the Third Week after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Dress
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or (does not occur in Scripture in the sense of clothing, but only in the older acceptation of preparing or tilling). (See COSTUME).
1. Materials. — These were various, and multiplied with the advance of civilization. The earliest and simplest robe was made out of the leaves of a tree (תְּאֵנָה, "A.V. fig-tree" — and comp. the present Arabic name for the fig, tin), portions of which were sewn together so as to form an apron (Genesis 3:7). Ascetic Jews occasionally used a similar material in later times. Josephus (Life, 2) records this of Banus (ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων χρώμηνος ); but whether it was made of the leaves or the bark is uncertain. After the Fall, the skins of animals supplied a more durable material (Genesis 3:21), which was adapted to a rude state of society, and is stated to have been used by various ancient nations (Diod. Sic. 1:43; 2:38; Arrian, Ind. 7, 3). Skins were not wholly disused at later periods: the adde'reth (אִדֶּרֶת ) worn by Elijah appears to have been the skin of a sheep or some other animal with the wool left on (in the Sept. the word is rendered μηλωτή, 1 Kings 19:13; 1 Kings 19:19; 2 Kings 2:13; Sopa, Genesis 25:25; and δέῤῥις, Zechariah 13:4; and it may be connected with δορά etymologically, Saalchutz, Archaeol. 1:19; Gesenius, however, prefers the notion of amplitude, אָדִר, in which case it = אֶדֶר of Micah 2:8; Thesaur. page 29). The same material is implied in the description of Elijah (אַישׁ בִּעִל שֵׂעָר; Sept. ἀνὴρ δασύς; A.V. "hairy man," 2 Kings 1:8), though these words may also be understood of the hair of the prophet; and in the comparison of Esau's skin to such a robe (Genesis 25:25). It was characteristic of a prophet's office from its mean appearance (Zechariah 13:4; comp. Matthew 7:15). Pelisses of sheepskin still form an ordinary article of dress in the East (Burckhardt's Notes on Bedouins, 1:50). The sheepskin coat is frequently represented in the sculptures of Khorsabad: it was made with sleeves, and was worn over the tunic: it fell over the back, and terminated in its natural state. The people wearing it have been identified with the Sagartii (Bonomi's Nineveh, page 193). The addereth worn by the king of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), and the "goodly Babylonish garment" found at Ai (Joshua 7:21), were of a different character, either robes trimmed with valuable furs, or the skins themselves ornamented with embroidery. The art of weaving hair was known to the Hebrews at an early period (Exodus 26:7; Exodus 35:6); the sackcloth used by mourners was of this material (See SACK-CLOTH), and by many writers the addereth of the prophets is supposed to have been such. John the Baptist's robe was of camels' hair (Matthew 3:4), and a similar material was in common use among the poor of that day (Joseph. War, 1:24, 3), probably of goats' hair, which was employed in the Roman cilicium. At what period the use of wool, and of still more artificial textures, such as cotton and linen, became known, is uncertain: the first of these, we may presume, was introduced at a very early period, the flocks of the pastoral families being kept partly for their wool (Genesis 38:12): it was at all times largely employed, particularly for the outer garments (Leviticus 13:47; Deuteronomy 22:11; Ezekiel 34:3; Job 31:20; Proverbs 27:26; Proverbs 31:13). (See WOOL).
The occurrence of the term ketoneth in the book of Genesis (3:21; 37:3, 23) seems to indicate an acquaintance, even at that early day, with the finer materials; for that term, though significant of a particular robe, originally appears to have referred to the material employed (the root being preserved in our cotton; comp. Bohlen's Introd. 2:51; Saalchutz, Archaeol. 1:8), and was applied by the later Jews to flax or linen, as stated by Josephus (Ant. 3:7, 2, Χεθομένη μὲν καλεῖται . Λίνεον τοῦτο σημαίνει, χέθον γὰρ τὸ λίνον ἡμεῖς καλοῦμεν ). No conclusion, however, can be drawn from the use of the word: it is evidently applied generally, and without any view to the material, as in Genesis 3:21. It is probable that the acquaintance of the Hebrews with linen, and perhaps cotton, dates from the period of the captivity in Egypt, when they were instructed in the manufacture (1 Chronicles 4:21). After their return to Palestine we have frequent notices of linen, the finest kind being named shesh (שֵׁשׁ ), and at a later period buts (בּוּוֹ ), the latter a word of Syrian, and the former of Egyptian origin, and each indicating the quarter whence the material was procured: the term chur (חוּר ) was also applied to it from its brilliant appearance (Isaiah 19:9; Esther 1:6; Esther 8:15). It is the byssus (βύσσος ) of the Sept. and the N.T. (Luke 16:19; Revelation 18:12; Revelation 18:16), and the "fine linen" of the A.V. It was used in the vestments of the high-priests (Exodus 28:5 sq.), as well as by the wealthy (Genesis 41:42; Proverbs 31:22; Luke 14:19). (See LINEN).
A less costly kind was named bad (בִּד; Sept. λίνεος ), which was used for certain portions of the high-priest's dress (Exodus 28:42; Leviticus 16:4; Leviticus 16:23; Leviticus 16:32), and for the ephods of Samuel (1 Samuel 2:18) and David (2 Samuel 6:14): it is worthy of notice, in reference to its quality and appearance, that it is the material in which angels are represented (Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 9:11; Ezekiel 10:2; Ezekiel 10:6-7; Daniel 10:5; Daniel 12:6; Revelation 15:6). A coarser kind of linen, termed ώμολινον (Sirach 40:4), was used by the very poor. The Hebrew term sadin' ( סָדַין = σινδών, and satin) expresses a fine kind of linen, especially adapted for summer wear, as distinct from the sardaballa, which was thick (Talmud, Menach. pages 41, 1). What may have been the distinction between shesh and sadin (Proverbs 31:22; Proverbs 31:24) we know not the probability is that the latter name passed from the material to a particular kind of robe. Silk was not introduced until a very late period (Revelation 18:12): the term meshi' (מֶשַׁי; Sept. τρίχαπτον; Ezekiel 16:10) is of doubtful meaning. (See SILK). The use of a mixed material, shaatnez' (שִׁעִטְנֵז; Sept. κίβδηλον, i.e., spurious; Aquila, ἀντιδιακείμενον; Ven. Gr. ἐριολινον ), such as wool and flax, was forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11), on the ground, according to Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 11), that such was reserved for the priests, or as being a practice usual among idolaters (Spencer, Leg. Hebrews Rit. 2:32), but more probably with the view of enforcing the general idea of purity and simplicity. (See DIVERSE).
2. Color and Decoration. — The prevailing color of the Hebrew dress was the natural white of the materials employed, which might be brought to a high state of brilliancy by the art of the fuller (Mark 9:3). Some of the terms applied to these materials (e.g. שֵׁשׁ, בּוּוֹ, חוּר ) are connected with words significant of whiteness, while many of the allusions to garments have special reference to this quality (Job 38:14; Psalms 104:1-2; Isaiah 63:3): white was held to be peculiarly appropriate to festive occasions (Ecclesiastes 9:8; comp. Horace, Sat. 2:2, 60), as well as symbolical of purity (Revelation 3:4-5; Revelation 4:4; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 7:13). It is uncertain when the art of dyeing became known to the Hebrews; the כְּתֹנֶת פִּסַּים, ketho'neth passim' worn by Joseph (Genesis 37:3; Genesis 37:23) is variously taken to be either a "coat of divers colors" (Sept. ποικίλος; Vulgate polymita; comp. the Greek πάσσειν, II. 3:126; 22:441), or a tunic furnished with sleeves and reaching down to the ankles, as in the versions of Aquila, ἀστραγάλειος, καρπωτός, and Symumachus, χειριδωτός, and in the Vulg. (2 Samuel 13:18) talaris, and as described by Josephus. (Ant. 7:8, 1). The latter is probably the correct sense, in which case we have no evidence of the use of variegated robes previously to the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt, though the notice of scarlet thread (Genesis 38:28) implies some acquaintance with dyeing, and the light summer robe (צָעַי; Sept. θέριστρον; A.V. "veil") worn by Rebekah and Tamar (Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14; Genesis 38:19) was probably of an ornamental character.
The Egyptians had carried the art of weaving and embroidery to a high state of perfection, and from them the Hebrews learned various, methods of producing decorated stuffs. The elements of ornamentation were, (1) weaving with threads previously dyed (Exodus 35:25; compare Wilkinson's Egyptians, 3:125); (2), the introduction of gold thread or wire (Exodus 28:6 sq.; (3) the addition of figures, probably of animals and hunting or battle scenes (comp. Layard, 2:297), in the case of garments, in the same manner as the cherubim were represented in the curtains of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1; Exodus 26:31; Exodus 36:8; Exodus 36:35). These devices may have been either woven into the stuff, or cut out of other stuff and afterwards attached by needlework: in the former case the pattern would appear only on one side, in the latter the pattern might be varied. Such is the distinction, according to Talmudical writers, between cunning-work and needlework, or as marked by the use of the singular and dual number, רַקְמָה, needlework, and רַקְמָתִיַם, needlework on both sides (Judges 5:30), though the latter term may after all be accepted in a simpler way as a dual = two embroidered robes (Bertheau, Comm. in 1.c.). The account of the corslet of Amasis (Herod, 3:47) illustrates the processes of decoration described in Exodus. Robes decorated with gold (מַשְׁבְּצוֹת, Psalms 45:13), and at a later period with silver thread (Josephus, Ant. 19:8, 2; comp. Acts 12:21), were worn by royal personages: other kinds of robes were worn by the wealthy both of Tyre (Ezekiel 16:13) and Palestine (Judges 5:30; Psalms 45:14). The art does not appear to have been maintained among the Hebrews: the Babylonians and other Eastern nations (Joshua 7:21; Ezekiel 27:24), as well as the Egyptians (Ezekiel 27:7), excelled in it. Nor does the art of dyeing appear to have been followed up in Palestine dyed robes were imported from foreign countries (Zephaniah 1:8), particularly from Phoenicia, and were not much used on account of their expensiveness: purple (Proverbs 31:22; Luke 16:19) and scarlet (2 Samuel 1:24) were occasionally worn by the wealthy. The surrounding nations were more lavish in their use of them: the wealthy Tyrians (Ezekiel 27:7), the Midianitish kings (Judges 8:26), the Assyrian nobles (Ezekiel 23:6), and Persian officers (Esther 8:15), are all represented in purple. The general hue of the Persian dress was more brilliant than that of the Jews: hence Ezekiel (Ezekiel 23:12) describes the Assyrians as לְבֻשֵׁי מַכְלוֹל, lit. clothed in perfection; according to the Sept. εὐπάρνφα, wearing robes with handsome borders. With regard to the head-dress in particular, described as טְבוּלַים סְרוּחֵי (Sept. τιάραι βαπταί; A "dyed attire;" comp. Ovid, Met. 14:654, mitrapicta), some doubt exists whether the word rendered dyed does not rather mean flowing (Gesen. Thesaur. page 542; Layard, 2:308).
3. The Names, Forms, and Mode of wearing the Robes. — It is difficult to give a satisfactory account of the various articles of dress mentioned in the Bible: the notices are for the most part incidental, and refer to a lengthened period of time, during which the fashions must have frequently changed; while the collateral sources of information, such as sculpture, painting, or contemporary records, are but scanty. The general characteristics of Oriental dress have indeed preserved a remarkable uniformity in all ages: the modern Arabs dress much as the ancient Hebrews did; there are the same flowing robes, the same distinction between the outer and inner garments-the former heavy and warm, the latter light, adapted to the rapid and excessive changes of temperature in those countries; and there is the same distinction between the costume of the rich and the poor, consisting in the multiplication of robes of a finer texture and more ample dimensions. Hence the numerous illustrations of ancient costume, which may be drawn from the usages of modern Orientals, supplying in great measure the want of contemporaneous representations. With regard to the figures which some have identified as Jews in Egyptian paintings and Assyrian sculptures, we cannot but consider the evidence insufficient. The figures in the painting at Beni Hassan, delineated by Wilkinson (Ancient Egypt. 2:296), and supposed by him to represent the arrival of Joseph's brethren, are dressed in a manner at variance with our ideas of Hebrew costume: the more important personages wear a double tunic, the upper one constructed so as to pass over the left shoulder and under the right arm, leaving the right shoulder exposed: the servants wear nothing more than a skirt or kilt, reaching from the loins to the knee. Wilkinson suggests some collateral reasons for doubting whether they were-really Jews; to which we may add a further objection that the presents which these persons bring with them are not what we should expect from Genesis 43:11. Certain figures inscribed on the face of a rock at Behistun (q.v.), near Kermanshah, were supposed by Sir R. K. Porter to represent Samaritans captured by Shalmaneser: they are given in Vaux's Nineveh, page 372. These sculptures are now recognized as of a later date, and the figures evidently represent people of different nations, for the tunics are alternately short and long. Again, certain figures discovered at Nineveh have been pronounced to be Jews: in one instance the presence of hats and boots is the ground of identification (Bonomi, Nineveh, page 197; compare Daniel 3:21); but if, as we shall hereafter show, the original words in Daniel have been misunderstood by our translators, no conclusion can be drawn from the presence of these articles. In another Instance the figures are simply dressed in a short tunic, with sleeves reaching nearly to the elbow, and confined at the waist by a girdle, a style of dress which was so widely spread throughout the East that it is impossible to pronounce what particular nation they may have belonged to: the style of head-dress seems an objection to the supposition that they are Jews. These figures are given in Bonomi's Nineveh, page 381.
The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages (כְּלַי; Sept. σκεύη ), such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, or, according to Josephus (Ant. 4:8,43), the weapons of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe (שַׂמְלָה ) of a woman (Deuteronomy 22:5): the reason of the prohibition, according to Maimonides (Mor. Neboch. 3:37), being that such was the practice of idolaters (comp. Carpzov, Appar. Page 514); but more probably it was based upon the general principle of propriety. (See Mill, Dissertt. select. page 196 sq.; Carpzov, De mundo muliebri viris inderdicto, Rost. 1752.)
a. Robes common to the sexes.
(1.) The ketho'neth (כְּתֹנֶת, whence the Greek χίτων ) was the most essential article of dress. It was a closely-fitting garment, resembling in form and use our shirt, though unfortunately translated "coat" in the A.V. The material of which it was made was either wool, cotton, or linen. From Josephus's observation (Ant. 3:7, 4) with regard to the meil (that it was οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων ), we may probably infer that the ordinary kethoneth or tunic was made in two pieces, which were sown together at the sides. In this case the seamless shirt (χίτον ἄῤῥαφος ) worn by our Lord (John 19:23) was either a singular one, or, as is more probable, was the upper tunic or meil. The primitive kethoneth was without sleeves, and reached only to the knee, like the Doric χίτεν; it may also have been, like the latter, partially opened at one side, so that a person in rapid motion was exposed (2 Samuel 6:20). Another kind, which we may compare with the Ionian χίτων, reached to the wrists and ankles: such was probably the kethoneth passim worn by Joseph (Genesis 37:3; Genesis 37:23) and Tamar (2 Samuel 13:18), and that which the priests wore (Josephus, Ant. 3:7, 2). It was in either case kept close to the body by a girdle (q.v.), and the fold formed by the overlapping of the robe served as an inner pocket, in which a letter or any other small article might be carried (Joseph. Ant. 17:5, 7). A person wearing the kethoneth alone was described as עָרֹם, naked: we may compare the use of the term γυμναί as applied to the Spartan virgins (Plut. Lyc. 14), of the Latin nudus (Virgil, Georg. 1:299), and of our expression stripped. Thus it is said of Saul, after having taken off his upper garments (בְּגָדָיו, 1 Samuel 19:24); of Isaiah (Isaiah 20:2) when he had put off his sackcloth, which was usually worn over the tunic (comp. Jonah 3:6), and only on special occasions next the skin (2 Kings 6:30); of a warrior who has cast off his military cloak (Amos 2:16; comp. Livy, 3:23, inermes nudique); and of Peter without his fisher's coat (John 21:7). The same expression is elsewhere applied to the poorly clad (Job 22:6; Isaiah 58:7; James 2:15).
The annexed wood-cut (fig. 1) represents the simplest style of Oriental dress, a long loose shirt or hethoneth without a girdle, reaching nearly to the ankle. The same robe, with the addition of the girdle, is shown in fig. 4. In fig. 2 we have the ordinary dress of the modern Bedouin; the tunic overlaps the girdle at the waist, leaving an ample fold, which serves as a pocket. Over the tunic he wears the abba, or striped plaid, which completes his costume.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
