Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:15 am

Can I ask what the theory you're working towards is regarding the naked Jesus? Is it just more evidence that Jesus was seen as an angelic figure, or like a second Adam figure?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:25 am

But if the main protagonist in the gospel was an angel HERE how did he end up crucified? The nails would have passed through his flesh. The Church Fathers repeat this answer over and over again. They ridicule the heretics and their understanding of Jesus IN THE FIRST PART OF THE GOSPEL - i.e. chapter one especially - where Jesus flies and passes through crowds. I think this figure - this 'Jesus' - is different. Also why would the crucifixion narrative be called 'the Passion' if it applied to a being that had no passion? There is a clear purpose or significance to the whole narrative. There is some assumption that the Passion affects Jesus. Even among the heretics, his flesh is understood to be transformed INTO an angel. What would the lesson be if Jesus was ALREADY angelic? The assumption is that WE have to undergo these things to BECOME angelic. This lesson doesn't seem to follow if Jesus is already angelic. Like using George Washington learning about George Washington to teach learning about George Washington is important.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:40 am

So let me start again.

1. children are brought to Jesus in Mark 10
2. the rich man questions Jesus about life and then he is told to follow the commandments. Peter says the disciples have given up all to follow Jesus. This precludes them wearing a lot of clothes. They are effectively beggars having been walking the earth with Jesus since September/October in now what is likely late December.
3. the ur-gospel of Mark has a scene referred to as 'naked with naked'
4. James and John question Jesus about redemption baptism.
5. in all gospels Jesus crosses the Jordan in Jericho and in Mark the beggar strips himself of his clothes
6. Jesus goes to a rich tax tax gatherer named Matthew or Zacchaeus. Church Fathers consistently cite a passage involving clothing the naked to describe the scene.
7. Jesus is about to enter into Jerusalem his disciples strip themselves of their clothes and put them on his 'naked' donkey.
8. the Jews also strip themselves of their clothes and the donkey walks on their garments.
9. Mark preserves the story of a naked youth runs away from Jesus when he is arrested
10. the soldiers put a red or purple cloak on Jesus and then strip him
11. Jesus is naked when crucified
12. Jesus is resurrected naked according to some.
13. Jesus engages with the disciples naked according to some to display his glorious skin.

Curious how nudity creeps into the narrative by the end of the gospel. It might have something to do with Adam in Paradise. It is also curious - with respect to the 'secret Mark debate' how many times Mark's original reference to some form of nakedness is not retained by the other gospels - 3, 5, 7, 8, for sure. Possibly 9, 12 too. I also think Jerome's nudus nudum is relevant to this discussion. It is a commentary on this section of text. The assumption is (a) Jesus is going to die (b) he is naked and his true followers follow his naked example themselves naked.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:44 am

Gospel of Philip:
Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked. "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Co 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh, for whatever you shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on.
He said on that day in the thanksgiving, "You who have joined the perfect light with the Holy Spirit, unite the angels with us also, as being the images." Do not despise the lamb, for without it, it is not possible to see the king. No one will be able to go in to the king if he is naked.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:47 am

Mead brings up an interesting discussion of gymnosophists in Upper Egypt in relation to Apollonius of Tyana:
SECTION 10 - The Gymnosophists of Upper Egypt
WE now come to Apollonius’ visit to the “Gymnosophists” in “Ethopia,” which, though the artistic and literary goal of Apollonius’ journey in Egypt as elaborated by Philostratus, is only a single incident in the real history of the unrecorded life of our mysterious philosopher in that ancient land.
Had Philostratus devoted a chapter or two to the nature of the practices, discipline, and doctrines of the innumerable ascetic and mystic communities that honeycombed Egypt and adjacent lands in those days, he would have earned the boundless gratitude of students of the origins. But of all this he has no word; and yet he would have us believe that Damis’ reminiscences were an orderly series of notes of what actually happened. But in all things it is very apparent that Damis was rather a compagnon de voyage than an initiated pupil.

Who then were these mysterious “Gymnosophists,” as they are usually called, and whence their name? Damis calls them simply the “Naked” (??µ???), and it is very clear that the term is not to be understood as merely physically naked; indeed, neither to the Indians nor to these ascetics of uppermost Egypt can the term be applied with appropriateness in its purely physical meaning, as is apparent from the descriptions of Damis and Philostratus. A chance sentence that falls from the lips of one of these ascetics, in giving the story of his life, affords us a clue to the real meaning of the term. “At the age of fourteen,” he tells Apollonius, “I resigned my patrimony to those who desired such things, and naked I sought the Naked” (vi 16). [The word ??µ??? (naked), however, usually means lightly clad, as, for instance, when a man is said to plough “naked,” that is with only one garment, and this is evident from the comparison made between the costume of the Gymnosophists and that of people in the hot weather at Athens (vi 6).

This is the very same diction that Philo uses about the Therapeut communities, which he declares were very numerous in every province of Egypt and scattered in all lands. We are not, however, to suppose that these communities were all of the same nature. It is true that Philo tries to make out that the most pious and the chief of all of them was his particular community on the southern shore of Lake Mœris, which was strongly Semitic if not orthodoxly Jewish; and for Philo any community with a Jewish atmosphere must naturally have been the best. The peculiarity and main interest of our community, which was at the other end of the land above the cataracts, was that it had had some remote connection with India.

The community is called a f???t?st????? , in the sense of a place for meditation, a term used by ecclesiastical writers for a monastery, but best known to classical students from the humorous use made of it by Aristophanes, who in The Clouds calls the school of Socrates, a phrontistêrion or “thinking shop.” The collection of monasteria (?e?a), presumably caves, shrines, or cells, [For they had neither huts nor houses, but lived in the open air.] was situated on a hill or rising ground not far from the Nile. They were all separated from one another, dotted about the hill, and ingeniously arranged. There was hardly a tree in the place, with the exception of a single group of palms, under whose shade they held their general meetings (vi 6).

It is difficult to gather from the set speeches, put into the mouths of the head of the community and Apollonius (vi 10-13, 18-22), any precise details as to the mode of life of these ascetics, beyond the general indications of an existence of great toil and physical hardship, which they considered the only means of gaining wisdom. What the nature of their cult was, if they had one, we are not told, except that at midday the Naked retired to their monasteria (vi 14).

The whole tendency of Apollonius’ arguments, however, is to remind the community of its Eastern origin and its former connection with India, which it seems to have forgotten. The communities of this particular kind in southern Egypt and northern Ethiopia dated back presumably some centuries, and some of them may have been remotely Buddhist, for one of the younger members of our community who left it to follow Apollonius, says that he came to join it from the enthusiastic account of the wisdom of the Indians brought back by his father, who has been certain of a vessel trading to the East. It was his father who told him that these “Ethiopians” were from India, and so he had joined them instead of making the long and perilous journey to the Indus itself (vi 16).

If there be any truth in this story it follows that the founders of this way of life had been Indian ascetics, and if so they must have belonged to the only propagandising form of Indian religion, namely, the Buddhist.

After the impulse had been given, the communities, which were presumably recruited from generations of Egyptians, Arabs, and Ethiopians, were probably left entirely to themselves, and so in course of time forgot their origin, and even perhaps their original rule. Such speculations are permissible, owing to the repeated assertion of the original connection between these Gymnosophists and India. The whole burden of the story is that they were Indians who had forgotten their origin and fallen away from the wisdom.

The last incident that Philostratus records with regard to Apollonius among the shrines and temples is a visit to the famous and very ancient oracle of Trophonius, near Lebadea, in Bœotia. Apollonius is said to have spent seven days alone in this mysterious “cave,” and to have returned with a book full of questions and answers on the subject of “philosophy” (viii 19). This book was still, in the time of Philostratus, in the palace of Hadrian at Antium, together with a number of letters of Apollonius, and many people used to visit Antium for the special purpose of seeing it (viii 19, 29).

In the hay-bundle of legendary rigmarole solemnly set down by Philostratus concerning the cave of Trophonius, a small needle of truth may perhaps be discovered. The “cave” seems to have been a very ancient temple or shrine, cut in the heart of a hill, to which a number of underground passages of considerable length led. It had probably been in ancient times one of the most holy centres of the archaic cult of Hellas, perhaps even a relic of that Greece of thousands of years B.C., the only tradition of which, as Plato tell us, was obtained by Solon from the priests of Saïs. Or it may have been a subterranean shrine of the same nature as the famous Dictæan cave in Crete which only last year (1901 or so) was brought back to light by the indefatigable labours of Messrs, Evans and Hogarth.

As in the case of the travels of Apollonious, so with regard to the temples and communities which he visited, Philostratus is a most disappointing cicerone. But perhaps he is not to be blamed on this account, for the most important and most interesting part of Apollonius’ work was of so intimate a nature, prosecuted as it was among associations of such jealously-guarded secrecy, that no one outside their ranks could know anything of it, and those who shared in their initiation would say nothing.

It is, therefore, only when Apollonius comes forward to do some public act that we can get any precise historical trace of him; in every other case he passes into the sanctuary of a temple or enters the privacy of a community and is lost to view.

It may perhaps surprise us that Apollonius after sacrificing his private fortune, could nevertheless undertake such long and expensive travels, but it would seem that he was occasionally supplied with the necessary monies from the treasuries of the temples (cf viii 17), and that everywhere he was freely offered the hospitality of the temple or community in the place where he happened to be staying.

In conclusion of the present part of our subject, we may mention the good service done by Apollonius in driving away certain Chaldæan and Egyptian charlatans who were making capital out of the fears of the cities on the left shores of the Hellespont. These cities had suffered severely from shocks of earthquake, and in their panic placed large sums of money in the hands of these adventurers (who “trafficked in the misfortune of others”), in order that they perform propitiatory rites (vi 41). This taking money for the giving instruction in the sacred science or for the performance of sacred rites was the most detestable of crimes to all the true philosophers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:54 am

Here is the relevant passage:
[6.16] So when they had dined, "I," said Nilus, "until now have been camping together with the naked ( Γυμνοῖς ), and joined my forces with them as with certain light armed troops or slingers. But now l intend to put on my heavy armor, and it is your shield that shall adorn me."

"But," said Apollonius, "I think, my good Egyptian, that you will incur the censure of Thespesion and his society for two reasons; firstly, that after no further examination and testing of ourselves you have left them, and secondly that you give the preference to our manners and discipline with more precipitancy than is admissible where a man is making choice of how he shall live."

"I agree with you," said the young man, "but if I am to blame for making this choice, I might also be to blame if I did not make it; and anyhow they will be most open to rebuke, if they make the same choice as myself. For it will be more justly reprehensible in them, as they are both older and wiser than myself, not to have made the choice long ago which I make now; for with all their advantages they will have failed to choose what in practice would so much redound to their advantage."

"A very generous sentiment indeed, my good youth, is this which you have expressed," said Apollonius; "but beware lest the mere fact of their being so wise and aged should give them an appearance, at any rate, of being right in choosing as they have done, and of having good reason for rejecting my doctrine; and lest you should seem to take up a very bold position in setting them to rights rather than in following them."

But the Egyptian turned short round upon Apollonius and countering his opinion said: "So far as it was right for a young man to agree with his elders, I have been careful to do so; for so long as I thought that these gentlemen were possessed of a wisdom which belonged to no other set of men, I attached myself to them; and the motive which actuated me to do so was the following: My father once made a voyage on his own initiative to the Red Sea, for he was, I may tell you, captain of the ship which the Egyptians send to the Indies. And after he had had intercourse with the Indians of the seaboard, he brought home stories of the wise men of that region, closely similar to those which you have told us. And his account which I heard was somewhat as follows, namely that the Indians are the wisest of mankind, but that the Ethiopians are colonists sent from India, who follow their forefathers in matters of wisdom, and fix their eyes on the institutions of their home.

Well, I, having reached my teens, surrendered my patrimony to those who wanted it more than myself, and naked with Naked (γυμνὸς δὲ Γυμνοῖς) frequented them, in the hope of picking up the teaching of the Indians, or at any rate teaching allied to theirs. And they certainly appeared to me to be wise, though not after the manner of India; but when I asked them point blank why they did not teach the philosophy of India, they plunged into abuse of the natives of that country very much as you have heard them do in their speeches this very day.

Now I was still young, as you see, so they made me a member of their society, because I imagine they were afraid I might hastily quit them and undertake a voyage to the Red Sea, as my father did before me. And I should certainly have done so, yes, by Heaven, I would have pushed on until I reached the hill of the sages, unless someone of the gods had sent you hither to help me and enabled me without either making any voyage over the Red Sea or adventuring to the inhabitants of the Gulf, to taste the wisdom of India.

It is not today therefore for the first time that I shall make my choice, but I made it long ago, though I did not obtain what I hoped to obtain. For what is there to wonder at if a man who has missed what he was looking for, returns to the search? And if I should convert my friends yonder to this point of view, and persuade them to adopt the convictions which I have adopted myself, should I, tell me, be guilty of any hardihood? For you must not reject the claim that youth makes, that in some way it assimilates an idea more easily than old age; and anyone who counsels another to adopt the wisdom and teaching which he himself has chosen, anyhow escapes the imputation of trying to persuade others of things he does not believe himself. And anyone who takes the blessings bestowed upon him by fortune into a corner and there enjoys them by himself, violates their character as blessings, for he prevents their sweetness from being enjoyed by as many as possible."

[6.17] When Nilus had finished these arguments, and juvenile enough they were, Apollonius took him up and said: "If you were in love with my wisdom, had you not better, before I begin, discuss with me the question of my reward?"

"Let us discuss it," answered Nilus, "and do you ask whatever you like."

"I ask you," he said, "to be content with the choice you have made, and not to annoy the Naked ( Γυμνοὺς ) by giving them advice which they will not take."

"I consent," he said, "and let this be agreed upon as your reward."

This then was the substance of their conversation, and when Nilus at its close asked him how long a time he would stay among the Naked ( Γυμνοὺς ) he replied: "So long as the quality of their wisdom justifies anyone in remaining in their company; and after that I shall take my way to the cataracts, in order to see the springs of the Nile, for it will be delightful not only to behold the sources of the Nile, but also to listen to the roar of its waterfalls."

[6.18] After they had held this discussion and listened to some recollections of India, they lay down to sleep upon the grass; but at daybreak, having offered their accustomed prayers, they followed Nilus, who led them into the presence of Thespesion. They accordingly greeted one another, and sitting down together in the grove they began a conversation in which Apollonius led as follows: "How important it is," said he, "not to conceal wisdom, is proved by our conversation of yesterday; for because the Indians taught me as much of their wisdom as I thought it proper for me to know, I not only remember my teachers, but I go about instilling into others what I heard from them. And you too will be richly rewarded by me, if you send me away with a knowledge of your wisdom as well; for I shall not cease to go about and repeat your teachings to the Greeks, while to the Indians I shall write them."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12203
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:14 am

Interesting Erich Klostermann on the Gospel of Mark https://books.google.com/books?id=WhYVA ... 0.&f=false notes on Peter's statement "we have left all to follow you" that this references Apollonius's 'naked with Naked":
Wiederum ein Nachtrag : die Aeusserung des Petrus , der auch hier nur als Dolmetsch der andern Jünger erscheint (s . v . 29 ) , knüpft an v . 21 an πάντα 1 19 20 2 19 . Vgl . Philostrat vita Apollonii VI 16 tà μέν πατρώα τους βουλομένοις αφήκα , γυμνός δε Γυμνοις έπεφοίτησα τούτοις . Zu ergänzen ist die Frage „ also haben wir doch den Eintritt in das Reich verdient ?"
Funny that Morton Smith didn't mention this in 1973! Also Pistis Sophia has a baptism given because of what Peter declared:
IT came to pass then, when Jesus our Lord had been crucified and had risen from the dead on the third day, that his disciples gathered round him, adored him and said: "Our Lord, have mercy upon us, for we have abandoned father and mother and the whole world and have followed thee" ... When then Mary said this weeping, Jesus answered in great compassion and said unto them: "Truly, my brethren and beloved, who have abandoned father and mother for my name's sake, unto you will I give all mysteries and all gnoses.

"I will give you the mystery of the twelve æons of the rulers and their seals and their ciphers and the manner of invocation for reaching their regions. I will give you moreover the mystery of the thirteenth æon and the manner of invocation for reaching their regions, and I will give you their ciphers and their seals. And I will give you the mystery of the baptism of those of the Midst and the manner of invocation for reaching their regions, and I will announce unto you their ciphers and their seals. And I will give you the baptism of those of the Right, our region, and its ciphers and its seals and the manner of invocation for reaching thither. And I will give you the great mystery of the Treasury of the Light and |364. the manner of invocation for reaching thither. I will give you all the mysteries and all the gnoses, in order that ye may be called 'children of the fulness, perfected in all the gnoses and all the mysteries.' Blessed are ye beyond all men on earth, for the children of the Light are come in your time."
Origen similarly connects Peter's statement with a second baptism Jesus was introducing to the world then:
He who despises the literal text <as though> not sufficient to persuade a hearer with a more noble nature, as with other texts of Scripture which contain something revered in an anagogical sense, might say such things, that this [passage], Behold, we have left everything behind, and have followed you (Matt 19.27), with a little net having been abandoned, and a poor house, and a laborious life in poverty, <is> in no way something <great nor> is it worthy to be recounted of so great a disciple, to whom “flesh and blood did not reveal” that Jesus is “the Christ, [K414] the Son of the living God,” “but” his “Father in the heavens,” and to whom it is said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the
gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt 16.17, 18) .. Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, that you who have followed me’ (Matt 19.28), etc. In fact, this passage itself has a simpler, protreptic meaning with regards to forsaking substance, and another, deeper [meaning] beyond that.

He, therefore, who interprets [K416] the passage of the Gospel according to the letter will say such things: the word is <not> speaking about all who follow Jesus, but it names <those who follow himself> the apostles at that time and <those> who follow him persistently in a manner similar to them. And he indicated those who come from a later time <by>, And everyone who has left behind brothers or sisters (Matt 19.29), etc. But since this is a forced explanation of what it means “to follow,” someone will refute [it] by mentioning all things that have been said about [what it means] “to follow” in, “The one who does not take up his cross, and follow behind me, he is not worthy to be my disciple” (Matt 10.38). ^*Those, then, who have followed the Savior will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Indeed they will receive this authority in the resurrection of the dead, for this is the regeneration, which is a certain new beginning, when a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21.1) is created for those who renew themselves, and the New Covenant is handed over, and its cup.*

The introduction to this regeneration (παλιγγενεσίας)63 is what [K417] Paul calls the “washing of regeneration” (Tit 3.5), <which is a mystery> of that newness which comes after the washing of regeneration in the “renewal of spirit.” Perhaps in respect to the beginning (τὴν γένεσιν), on the one hand, [M1321] “there is no one pure from uncleanness, even if his life be one day long” (Job 14.4-5), on account of the mystery which concerns the beginning, about which [mystery] each of those who have come from the beginning may say what is said by David in the 50th Psalm, which reads that “in transgressions I was brought forth, and in sins my mother conceived me” (Ps 50.7). But, on the other hand, everyone is “pure from uncleanness” who is begotten “from above” “from water and spirit,” according to the regeneration [that comes] from washing, so that I might dare to say, [he is] pure “through a mirror” and “in an enigma” (1 Cor 13.12). But in accordance with the other regeneration, whenever the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory (Matt 19.28), each one who has come unto that regeneration in Christ is completely pure “from uncleanness” <and sees> “face to face” (1 Cor 13.12), and having himself come to that regeneration “through the washing of regeneration.” If one should wish to understand this washing, [K418] observe how John, who was baptizing “in water” “for repentance,” speaks concerning the Savior, “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt 3.11).

Therefore, on the one hand, in the regeneration through washing we have been buried together with Christ, “for (according to the Apostle) we have been buried together with him through baptism” (Rom 6.4). On the other hand, in the regeneration of washing through fire and spirit we become conformed “to the body of the glory” of Christ (Phil 3.21)64 who is seated on the throne of his glory, and we ourselves are seated on twelve thrones, if indeed having left all things behind (either way this is understood *** but much more in the second case65) we have followed Christ.^

66 Then, whenever the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, the prophecy will be fulfilled which says, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” (Ps 109.1). And th<en>, ^“He must reign, until the time when he puts all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15.25), until “the last enemy death” is destroyed (1 Cor 15.26), which when destroyed, death will no longer be before [K419] the face of those who are being saved,67 but only the life that is confirmed. For when death is a reality before the face <of men>, life as a result is not confirmed for those who are seized by it. But when death is destroyed, life will be confirmed by [M1324] all.^ 68 In the law you will find it says, “I have set life and death before your face” (cf. Deut 30.15, 19), and, “Your life will hang in suspense before your eyes,” and, “Do not trust in your life” (Deut 28.66). The Son of Man will be seated on the throne of his glory, and no one dishonorable and ignoble to God will be ruled over by him. For at that time all those who are not receiving “glory from men,” nor are doing <anything> so as to be glorified “by men,” but rather seek after the glory which is from “[God] alone” (cf. Jn 5.44), will be ruled over by the one seated on the throne of his glory. And at that time, the things for which the Savior prayed will come to fruition when he said in prayer, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the cosmos existed” (Jn 17.5) ... If, therefore, someone has left all things behind and followed Jesus, he will be furnished with those things mentioned to Peter in accordance with his question; but if not all things, but the things [mentioned] next, this person will receive many times as much and will inherit eternal life. We must consider the things [mentioned here that are] not [included in] all things but are said specifically, from the [passage],
And every one who has left behind brothers or sisters, etc. Now that this passage, even at the simple level of the text, contains no light and contemptible word in that it encourages [someone] to despise all fleshly relatives and every possession, everyone would confess that much.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:19 am

Melito may be relevant here
O frightful murder! O unheard of injustice! The Lord is disfigured and he is not deemed worthy of a cloak for his naked body, so that he might not be seen exposed. For this reason the stars turned and fled, and the day grew quite dark, in order to hide the naked person hanging on the tree, darkening not the body of the Lord, but the eyes of men.
Andrew Criddle

Ken Olson
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Ken Olson » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:35 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:40 pm
Another strange passage in the final journey to Jerusalem. Jesus gets them to find a particular donkey. Mark adds:
And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their himatia on him; and he sat upon him.
Yes with rich people there were layers of clothing. But as we saw with the beggar, poor people like the disciples had one layer of clothing.
As we saw with the beggar? Stephan has claimed that beggars did not wear layers of clothing in antiquity. As far as I can recall, the only supporting evidence he offered for this sweeping claim was that Isaiah 58.7 (and patristic allusions to Isaiah 58.7) used the word naked to describe the poor in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7008&p=110046&hilit=bdag#p109950

To which I responded in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7008&p=110046&hilit=bdag#p110046

While I covered more ground in the full post, I'll recap just two points in this post. First, Stephan fails to distinguish among the different senses of gymnos in Greek.
γυμνός, ή, όν (Hom.+; also s. Just. A I, 37, 8 γυμνὸν σκέπε [ref. Is 58:7]; Mel.)
① pert. to being without covering
ⓐ lit. naked, stripped, bare (PFay 12, 20; Gen 2:25, 3: 7, 10f al.; Job 1:21; Mel., P. 97, 739 γύμνῳ τῷ σώματι) Mk 14:52 (Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 140 §582 γυμνοὶ … ἔφευγον; TestJos 8:3 ἔφυγον γυμνός); Ac 19:16 (cp. Philo, In Flaccum 36); Rv 3:17; 16:15; 17:16. περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ who wore a linen garment over his naked body (Tyndale: ‘cloothed in lynnen apon the bare’) Mk 14:51 (for the subst. τὸ γυμνόν=the naked body cp. Lucian, Nav. 33 τὰ γυμνά). πόδες (Euphorion [III b.c.] 53, 1 Coll. Alex. p. 40; Jos., Ant. 8, 362) Hs 9, 20, 3.
ⓑ fig. uncovered, bare (cp. Diod S 1, 76, 2; Themistocl., Ep. 16 p. 756 H. γ. ἀλήθεια; Lucian, Tox. 42, Anachars. 19 ὡς γυμνὰ τὰ γεγενημένα οἱ Ἀρεοπαγῖται βλέποιεν; Heliod., Aeth. 10, 29 w. ἀπαρακάλυπτος; Job 26:6; Philo, Migr. Abr. 192; Jos., Ant. 6, 286; Ar. 13, 5 αἰσχύνην; Mel., Fgm. 9, 19 P. a bared sword) Hb 4:13. Of the soul, whose covering is the body: naked 2 Cor 5:3 (cp. Pla., Cratyl. 20, 403b ἡ ψυχὴ γυμνὴ τοῦ σώματος, also Gorg. 523ce; 524f; Aelian, HA 11, 39. Artem. 4, 30 p. 221, 10f the σῶμα is the ἱμάτιον of the ψυχή; 5, 40; M. Ant. 12, 2 of the divine element in man, ‘which God sees without any covering’.—Of the νοῦς: Herm. Wr. 10, 17). S. on this EKühl, Über 2 Cor 5:1–10, 1904; JUbbink, Het eeuwige leven bij Pls, Groningen diss. 1917, 14ff; WMundle, D. Problem d. Zwischenzustandes … 2 Cor 5:1–10: Jülicher Festschr. 1927, 93–109; LBrun, ZNW 28, 1929, 207–29; Guntermann (ἀνάστασις 2b); RBultmann, Exeg. Probl. des 2 Kor: SymbBUps 9, ’47, 1–12; JSevenster, Studia Paulina (JdeZwaan Festschr.) ’53, 202–14; EEllis, NTS 6, ’60, 211–24. γ. κόκκος a naked kernel 1 Cor 15:37, where an adj. is applied to a grain of wheat, when it properly belongs to the bodiless soul which is compared to it; s. σπέρματα γ. 1 Cl 24:5 and AcPlCor 2:26.
② pert. to being inadequately clothed, poorly dressed (Demosth. 21, 216; BGU 846, 9; PBrem 63, 30; Job 31:19; Tob 1:17; 4:16) Mt 25:36, 38, 43f; Js 2:15; B 3:3 (Is 58:7).
③ pert. to being lightly clad, without an outer garment, without which a decent person did not appear in public (so Hes., Op. 391, oft. in Attic wr.; PMagd 6, 7 [III b.c.]; 1 Km 19:24; Is 20:2) J 21:7 (Dio Chrys. 55 [72], 1 the ναύτης wears only an undergarment while at work).—Pauly-W. XVI 2, 1541–49; BHHW II 962–65; RAC X 1–52.—B. 324f. M-M. TW.


Note that BDAG places Isaiah 58.7 in the the second sense, "inadequately clothed, poorly dressed," as opposed to the sense of Mark 14.52 "naked, stripped, bare."

Second, I cited the case of Odysseus' beggars disguise in the Odyssey, which describes him as having a tunic, a cloak, and a deerskin over that, and that in this and other cases, beggars clothes were depicted as tattered and filthy, but nothing excluded them having both tunics and mantles.

Stephan has chosen to ignore the counterargument and continue to insist that poor people did not wear layers of clothing in antiquity (which would exclude wearing both a tunic and a mantle).
Saul (1 Sam 19:24), takes of his outer garments (himatia) and is called gymnos; so is Peter in John 21:7:
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” τὸν ἐπενδύτην διεζώσατο ἦν γυμνός and jumped into the water.
There seems to be only one layer of clothing on these people.


This is a non-sequitur. Stephan is again not differentiating among the various different definitions of gymnos found in standard Greek lexica (e.g., BDAG, TDNT, Liddel-Scott). He seems to be assuming that only the first sense of "naked, stripped, bare" applies. BDAG identifies the use of gymnos in John 21.7 as the third sense, "lightly clad, without an outer garment," and many translators and commentators accept this. But supposing that we take Peter to be literally nude - we do not know if Peter put on all his normal clothing when he saw the Lord and jumped into the water. (I am less familiar with the Samuel case).
In Joan Taylor's study -
Stephan quotes Joan Taylor as though she supports his case for Jesus' nudity, when if fact she disagrees with it.
Taylor: The ambiguity allows for us to imagine a completely naked Jesus with a linen cloth wrapped around his waist, using his only clothing to wash his disciples' feet, but also a Jesus more decently clad with a linen cloth wrapped around him instead of two mantles, keeping his tunic on ... seen, in the other Gospels when Jesus asks the Twelve to go out in his stead around Galilee, he specifically stated, ‘Don’t put on two tunics’ (Mark 6:8; Matt. 9:10; Luke 9:3)
Taylor lays out two possibilities, so Stephan quotes her to show that she allows his theory is imaginable, but then he uses ellipsis to excise her conclusion as to which possibility is more likely:
Taylor: Overall, given there is no explicit mention of Jesus stripping naked, the latter seems preferable. (Joan Taylor, What Did Jesus Look Like? (2018) p. 188).
Taylor again:
As an idea of how Jesus dressed, there is the image of Moses by the burning bush in the third-century Dura Europos synagogue (Wing Panel 1; Figure 75).76 Moses is shown with the same kind of undyed mantle and short tunic we have already found on Jesus in catacomb art and in the baptistery of Dura Europos, though here the distinctive tallith is not as clearly defined as in other Moses scenes there. In imagining Moses, the artist imagined a man people would consider authoritative, charismatic, knowledgeable and philosophically adept. Moses has a slight beard. He has taken off his sock-sandals. If we think of a model for this kind of representation it seems to have been the Jewish sages and Graeco-Roman philosophers of the world in which these paintings were done. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus could be placed in the same category, wearing similar clothing. Matt. 20:16, 19:31; Luke 13:30).
Taylor plainly says Jesus is depicted wearing both a tunic and a mantle, as is Moses in the depiction at Dura Europos.
I don't think it is at all a stretch to imagine that Jesus and his disciples had one layer of clothing on and that when they took over or had taken off them one layer of clothing they were naked underneath.


It may not overtax Stephan's imagination to picture this, but he has not given any adequate argument to permit the conclusion that this is what the author of Mark intended his audience to picture.
Clement says in Can the Rich Man be Saved:
Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. Now if by all he means his own property, he boasts of leaving four oboli perhaps in all, and forgets to show the kingdom of heaven to be their recompense. But if, casting away what we were now speaking of, the old mental possessions and soul diseases, they follow in the Master's footsteps, this now joins them to those who are to be enrolled in the heavens. For it is thus that one truly follows the Saviour, by aiming at sinlessness and at His perfection, and adorning and composing the soul before it as a mirror, and arranging everything in all respects similarly.
There is a similar assumption that the disciples were beggars and penniless - hence Peter's statement in the Question of the Rich Man.
The quotation from Clement is meant to show that the disciples were poor. But then he moves to his faulty assumption that the poor did not wear, or were not pictured as wearing, both a tunic and a mantle.
It is not unthinkable or even controversial to suggest that once chapter 10 ends (which is quite soon after Peter's statement) when they take off their himatia they are considered gymnoi for all intents and purposes. As such Jerome's nudus nudum statement necessarily applies to them too.
It is not unthinkable in the sense that Stephan has been able to think it. I think the only reason it has not caused more controversy in the scholarly literature is that it hasn't been seriously entertained in the first place. On the subject of Jerome's nudus nudum - well Stephan has not actually quoted and discussed it yet, he has merely claimed that it supports his conclusion. I suppose as long as he doesn't actually put forward an argument, the un-made argument will be safe from criticism.

I'm not sure there's much point in continuing to engage with someone who suppresses counter-evidence, as Stephan has with me and with Joan Taylor.
Attachments
Moses_Dura_Europos.jpg
Moses_Dura_Europos.jpg (92.86 KiB) Viewed 968 times
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ken Olson
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus Naked in the Gospel

Post by Ken Olson » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:38 pm

Here's the Dura Europos depiction of Jesus (the attachment didn't show up in the previous post).
Attachments
Jesus Dura Europos.jpg
Jesus Dura Europos.jpg (13.45 KiB) Viewed 967 times

Post Reply