offender had been scourged this punishment was considered to remove the danger of “cutting off,”17 and not only so, but it was regarded as leaving no ignominy behind it. The humane expression of Moses that forty stripes were not to be exceeded “lest thy brother seem vile unto thee,” was interpreted to mean that when the punishment was over the sufferer was “restored to his integrity.” So completely was this the case that even the High Priest himself might be thus scourged, and afterwards be “restored to his majesty.” But although it was assumed that he would suffer no ulterior injury, but rather be sure to win an inheritance in the future, yet, of course, if he again offended he was again scourged.18 It was even possible that for one offence, if it involved the disobedience to several negative precepts, he might incur several consecutive scourgings, care being only taken that he had sufficiently recovered from the first before the next was inflicted. It is, therefore, by no means impossible, or even improbable, that during those “many days” which Paul spent in Damascus in trying to convince these passionate disputants, he may have incurred this torture several times.
To have refused to undergo it by sheltering himself under the privilege of his Roman citizenship would have been to incur excommunication, and finally to have cut himself off from admission into the synagogues.