When Did we See You Naked?. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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.

28 Josephus (War, II. 268) suggests that, at least while Felix was procurator (52–60 CE), the majority of the Roman garrison in Caesarea were raised in Syria and they readily sided with the Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea in a civil dispute against its Jewish citizens.

29 Gorgias, 473C, cited in Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus, p. 16.

30 Trexler, Sex and Conquest, p. 20. According to Trexler, ‘in the Ancient Greek world … the premier sign of male dependence was to be anally or orally penetrated by another male without, at least fictively, being able to resist’, p. 33; he continues, ‘Seneca … declared that “bad army officers and wicked tyrants are the main sources of rapes of young men”’, p. 34. In this context even the widely held assumption that the soldiers forced Jesus to wear scarlet/purple clothing for solely political mockery might be reconsidered. Dressing a male victim in bright clothing might also have been a prelude to sexual assault. See also Trexler, Sex and Conquest, p. 34.

31 This might also have implications for the question of why Judas had profound feelings of regret and repentance for his actions (Luke 22.3–5; Matt. 27.3–5). Judas may not have anticipated the full implications of his betrayal and if the argument here is correct his despair and shame would be easy to understand.

      2. Covering Up Sexual Abuse: An Ecclesial Tendency from the Earliest Years of the Jesus Movement?

      MICHAEL TRAINOR

Australia’s Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Minors and Vulnerable Adults uncovered one of the consistent and shocking tendencies of leaders of religious and church communities.1 This was the tendency to ‘cover up’.2 In order to prevent any scandal being focused on the Church, leaders sought to obfuscate the problem by moving perpetrators from one religious community to another, by blaming the one abused or by acting as though nothing was amiss and it was business as usual. This tendency was supported by an ecclesiology that regarded the Church as a ‘perfect society’ and its ministers as set apart through ordination, as unaccountable, and as acting in God’s name without transparency.3 Any flaws in the Church through human weakness could always be forgiven. This was applied to those who acted inappropriately and sinfully. At the heart of this ecclesiology, ministerial protectionism and cover-up, expressed through unaccountable conduct towards children, lies the culture of clericalism. The Commission summarizes this as:

the idealization of the priesthood, and by extension, the idealization of the Catholic Church. Clericalism is linked to a sense of entitlement, superiority and exclusion, and abuse of power.4

      The ‘cover-up’ tendency as a product of clericalism is not a phenomenon of recent history. This chapter will demonstrate that it occurred among members of the Jesus movement in the first century CE. What follows falls into three parts.

First, we shall see how the story of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, written around 70 CE, was a story about one who was protective of children and, like them, subject to maltreatment and abuse.5 Mark’s final story (Mark 14—16), anticipated by the disciples’ attitude to children and the verbal contestation between Jesus and his opponents, as well as Jesus’ own passion and death, becomes a story of sexual abuse with Jesus executed naked and ultimately shamed.6

Second, in Luke’s Gospel we see a different portrait. Luke СКАЧАТЬ