Ship of Fools: Small Topic

Thread: Small Topic Board: Kerygmania / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002355

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

This is a small question not intended to start any rows.

After the resurrection, when the various women and apostles encounter Jesus, what is Jesus wearing? We know his original clothing was confiscated. For burial, he was wrapped in various sheets, but these were found in the tomb afterward. On some occasions, people meet him and do not at once recognize him, which suggests that he looks like other people and hence must be wearing something.

Has anyone run into this question before? Does it have some standard obvious answer I am too dense to see?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Macarius just suggested he was wearing an ethereal glow.

M.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's no standard answer--I assume it's the same thing as "Where did he get the fish he was barbecuing at the beach, and the bread too?" In other words, God/Jesus worked this out, which wouldn't have been hard for him, after all.

Though my family did get the giggles at the mental pic of Jesus standing by some centurion's bedside in the predawn twilight, saying, "Excuse me, but would you mind handing me my robe back?"

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Remember how all the angels etc. who appear in Scripture are wearing robes so radiantly white that 'no fuller could do the like'? Clearly after His resurrection Jesus has access to that sacristy closet. I see an energetic Heavenly Altar Guild, many expert ladies armed with stain-removal sticks, dilute bleach, and Oxydol, constantly maintaining the radiant purity of those robes. You sit down at the Feast of the Lamb, there's sure to be gravy stains, smears of jelly, and spillage from the cocktail shaker, right? I see my role in the fiber-determination department. I can touch a fabric and tell you if it's cotton, wool, or some artificial blend. This affects stain removal!

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

As HCH points out, we are told that post-Resurrection Jesus could walk along with others, chatting with them, without those others noticing anything unusual about him (or even recognizing him). From this, I think it is safe to assume that neither he nor his garments were glowing--as surely that would have Raised A Few Eyebrows.

Now, when he walks through locked doors to drop in on the apostles, there may have been a bit of a glow, but generally when he is out and about and walking down roads or on beaches there is no suggestion that his appearance is all that unusual (other than being Not Dead, I mean).

And, after all, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and all the fishes in the sea and the animals on the land. I've got to think that whipping up a robe or two is not beyond his powers. You should see what he can do with some loaves and fishes.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Actually, in the book of Tobit we have an angel who passes as a human and thus is presumably not wearing robes of spotless white.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Someone in robes of spotless white wouldn't be mistaken for a gardener.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Why would he have spotless white robes anyway? This isn't the Day of Judgement. [Confused]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

'Ethereal glow' was a joke. I'm not sure that's come across.

M.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It did to me. But the spotless white robe thing I've run into in other contexts, and usually the speakers thereof seem to be serious. (Why, in a day before easy laundry...)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In the day, white garments were a sign of status. Victoria got married in white, not necessarily as a sign of her purity (that was a later add-on in folklore) but because it showed she could afford a garment solely for that occasion, that might never be worn again. Likewise Laura Fairlie, in The Woman in White, often wore white because it showed she never had to do any work.
In any era where you had to heat or cook with an open fire, white was wildly impractical, conspicuous consumption at its finest. Only we moderns, with our HVAC and electrical heaters, can wear white easily.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Precisely why I wouldn't expect to find it on any biblical character including Jesus, with the exception of the transfiguration episode and his second coming. (How do you keep a white robe clean at a beach barbecue when you're doing the cooking?)

[ 18. April 2017, 20:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

The ancient Romans had an answer to Lamb Chopped's question: the toga candida worn by candidates for high public office. The dazzling whiteness was achieved by vigorously rubbing the cloth with chalk.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Precisely why I wouldn't expect to find it on any biblical character including Jesus, with the exception of the transfiguration episode and his second coming. (How do you keep a white robe clean at a beach barbecue when you're doing the cooking?)

Didn't you just before in this thread say "In other words, God/Jesus worked this out, which wouldn't have been hard for him, after all"?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Surely. But do you really think Jesus is in to that kind of conspicuous consumption? I mean, it would be rather like wearing a tux to grill in, wouldn't it?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My notion is that our current physical form is like writing with a pen nib, dipped in ink. Like the old scriptoriums, in the Middle Ages, copying Bibles. The letters appear only in the one script, and any errors you are stuck with because you can't erase.

When Jesus (and hopefully we some day) took on his Risen form, it was like putting the text into a word processing system. Suddenly, you can backspace out and fix all your errors. A nice wiggly red line gives you help in spelling, and cut-and-paste means you can shuffle the words like cards (remember why it is called cut and paste? Because we used to have to actually do that, with scissors and paste?). You can select any font you like, as big as you want. Vast things are possible, and yet the actual text is still the same, whatever font you use.

And if you consider it like that, then Jesus's clothes post-Resurrection are easy. Just adding serifs to the font, not anything much. Scroll through the vast list of garments, nah, that one's too white, no sequins today, here we go, a nice tan robe and leather sandals, perfectly suitable for hiking down the road to Emmaus...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is it conspicuous consumption when you're God? Besides I'm not sure that concept really existed then. There was kingly clothes and serfly clothes. Were there sumptuary laws in the Roman Empire?

If white says "royalty" then would not the King of Kings dress royally? As has been established bright white clothes are good enough for angels.

As for getting dirty, I assume that God could have sprayed it with the divine Stainguard™.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, my head hurts now.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Actually, if you want to look "kingly", you might well wear purple.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Though my family did get the giggles at the mental pic of Jesus standing by some centurion's bedside in the predawn twilight, saying, "Excuse me, but would you mind handing me my robe back?"

I'm picturing the centurion looking aghast at Jesus (I mean, who wouldn't, under the circumstances), peeling off his outer garment and saying, "Good heavens, man, cover yourself!"

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Or Jesus, standing in the cave and muttering "Okay, I really didn't think this part through..."

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Someone in robes of spotless white wouldn't be mistaken for a gardener.

It is not quite as easy as that.

Mary half turns perhaps to leave the tomb, notices a figure but does not face Christ until he says "Mary", at least according to John. This opens that possibility that when the angel says "Woman why are you weeping?" Jesus might be standing directly behind her so visible to the angel but not Mary.

Jengie

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Or Jesus, standing in the cave and muttering "Okay, I really didn't think this part through..."

As for this,

quote:
I'm picturing the centurion looking aghast at Jesus (I mean, who wouldn't, under the circumstances), peeling off his outer garment and saying, "Good heavens, man, cover yourself!"

I'm seeing him use the winding cloth as a kind of bathtowel wrapped around the middle--you know, like guys do just out of the shower sometimes?

Of course that would require a trip back to the empty tomb to put the thing back (carefully folded, of course, just like his mama taught him...)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There is a famous statue of George Washington, in Washington DC at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, in just this situation. What is a hoot about this statue is, of course, that Washington was a decent Georgian gentleman of the upper class, and would sooner be shot dead than be seen dressed in nothing but a towel.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Actually, if you want to look "kingly", you might well wear purple.

Was that the kingly color in that time and place? Do we have any evidence for any particular color, when it comes down to it, being the kingly color then and there?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Actually, if you want to look "kingly", you might well wear purple.
Was that the kingly color in that time and place? Do we have any evidence for any particular color, when it comes down to it, being the kingly color then and there?

According to the infallible wikipedia, the Emperors wore a purple toga embroidered with gold.
Murex dye, used for purple togas, has been extremely costly since the Phoenicians (wikipedia again) as manufacture involved accumulating large numbers of decomposing shellfish.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And did not Herod put a purple robe on Jesus, when Pilate sent him over?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And did not Herod put a purple robe on Jesus, when Pilate sent him over?

Mark says purple, while Matthew says scarlet. (NRSV)

That said, I don't know know how Greek names for colors correspond to English names, or whether one Greek word could encompass what we think of as purple and scarlet.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

My understanding is that they (for values of "they" left unspecified!) saw scarlet/red/purple as basically a continuum of the same color. Vietnamese does this with the color range we would divide into blue and green. Plenty of cultures put the divisions of their color categories in rather different places than the ones most of us use.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

One wonders how they happened to have an outrageously costly robe just lying around that they could throw on a condemned man for sport.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Not necessarily costly. The sagum (cloak) worn by a Roman soldier was traditionally red, while the corresponding paludamentum worn by commanding officers was traditionally red, scarlet or purple. So it's quite likely the soldiers had something readily at hand. I think it was the particular Phoenician shellfish purple dye that was costly, not all reddish-purplish dyes.

And thanks LC. I thought that might be the case.

[ 20. April 2017, 01:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You're welcome! I wonder too about the ickiness factor in putting somebody's cloak on a newly scourged man. Did they grab the cloak of the least popular guy in the barracks?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Remember how all the angels etc. who appear in Scripture are wearing robes so radiantly white that 'no fuller could do the like'? Clearly after His resurrection Jesus has access to that sacristy closet. I see an energetic Heavenly Altar Guild, many expert ladies armed with stain-removal sticks, dilute bleach, and Oxydol, constantly maintaining the radiant purity of those robes. You sit down at the Feast of the Lamb, there's sure to be gravy stains, smears of jelly, and spillage from the cocktail shaker, right? I see my role in the fiber-determination department. I can touch a fabric and tell you if it's cotton, wool, or some artificial blend. This affects stain removal!

They soaked their whites in urine overnight and 'unspotted' them by rubbing daily. And repeat ...

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

After that last comment, it may be hard to find a follow-up on the topic of white robes.

In any case, if it was Herod who had the purple robe put on Jesus, then we have to ask where Herod got it. This is all a side issue, though, as Jesus presumably did not have that robe with him in the tomb.

By the way, after he was raised, was he barefooted or was he wearing sandals, and if the latter, where did he get those? When he meets up with Thomas and refers to the wound in his side, does he hitch up his shirt to show it?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Did he change clothes just before the Transfiguration? Perhaps he was capable of making his raiment appear bright and shiny at will? Or transfigure them in situ? Thinking out loud

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have heard the theory that at the Transfiguration, the disciples saw Jesus as he really was--as he always was.

They were given the ability to see this briefly.

Moo

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In ancient and medieval times the fullers and fabric workers would keep big jars out front by the door of the shop. They were for male passersby to pee in. Urine was a valuable fluid and an excellent bleach. (Another horrid historical factoid: even in classical Rome blonde girls were more desirable. So whores would make their hair blonde by rinsing it in urine.)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard the theory that at the Transfiguration, the disciples saw Jesus as he really was--as he always was.

Hmmm. Given the whole "fully God, fully human" thing, I'd have to quibble with that. They also saw him as he really was at other times, including on the cross.

I think it's probably better to say something like they saw his divine nature shining through his human nature.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0