Naked


#21

No one presented an argument that Jesus was not completely naked. Here are some thoughts: Jesus was a priest offering Himself as the sacrifice, a priest was required to wear linen underwear when ministering. Ex 28:42; Second naked means different things in different cultures, it is unlikely that Peter was completely naked fishing (John 21:7) It is more commonly translated lightly clothed or some similar term and the poor don’t need to be completely naked to be in need of clothes (Matt 25:43-44);
If the soldiers wanted and divided Jesus’ dirty and bloody underwear, they were very different from people today. I do believe that Jesus like Adam and Eve was completely naked except being clothed with light at the moment of His resurrection.
Grace and peace,
Bruce


#22

At Golgotha, all of his clothes were “dirty and bloody.” Yet the Romans thought them worth gambling over.

As the Scriptures don’t make it clear either way, I’m going with naked.

I agree that for resurrection, only naked makes sense.

ICXC NIKA


#23

Remember that nudity was looked upon as shameful only to the person who looked upon it. (remember Noah and his youngest son) So displaying a naked body brought shame upon all who viewed it as well. Usually that would be the family and friends of the victim, reinforcing the total effect of the execution as a reminder to others to submit to Roman law.


#24

Another thing: underwear’s not really that ubiquitous in the ancient world, unlike today, where you generally (have to) wear stuff under your pants or your shirt. I think maybe the one of the few actual times you only wore an underwear is when you went out barechested with no tunic (that was the case for the Romans). Otherwise, I doubt many people had a regular habit of wearing underwear or lingerie under their tunics. The tunic (or if you’re wearing two or more tunics, the undershirt) is literally the underwear.


#25

Underwear was pretty ubiquitous in the ancient world. Almost everybody wore loincloths of one style or another. (Strip of cloth passed through the legs, then belted (girded) to keep it up.) If you didn’t wear a loincloth, you wore a shift or slip to keep bodily fluids and sweat off your main garment. (The undertunic mentioned above.) Male travelers definitely wore loincloths, as did men ready to fight.

Yup, no loincloths allowed on the Cross.

Jesus’ seamless garment, woven by His mom, was a very expensive sort of thing to wear, as well as denoting His priestly status. Blood can be soaked out, and there were plenty of cheap bleaching devices available in the Roman Empire.

In Heaven in Revelation, Jesus is described as wearing a similar white priestly robe that goes down to the ankles, as well as a golden sash around his chest. At the final battle, His robe is soaked with blood a la the prophecies about the Messiah, and it has written on it, “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”

Fishermen usually worked either in their loincloths or totally naked. The Gospels mention this in connection to Peter, although it’s translated in modern Bibles as stuff like “lightly clothed.”


#26

The seamless garment was rather unusual for a Jew, since, based from the clothes that were found in the Judaean desert (probably belonging to the rebels of the Bar Kochba rebellion), for the Jews of the time apparently, two-piece tunics - made out of two rectangular pieces of cloth stitched together - were the norm. (One-piece tunics were more common among Greeks or Romans than they were among Jews apparently.)

http://www.antiquities.org.il/t/images/600/1152853.jpg

The reason being, two-piece tunics were more easier and less expensive to make than one-piece ones (most looms were not wide enough to produce a tunic made from a single piece of cloth), and because two-piece tunics were more apparently preferable in light of Jewish purity laws. So for example supposing that your tunic got ritually defiled, you could simply discard the unclean part and replace it with a new piece of cloth. (On the practical side, if one half of your tunic got seriously torn or damaged you could just replace the damaged part instead of discarding the entire garment.)

Assuming the detail is historical here, I personally wonder: maybe the seamless tunic is the “splendid garment” Antipas made Jesus to wear? I know some people imagine that the tunic was made by Jesus’ mom for Him, but given what I just described above (one-piece tunics being unusual among Jews and a rather cumbersome and expensive garment to make), my personal imagination tends to lean more to it coming not from Mary (or even Jesus’ women disciples) but from that mockery. Hey, at least that might historically be one reason why the soldiers would gamble for it: I mean, if it came from Antipas, then it must really be high-quality (it’s “dazzling” / “gorgeous” after all).

And yeah, some commentators do see here (and in Revelation 1, with the Son of Man’s ankle-length robe) what could be John hinting to Jesus’ (high) priestly status due to a passage in Josephus’ Antiquities:

The High Priest is indeed adorned with the same garments that we have described without abating one. But over these he puts on a vestment of a blue colour. This also is a long robe, reaching to his feet. In our language it is called Meeir, and is tied round with a girdle, embroidered with the same colours and flowers as the former, with a mixture of gold interwoven. To the bottom of which garment are hung fringes, in colour like pomegranates, with golden bells, by a curious and beautiful contrivance: so that between two bells hangs a pomegranate, and between two pomegranates a bell. Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back. A border also was sewed to it, lest the aperture should look too indecently. It was also parted where the hands were to come out.

But other scholars point out a problem: the only similarity here between Josephus and John that both tunics in question are seamless. (As for Josephus and Revelation, the only similarity is that the tunic is ankle-length.) The high priestly me’il (what Exodus calls “the robe of the ephod”) is essentially a blue/violet embroidered overshirt, whereas Jesus’ tunic would have been a kind of undershirt (which tunics usually are). So it’s not really an exact parallel, except for the ‘without seam’ part.


#27

Exactly. That’s what made crucifixion horrible: the shaming did not affect only the victim, but also his family and associates as a whole.


#28

[quote=patrick457]Assuming the detail is historical here, I personally wonder: maybe the seamless tunic is the “splendid garment” Antipas made Jesus to wear? I know some people imagine that the tunic was made by Jesus’ mom for Him, but given what I just described above (one-piece tunics being unusual among Jews and a rather cumbersome and expensive garment to make), my personal imagination tends to lean more to it coming not from Mary (or even Jesus’ women disciples) but from that mockery.
[/quote]

If you don’t agree that the Holy Visionaries approved by the Church (for pious reading) indulged in “imaginings” then there is a distinct possibility of a mysterious Truth here. According to one visionary, the garment was woven by the Virgin Mary while Jesus was still a child and it miraculously grew with him. :slight_smile:

But before we dismiss this out of hand as an imagined story, we better think harder about whether any or all of the Scriptural miracles were just evangelical imaginings.

IOW, is it just an imagining BECAUSE it is a miracle, or because there is just no other explanation allowed by the Church?


#29

Yeah, I apologize; I maybe didn’t use the right word.

But to be honest, I personally just don’t prefer using private revelations when talking about the historical stuff. You might say I’m minimalistic, but I just think that visions - even when showing biblical events - serve a different purpose than being dissected just like historical sources are.

BTW, it was not just a visionary - Maria de Agreda - that said the seamless tunic was made by Mary when Jesus was a child and it miraculously grew with Him. AFAIK it didn’t even originate from her; it was a popular belief since the Middle Ages. I think it’s related with the image of Mary as a seamstress both in the literal sense (she is portrayed as spinning and weaving, making clothes for Jesus) and in the spiritual sense (in a way, she spins the thread of Christ’s life; she weaves the garment of His human form in her womb).


#30

Being connected to a victim of state execution has always been shameful. It wouldn’t matter whether the body was draped or not; death, and execution, are inherently hideous and shameful.

ICXC NIKA


#31

Just to go back to this.

My personal opinion is that the visions seen by visionaries are not exactly ‘historical fact’ - in other words, they’re not seeing something like authentic footage of biblical events recorded 2000 years ago. What God allows them to see were the events as how they (the visionaries) would have understood it. God is speaking their language, in other words.

The point of these visions IMHO is not so much to show visionaries the fact, the events as how they would have actually happened, but something else. There’s a whole different purpose for these visions. That’s why I said I don’t prefer using private revelations when discussing history, because they’re not meant to answer or decide historical questions in the first place. (Come to think of it, weren’t these visions first or foremost intended for the visionaries themselves?)

You might say I side with Jean-Baptiste-François Cardinal Pitra’s opinion:

Everyone knows that we are fully at liberty to believe or not to believe in private revelations, even those most worthy of credence. Even when the Church approves them, they are merely received as probable, and not as indubitable. They are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology which are matters of controversy between the Doctors. It is quite permissible to differ from these revelations, even when approved, if we are relying upon solid reasons, and especially if the contrary doctrine is proved by unimpeachable documents and definite experience.

(Yes, I snagged this quote from Fr. Groeschel’s book. :o)

Case in point. St. Bridget in her visions described Jesus’ feet as being pierced by two nails: the legs were supposedly crossed, but each of His two feet were pierced by one nail each. But when we go to the visions of Maria de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, both describe one single nail being driven through Jesus’ feet.

There’s an obvious contradiction here, but then again, the detail is not apparently supposed to be ‘historical’ in the first place. In fact, we can ascribe these variances with the milieu these visionaries grew up in: during the time of Bridget, it was still common for artworks to portray two nails going through Jesus’ feet, although the three-nail depiction we’re now familiar with - a convention that started in the West during the 12th-13th century - is increasingly supplanting the older convention.

But when Maria de Agreda and Emmerich came along, portraying Jesus fixed to the cross with three nails had already become the standard in Western art. (During the Counter-Reformation, there was a brief fad among some Spanish artists to revive the four-nails depiction, which was deemed to be more ancient and accurate, but it never really lasted long. These artists actually used the visions of St. Bridget as one of their ‘proofs’ for doing so.)

In other words, what the visionaries saw were ‘distorted’ by their own previous experiences and expectations, by the depictions and devotional descriptions of Jesus crucified that they would have seen and heard or read throughout their lives.

Going back to the seamless tunic, that’s why I personally don’t accept the idea that the garment really was made by Mary and grew with Jesus’ body as historical, even if Maria de A. (who I think likely was influenced by the medieval stories) saw it in her visions - and I’m not rejecting it because there’s a miracle involved. (I might be a tad more ‘dry’ when it comes to topics like religion, but I’m not a naturalist - I don’t reject miracles.) I mean, it has beautiful, deep spiritual meaning and all, but that in itself does not make it an authentic / factual detail about the historical Jesus or His clothing.


#32

Couple of points. OK, 3.

  1. Jesus, being without sin, was thought to be humiliated by the Romans, but was in truth not, as He is superior to naked Adam, who had no shame in nakedness before the fall.

  2. Job 1:21 And said: Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.
    Ecclesiastes 5:14 As he came forth naked from his mother’s womb, so shall he return, and shall take nothing away with him of his labour.

  3. His nakedness explains why “the women” stood at a distance (Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:40, Luke 23:49)


#33

[quote=patrick457]The point of these visions IMHO is not so much to show visionaries the fact, the events as how they would have actually happened, but something else. There’s a whole different purpose for these visions. That’s why I said I don’t prefer using private revelations when discussing history, because they’re not meant to answer or decide historical questions in the first place. (Come to think of it, weren’t these visions first or foremost intended for the visionaries themselves?)
[/quote]

I completely agree with everything you say Patrick. :slight_smile:

I rarely like to mention visionaries for just the reasons you gave, when discussing biblical events.

I suppose my point was that there is a “possibility” of Truth, (or maybe a kernel of Truth) in what they have to say on various biblical events.

I was just a little taken aback by the “some people imagine” as being just a little too condescending. But you already apologized, and it’s really nothing… :slight_smile:


#34

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.