Jewish costume at the time of Christ

[Theodosius the Great]

Also if anyone is contemplating a Crucifixion of Jesus scene, the gospels tell us there were only four soldiers and a centurion present, so no need for an entire army either!

Hi, Graham. Do you mean just for the Crucifixion scene. Because if it's a full-fledged Passion play, wouldn't more men be needed for crowd control ? I'd think one or both of the cohorts would've been called out.

[Tarbicus]

wouldn't more men be needed for crowd control ? I'd think one or both of the cohorts would've been called out.

I wouldn't see why they would, personally. Who would have attacked them? Do we even know if there was a big crowd? There were very few Christians at the time, and besides, it wasn't a very good day to show yourself as being one of his followers.

[Theodosius the Great]

Who would have attacked them?

The cohorts wouldn't have been there so much for their own protection as for Christ's since He was a highly controversial and hated figure to many.

There was the mob calling for Christ's execution. Four guys hardly seems like enough security. And it wasn't a sure thing that Christ would've been executed that day - remember Pilate offered Barabbas as an alternative ?

There were very few Christians at the time, and besides, it wasn't a very good day to show yourself as being one of his followers.

Barabbas probably had his adherents (i.e. Zealots or Sicarii) in the crowd too, shouting for his release. He himself killed a Roman soldier. So there were more than two factions in this crowd. And not all of them were sheep.

Plus there's the mere fact that Pilate was visiting in Jerusalem which would've prompted him taking a large body guard or escort with him from Caesarea - his seat of power.

Judea was probably Rome's most unstable province, hence there were six cohorts stationed throughout the whole province with two in Jerusalem alone.

So, if someone's doing a Passion play, I'd think there'd be plenty of room for soldiers. But the four men and the Centurion, I think, were probably just the "team" assigned to do the dirty work of actually crucifying the prisoners.

[Tarbicus]

But the four men and the Centurion, I think, were probably just the "team" assigned to do the dirty work of actually crucifying the prisoners.

That's actually what I meant as well. The trial, yes, lots of soldiers. Sorry Theo - I misread your post.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
in most of the films, the crowd is always shown as being angry, with Legionaries having to hold them back.....although given the fact that they had opted to cruxify Jesus, why would the people be angry or was it the result of the needless cruelty and violence that had obviously been carried out?
I think Jesus would have friends and acquaintances, not necessarily Christans, that would have been following his route...
Incidentially, my aunt said that her Centurion or another soldier is a re-enactor...I don't know who with :roll:
regards
Arthes

[Graham Sumner]

Hi, Graham. Do you mean just for the Crucifixion scene. Because if it's a full-fledged Passion play, wouldn't more men be needed for crowd control ? I'd think one or both of the cohorts would've been called out.

Hi Jaime

If they were it is not mentioned. However in the Praetorium (of the Antonia fortress) when Christ was flogged the entire cohort was present. Matthew 27.27

The relevent piece about the crucifixion squad is in John, also getting back to the costume thread.

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, "let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be". John 20.23.

The clothes of Jesus were evidently worth gambling for, perhaps not surprising because Mark describes them as being " with a whiteness no bleacher on earth could equal" Mark 9.3..

Graham.

[Salvianus]

The clothes of Jesus were evidently worth gambling for, perhaps not surprising because Mark describes them as being " with a whiteness no bleacher on earth could equal" Mark 9.3.

Graham.

Good point - although I have always assumed the gospel writers (+ Matthew 17:2, Luke 9:29) are describing a temporary effect of the transfiguration on his appearance, rather than his usual attire.

The association of white clothes with purity/holiness is reinforced by the angel/s at the empty tomb decribed as wearing clothes as white as snow (specifically Matthew 28:3), Daniel's description of 'the Ancient of Days' (Daniel 7:9), and by their use at the time by the High Priest when entering the Holy of Holies at the Temple on Yom Kippur, so I would not be surprised if 'bright whites' were worn as a deliberate message by others.

All a bit different from the Baptist's clothes of camel's hair!

[Theodosius the Great]

In Ben-Hur, some of Charlton Heston's costumes look somewhat accurate for a 1st C. Jewish aristocrat, I think. His clothes in this scene look at least quasi-Hellenistic :



It's a tunic. Some of the other costumes look arabesque though.

[Carlton Bach]

In Ben-Hur, some of Charlton Heston's costumes look somewhat accurate for a 1st C. Jewish aristocrat, I think. His clothes in this scene look at least quasi-Hellenistic :



It's a tunic. Some of the other costumes look arabesque though.

Yes, but the neckhole and decor is cleary medieval. And how does that cloak hold up?

Not that I'm complaining overmuch. I just watched the nwe Spartacus, and back when they made Ben Hur they hads an excuse for leather armour and such.

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, but the neckhole and decor is cleary medieval

Oh yeah. It looked familiar. At least it's European and not Arabesque.

And how does that cloak hold up?

It isn't unlike the way Romans wear a paludamentum

And here's Ben Hur's mother :



VERY Hellenistic-looking, wouldn't you say ?

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

Nice Subarmalis that Stephen Boyd is wearing too! He wore something similar in The Fall Of The Roman Empire

Graham.

[Spurius]

Regarding the casting of lots for Jesus's tunic:

A few years ago I went to a seminar by Dr. James Fleming who lives in Jerusalem and does some archaeological research in the holy land. His website is www.biblicalresources.net

In one of his presentations, he was explaining the garments of the Jewish people, and that at the time of Christ it was apparently written into Jewish custom that everyone had to have some purple thread in their clothing, usually in the tunic. Often the purple thread would be woven into the tassles on the four corners of the garment, which were more or less a selvedge to keep the garment weave from un-ravelling (the poorer would have only enough for a single purple thread in the tassles, but the wealthy could have purple in more or all of the garment).

The tassles symbolized place in society (wealth and status), authority, and priestly purity. Longer tassles were associated with people who were more wealthy or of greater influence.

The significance as a symbol of authority (the tassles are sometimes referred to as the 'hem' as in 1 Samuel 24 where David has the opportunity to kill Saul but instead he cuts the tassles or hem off his garment - when Saul saw this he declared that David would be King, symbolic since David had taken Saul's tassles which were symbols of his authority). Jews could imprint their tassles (with a different pattern unique to each family) into clay tablets as a formal signature for agreements or even as a form of credit when purchasing goods.

The tassle was also the part of Jesus' garment that the woman suffering from bleeding touched to be healed (Mark 5). Again she was touching the part of the garment that was symbolic of his power and authority.

As previously mentioned, in Jesus time it was customary for everyone to have some of the expensive purple thread in a garment. This was to demonstrate that there were no absolutely poor people in the country, because they were a priestly nation. The poorest could only afford the minimum requirement of one piece of purple thread in the garment, but the wealthy could afford more purple dyed yarn. A solid tunic in purple would cost over $100,000 in modern money.
(The requirement for having some purple thread in the garment changed after 135 AD when the Jewish people were too impoverished to afford even the smallest amount of purple thread).

Since this thread was so expensive, and since the garment had more value intact (the tassles had to match on a tunic for it to have value, the value of the purple thread was in the tassles, and the garment was seamless as previously mentioned), it was necessary to cast lots rather than cut up a good garment that could fetch a premium on the market. But this also fulfilled a prophecy in Psalm 22:18 that his garments would be divided up among others by casting lots.

Dr. Fleming also mentioned that the garments Jesus would have been wearing when he was arrested would be a turban, sandals, an outer robe, a belt, and the tunic which held the greatest significance and value.

Let me state these are my recollections from memory and notes, and even then this is only from one seminar presentation by one researcher. If anyone has any other reflections or research, I would be interested in learning about it. I did not do the research myself, so I am stating it as-is and leave it to others to verify, disprove, or to delve into further.