In one of Jesus’s parables, he tells of a guest at a wedding who’s not wearing an appropriate garment. Whenever I hear that story, I always mentally picture a necktie, because that’s sort of the default marker of “nice attire”, in our day and age. But I don’t think neckties were invented yet in that time.
So what would an actual wedding garment have looked like, in the circa 30 CE eastern Mediterranean? I sort of gather that it was something that would be worn over or otherwise in addition to one’s normal clothes, but what would it have been? Probably elaborate, but would the elaborateness have been in the cut/sewing, or a print or other dye pattern, or in expensive materials? But maybe not too elaborate, because people of all social classes get married… How much difference would there be between an elite’s wedding garment and a working-class schmo’s? Would it have been the same garment for every important shindig, or was there one specifically for weddings?
Until recent centuries, Jews didn’t really have any distinctive clothing, and mostly dressed like surrounding cultures. By 30 CE, Judea had been part of the Greek-dominated world for three and a half centuries, and the local culture had adopted Hellenic fashions. I don’t know the details, but I assume that like the Greeks, they wore some sort of tunic covered by a cloak. “Wedding clothes” could mean a dyed, embroidered cloak like a himation. Think toga, but with less volume.
I do not not know what they actually looked like or how it varied by the wealth and status of the couple getting married but my understanding is that guests would have there wedding garments provided for them.
This would fit in with the parable you refer to. When the invited guests refused to come the king told his servants to invite as many as they could find. When the man not wearing wedding garments was asked “how did you get in here without wedding clothes?” he was speechless, being provided with a wedding garment would mean he had no excuse not to wear one.
It’s very similar to the days of fancy restaurants with dress codes requiring that gentlemen wear a necktie. If a guest showed up without at least a necktie, the establishment would provide one, so as not to spoil the ambiance for the other diners. So the guest in the parable who wouldn’t even wear the garment the host provided was disrespecting the host’s hospitality.
As for the garment itself, it may have been something like a robe or tallit (a shawl still in use today).
Probably not exactly like that, unless for the king himself to wear to the wedding. That’s a lot of expensive dye. But maybe that style, but undyed or only around the edges.
The alternatives are not “expensive dye” or “undyed”. Poorer people didn’t not dye their clothes - wherever possible, they just used poorer dyes - less bright, less fast. But there are lots of readily available plants that provide some colour to textiles, and people have used them whenever given the chance. In the region, madder, henna and indigo are known as dedicated dyeplants, but lots of other plants give colours - pomegranate rinds, grape leaves, oak galls, lichens… it’s hard to look around and not see dyeplants, most anywhere.
Looking at sculptures like gravestone and memorial stela from that part of the world at that part of time suggests that dress remained pretty simple, and wealth would have been signalled through the expensiveness of the cloth worn, with minor decorations like coloured hems or brocade for splashes of colour (and everyone would know which were more expensive). A lot of effort seems to have gone into jewellery and getting hair done (for women at least).
Inappropriate could have been as simple as thinking your rumpled office toga will suffice or, as happens now, wearing something that you think speaks to your upto-the-minute trendy coolness, but really just brands you as a twat.
In the days befoe washing machines, I assume the “good” clothes were clean and less worn. The inappropriately dressed guest probably looked like he was dragged in off the street aftter a heavy day of working. Plain and dirty clothing? That was my ipression of the parable.
It always struck me as pretty arrogant, you ordered the servants to drag in whoever they found, then complain because one is wearing whatever they found him in. I assume some of the nuance of the parable got lost in translation.
But analysis of what appear to be plain white sculptures - like e.g. the Palmyrene Funerary Reliefs - show that they were originally polychrome and with richly decorated and patterned garments.
May I just add that I appreciate the OP’s attention to correct punctuation in the thread title? So many people would have written “in Jesus’ time,” when in fact you shouldn’t drop the possessive S unless the relevant word is three or more syllables.
Unless you’re writing for the New York Times, whose style guide requires dropping the possessive S for a word ending with an S if the next-to-last consonant is also an S (or an X or a Z).
The Wikipedia style guide says to never drop the S on the possessive of a singular noun, regardless of the number of syllables or the spelling. This is one of the most common mistakes made by inexperienced Wikipedia editors, since other style guides do it differently.
Interesting. This is the first time I’ve heard this aspect of the wedding party process back then. Puts a different light on things; I’ve learned my one thing for the day. I wonder where the source for this detail is…? Who says wedding garments in those days were provided by the host? (Although the parable makes a lot more sense this way)
Some commentators suggest that it was traditional for a king or lord to provide clean wedding garments for his guests. If so, this man has likely refused to wear it and cast it aside. If that is the understanding, it could be that the wedding garment represents being covered by the righteousness of Jesus (Romans 3:21–31). This would make the man representative of those who want the benefits of a relationship with God but refuse to submit to Him or obey His teachings (John 14:15).
I’ve heard that, too… but then again, that also might be the sort of detail that’s just made up to make the parable make more sense. And then too, like I said, people in all walks of life get married. Take that working-class schmo who was invited in off of the street: Was he expected to provide all of the guests’ garments when his daughter got married last year, too? And if he did have those garments, what would have happened if he had worn the same one to the wedding he was invited to? Or maybe everyone who hosted a wedding was expected to provide, but they didn’t have their own supply, but rented them from a company that specialized in that (since there’s always someone getting married).
Given that’s a Greek king, no, it wouldn’t have been. But we are talking about a wedding in Judea (where some people would have access to those fabrics. But not necessarily the kind of people Jesus made parables about. Even his “wealthy” men were not going to be purple-wearers. They’re the equivalent of manor lords, not Emperors.
ETA: Never mind. Just wanted to share a thought that I agree this is one of those passages in the gospels where Jesus comes across as particularly mean and unfair.
