Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

This is not about Secret Mark or that passage. It's a question of whether as a god it would have been appropriate for Jesus to have worn human clothes.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

Again the implication of Psalm 22 the 'scripture' which 'foretold' the Passion according to virtually every Church Father Jesus was naked:
Verse 17, “I may count all my bones: they look and stare upon me.” In other words, He, with the head slumping down, after a while unable to lift it again, sees nothing but His bones. In other words, He is there naked in front of the leers of the bestial mob who stare at Him, exposed to them. The wonderful Son of God. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-lib ... -the-cross
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

On the ancient acceptance of a naked Jesus crucified Melito writes, 'For this reason the lights of heaven turned away. . . with his body naked. . . the earth trembled' (97-98).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

So again the original understanding of the crucifixion as a naked Jesus on the cross. Canonical Mark's addition of him being 're-clothed' with 'his own clothes' was unknown to Peter or to the gospel used by Justin, Tertullian, Melito etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

For those interested in early Patristic preservation of the Gospel of Peter:
Early Christian apologists Irenaeus and Tertullian both mention there was a seat (sedile) on the cross for Jesus’s crucifixion, although that detail is not mentioned in the Gospel accounts.[42] Both the Puteoli and Palatine graffitos appear to include a sedile in their depictions of crosses.[43] These seats were not meant to relieve but to exacerbate the suffering of the victim. In some cases, in an effort to heighten the shame of the punishment, the victim was crucified nude. The woman Alkimilla, for example, in the Puteoli crucifixion graffito is not clothed and Artemidorus Daldianus, a second-century AD diviner from Ephesus, writes, “They are crucified naked (Greek gymnoi) and the crucified lose their flesh.”[44] But the evidence is ambiguous because although the Greek word gymnos is generally translated as naked, it can also be used to describe those who are “lightly clad, without an outer garment.”[45] The Palatine graffito shows the victim wearing a short tunic. At least some early Christians believed that Jesus was crucified naked. In the second century AD, the bishop of Sardis named Melito (died ca. 180) lamented Jesus’s crucifixion: “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.”[46] Melito’s lament is supported by the Pereire gem depicting Jesus naked on the cross. However, possibly in an attempt to preserve Jesus’s modesty, the Acts of Pilate, a fourth-century text, states, “And Jesus went out from the praetorium, and the two malefactors with him. And when they came to the place, they stripped him and girded him with a linen cloth and put a crown of thorns on his head.”
Again we read in the Gospel of Peter:
And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying: 'Judge justly, King of Israel.'
Irenaeus and Tertullian were aware and accepted the crucifixion account of the Gospel of Peter.
[42] Irenaeus writes, “The very form of the cross too has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.24.4). Likewise, Tertullian describes, “Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat” (Tertullian, Against the Nations 1.12.3–4).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

On the tradition of a 'seat' it apparently goes back to Justin:

Image
Some ancient sources suggest that a typical cross granted the victim a partial seat, called the sedile, which was nailed to the upright. It would be well to quote these sources, since many writers on crucifixion have drawn implausible conclusions from them. The Roman philosopher Seneca (4 BC? to AD 65) twice described the victim as a man seated. His fuller wording was, "You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing cross" (11). The clear testimony of several early Christian writers leaves no doubt that, at least in the second century, providing the victim with a seat was standard procedure. The earliest of these sources is Justin Martyr (AD 100? to AD 165?). In his commentary on Deuteronomy 33:17, which he understood as prefiguring the crucifixion, he spoke of the victim being supported by a hornlike structure jutting out from the face of the stipes.

Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of a unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the center, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns (12).

Irenaeus (AD 120?-AD 202?) was even more explicit.

The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails (13).

A slightly later church father, Tertullian (AD 160? –AD 230), corroborates this picture.

Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us [that is, Christians], with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat [sedilis excessu] (14).

Justin’s comparison of the sedile to a horn has led some to imagine that the victim sat on a hornlike projection, perhaps with its outward end curving upward to a point (15). But notice that Justin saw the two blunt ends of the patibulum as no less hornlike. Any projection from the cross was, in his view, consistent with the prophet’s imagery. The comparison to a horn is therefore useless for reconstructing the seat’s appearance. It was probably something easy to assemble, such as a board nailed sideways to the upright or a board projecting outward with a nailed support underneath.

When the Romans prepared crosses for Jesus and the two thieves who were crucified alongside Him, they may have omitted a sedile, because, by affording some rest to the victim, it had the effect of prolonging life (16). The Romans viewed it as imperative to finish off the condemned men before evening, marking the beginning of a new day. The next day after Jesus was put on the cross was not only a Sabbath, but also the beginning of a feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Romans did not like to offend Jewish sensibilities to the extent of conducting an execution on a day considered holy.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by John T »

In true mythicist fashion.

Any reference to Jesus wearing clothes is an interpolation.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Question for Mythicists: Did Jesus Wear Clothes?

Post by Secret Alias »

No that's not it. He was crucified naked. And more importantly my question assumes that God or a god doesn't wear clothes
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Went to the Oracle at Delphi Once. It was Clothed. GMark's use of Clothes

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Went to the Oracle at Delphi Once. It was Clothed. GMark's use of Clothes.


JW:
The subject of this Thread, the Markan use of clothing, fits in my other Award winning Thread here:

Is "Mark" a Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges? An Inventory of Markan Literary Technique.

but the subject of clothing in GMark is so pervasive that I think it deserves a dedicated Thread. A detailed article on the subject can be found here:

UNDRESSING JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK: A NARRATIVE-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLOTHING OF THE CHARACTER OF JESUS
Calogero A. Miceli


For starters, let's begin to break down the attire of GMark's successful Christ/Son of God candidate:

Verse Word Literal Context Theme Spiritual Commentary
9:3
and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.
3022 [e] leuka λευκὰ white Adj-NNP Jesus' clothes became extremely white Heaven announces high up to Jesus' main disciples that Jesus' has heavenly authority The entire Gospel consists of evidence being presented to Jesus' disciples regarding who/what he is. Here the evidence is directly from Heaven The "evidence" from Heaven is revelation and not historical witness (per the narrative the supposed historical witnesses to this do not tell anyone about it). The extremely white clothing is a spiritual marker that identifies the revealed nature of Jesus = son of God (This is my beloved Son). First use of the offending word which is often used in a religious context
16:5
And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
3022 [e] leukēn λευκήν, white, Adj-AFS Female followers of Jesus witness a young man in the tomb who is wearing white The young man proclaims the risen Jesus The entire Gospel has a theme that none of Jesus' followers believed in his Passion mission. Here Jesus' male disciples don't even have enough faith/respect to even show up while some female followers receive potentially quality evidence for the Passion mission but don't believe it Historical witness in GMark never follows spiritual authority White traditionally represents purity/divine. These are the only two times "Mark" (author) uses the "white" description suggesting a connection in the narrative between Heaven revealing Jesus' proper identity in the first usage and a human witness accepting Jesus proper identity in the second usage. Nota Ben = GMark, as always, reveals its Separationist nature here (so to speak). It is "Jesus" that has been resurrected, not "the Christ".



Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Cavalryat Emptori

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:41 am
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:21 am Right but clearly the 'garment' is supernatural. Right?
Right! But it only means that the robe also has a symbolic meaning. It doesn't mean that Jesus was naked. It is explicitly said that he wore robes.
JW:
What's interesting is that in Paul and GMark, the only writings with much potential for historical evidence, there is never a physical description of Jesus other than being male (son). Presumably this was important to them. They may have just wanted to emphasize the supposed spiritual nature of that man but it's still [understatement] a long way from a typical Greco-Roman biography [/understatement]. Doesn't prove, make probable, make likely, offer measurable evidence for MJ, but it does raise, along with Jesus, the question.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply