Download The Naked Truth Naturists “Nudesletter”

The Naked Truth Naturists “Nudesletter”
Vol. 5, No. 1
SPECIAL REPORT No. SR-1.1
Jan. 18th, 2004
“In our own eyes, and in the eyes of others, we may be better, or worse, than our fellow human
beings; but, in God’s eyes, we are, at once, infinitely valuable and utterly unworthy—that’s why we
need Jesus, God’s perfect, uniquely worthy Son, to save us.”
– T. H. Pine
[Recently, a naturist friend sent me a link to an interesting website entitled, “The Natural Way.” Here’s the link for future
reference: www.tekline.co.uk/natlinks.htm. The following article came from this site. There are others, as well. I’ll be
sending them out for the edification of our readers, Christian or otherwise, since the TNTN credo is rooted in Christian
principles. One of the big issues in Christian circles, when dealing with Christian naturism, is the obvious nudity. To some
in the Christian community, nudity and Christianity are diametrically opposed—opposite poles of a magnet. They can’t
conceive of any way a Christian can be nude in the company of the opposite gender (also nude) and not be falling under the
influence of sinful impulses. Sadly, these Christians are as indoctrinated into the nudity = sex mantra as the general
population in America. The following article makes the assertion that nudity wasn’t always the bugaboo it is today. I
personally think some of the assumptions are a bit strained but, overall, the article makes a good point—indeed, a point that
needs to be made. It’s feedback time again. Let me know what you think about this subject. As always, you’ll see your
comments in the nudesletter. – Ed.]
Did Christians Visit the Roman Baths?
by Fred Harding
Did Christians and the apostles frequent the Roman Baths?
Of all the leisure activities, bathing was surely the most important for the greatest number of Romans, since
it was part of the daily regimen for men of all classes, and many women as well. We think of bathing as a very
private activity conducted in the home, but bathing in Rome was a communal activity, conducted for the most
part in public facilities that in some ways resembled modern spas or health clubs (although they were far less
expensive). A modern scholar, Fikret Yegü, sums up the significance of Roman baths in the following way:
1
The universal acceptance of bathing as a central event in daily life belongs to the Roman world and it is
hardly an exaggeration to say that at the height of the empire, the baths embodied the ideal Roman way of
urban life. Apart from their normal hygienic functions, they provided facilities for sports and recreation. Their
public nature created the proper environment-much like a city club or community center-for social intercourse
varying from neighborhood gossip to business discussions. There was even a cultural and intellectual side to
the baths since the truly grand establishments, the thermae, incorporated libraries, lecture halls, colonnades,
and promenades and assumed a character like the Greek gymnasium.
– Fikret Yegü (Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity Cambridge: MIT, 1992)
Although wealthy Romans might set up a bath in their town houses or especially in their country villas,
heating a series of rooms or even a separate building specifically for this purpose, even they often frequented
the numerous public bathhouses in the cities and towns throughout the empire. Small bathhouses, called
'balneae', might be privately owned, but they were public in the sense that they were open to the populace for a
fee, which was usually quite modest. The large baths, called 'thermae', were owned by the state and often
covered several city blocks.
Some of the thermae were large enough to accommodate thousands of bathers. The Diocletian bath had a
capacity for 6,000 bathers. Such mass bathing could have only been possible with significant advances in
Greek and early Roman technology.
– Mikkel Aaland (Mass Bathing: The Roman BaInea and Thermae. 1997)
There were 170 baths in Rome during the reign of Augustus and by 300 AD that number had increased to
over 900 baths. Fees for both types of baths were quite reasonable, within the budget of most free Roman
males. Since the Roman workday began at sunrise, work was usually over at little after noon. About 2:00-3:00
PM, men would go to the baths and plan to stay for several hours of sport, bathing, and conversation, after
which they would be ready for a relaxing dinner. Republican bathhouses often had separate bathing facilities for
women and men, but by the [time of the] empire the custom was to open the bathhouses to women during the
early part of the day and reserve it for men from 2:00 PM until closing time (usually sundown, though we
occasionally hear of a bath being used at night). For example, one contract for the management of a provincial
bath specified that the facility would be open to women from daybreak until about noon, and to men from about
2:00 PM until sunset; although the women got the less desirable hours, their fee was twice as high as the men's,
1 as (a copper coin) for a woman and ½ as for a man.
Because bathing was usually done in the nude, mixed bathing was generally frowned upon, although the
fact that various emperors repeatedly forbade it seems to indicate that the prohibitions did not always work.
Most thermae walls enclosed sports centers, swimming pools, parks, libraries, little theaters for poetry
readings and music, and great halls for parties—a city within a city. There were also restaurants and sleeping
quarters where a traveler or local could spend an intimate hour or two in pleasant company. Local bathers would
spend an afternoon in the baths and then return home for dinner—the baths reputedly whetted the appetite.
Each thermae offered a particular attraction. One may have advertised a splendid view, another an excellent
library and another a unique sports hall. Many were considered "free zones," outside the jurisdiction of
authorities. Perhaps this explains why, at times, the thermae were teeming with prostitutes in spite of municipal
ordinances prohibiting them. Certainly women who were concerned about their respectability did not frequent the
baths when the men were there, but of course the baths were an excellent place for prostitutes to ply their trade.
Good baths would operate in two ways, heat and steam would warm up the body in order to relax it, and
water would clean the body in order to purify and civilize it. There were three ways of warming up the body; by
going into the steam rooms, by playing ball games; or by sunbathing. With regard to the later pastime,
sunbathing, William Melmoth notes in the translation of the Letters of Gaius Plinius.
The Romans used to lie or walk naked in the sun, after anointing their bodies with oil, which was
esteemed as greatly contributing to health, and therefore daily practiced by them.
– William Melmoth. (Letters of Gaius Plinius New York, P. F. Collier [c1909], The Harvard classics v.9)
Getting that all over suntan was very important to the Romans as Florence Dupont notes:
Before taking their early afternoon bath, Romans would sunbathe under a portico or on a south-facing
terrace thus gaining a fashionable tan. Since sunburn was associated with soldiers and people who lived in the
countryside, a healthy tan gave the face a virile austerity that was liked by both aristocratic senators and former
soldiers. A pallid complexion, on the other hand, seemed to bespeak the kind of man who spent his life indoors,
banqueting and courting women, and who were therefore effeminate.
– Florence Dupont. (Daily Life in Ancient Rome Blackwell Publishes, 1993, p264)
Did Christians Visit the Baths?
2
It is clearly evident that Christians in the first two centuries of the Christian era did in fact visit the baths
regularly and this is fairly well documented. This is not surprising since, being the center of social activity, the
baths would be the ideal place to spread the Gospel. Besides, many Christians had grown up under the Roman
social structure which itself was broadly based upon the culture of the Greeks that accepted nudity as a normal
part of life.
Let us first turn to the words of Clement of Alexandria, who was born in the middle of the second century at
Athens. He had traveled widely studying philosophy until he found in Egypt his teacher Pantaenus, a former
Stoic and missionary to India. About 190, Clement succeeded Pantaenus as head of the Christian catechetical
school in Alexandria. In the next decade Clement wrote his three great works. The Exhortation to Conversion
was designed to win pagans to the Christian faith. The Educator aimed to form and develop Christian character,
while The Miscellanies taught Christian philosophy and knowledge. In 202, Clement fled the persecution of
Septimius Severus. He lived in Antioch, was in Jerusalem in 211, and died about 215. In The Educator, Clement
writes:
There are, then, four reasons for the bath (for from that point I digressed in my oration), for which we
frequent it: for cleanliness, or heat, or health, or lastly, for pleasure. Bathing for pleasure is to be omitted. For
unblushing pleasure must be cut out by the roots; and the bath is to be taken by women for cleanliness and
health, by men for health alone….
– Clement of Alexandria (The Educator Book III, Chapter X-The Exercises Suited to a Good Life)
Clement, then, bestows the benefits of the gymnasium, even if it is close to the bathing area. Since, it is
well known that the athletes exercised naked in the gymnasium, it is clear that Clement did not consider nudity
an issue. He writes:
The gymnasium is sufficient for boys, even if a bath is within reach. And even for men to prefer
gymnastic exercises by far to the baths, is perchance not bad, since they are in some respects conducive to the
health of young men, and produce exertion-emulation to aim at not only a healthy habit of body, but
courageousness of soul. When this is done without dragging a man away from better employments, it is
pleasant, and not unprofitable. Nor are women to be deprived of bodily exercise. But they are not to be
encouraged to engage in wrestling or running, but are to exercise themselves in spinning, and weaving, and
superintending the cooking if necessary. And they are, with their own hand, to fetch from the store what we
require. And it is no disgrace for them to apply themselves to the mill…. And innumerable such examples of
frugality and self-help, and also of exercises, are furnished by the Scriptures. In the case of men, let some strip
and engage in wrestling; let some play at the small ball, especially the game they call Pheninda, in the sun. To
others who walk into the country, or go down into the town, the walk is sufficient exercise. And were they to
handle the hoe, this stroke of economy in agricultural labor would not be ungentlemanlike…. And reading
aloud is often an exercise to many. But let not such athletic contests, as we have allowed, be undertaken for the
sake of vainglory, but for the exuding of manly sweat. Nor are we to straggle with cunning and showiness, but
in a stand-up wrestling bout, by disentangling of neck, hands, and sides. For such a struggle with graceful
strength is more becoming and manly, being undertaken for the sake of serviceable and profitable health. But
let those others, who profess the practice of illiberal postures in gymnastics, be dismissed. We must always aim
at moderation.
– Clement of Alexandria (The Educator Book III, Chapter X-The Exercises Suited to a Good Life)
To cut a long story short, what did Clement mean by these words? The historian Sanderson Beck cuts to
the chase and concludes:
He recommended frugal living, because a voluptuous life is alien to refined pleasures, and love of wealth
induces one to stop being ashamed of what is shameful. Baths are used for cleanliness, heat, health, or pleasure;
but Clement suggested women use them for cleanliness and health, and men only for cleanliness, since they can
use gymnastic exercise for health.
– Sanderson Beck
What about co-ed bathing? There were times when mixed bathing took place and that Christians
participated.
During the dawning years of Christianity, before the decline of Rome, it was forbidden to bathe on
Sundays and holidays, but before then the thermae were rarely closed for any reason. Sometimes men and
women bathed together, but this custom varied from one period to another and depended upon local attitudes.
At Pompeii and Badenweiler, for example, men and women bathed separately.
– Mikkel Aaland (Mass Bathing: The Roman BaInea and Thermae. 1997)
3
During those times, are we to believe that Christians stopped going the baths? It is very unlikely. Roy
Bowen Ward argues the case for co-ed Christian bathing in his article entitled "Women in Roman Baths"
published in the Harvard Theological Review. With respects to the evidence of Clement and others, he
comments:
It is clear from Clement that in Alexandria at the end of the second century—contemporaneous with
Irenaeus and Tertullian—mixed bathing by all classes was not only customary but also a popular activity in
which Christian men and women engaged.
– Roy Bowen Ward ("Women in Roman Baths,") Harvard Theological Review 85:2, 1992).
The grand-scale imperial baths presented the essence of Roman culture of the High Empire: opulent,
tasteless and utterly attractive. Visiting the thermae, sometimes several times a day, was no longer a matter of
getting a bath as in previous times; it was about pleasure. Decadence is also witnessed in the common
phenomenon of mixed bathing—naked males and females in the same pool! Hadrian allegedly forbade such
mixed bathing, and the prohibition was repeated by Marcus Aurelius and Alexander Severus, for which reason
we can assume that this practice was quite normal during the High Empire…. The early Christians normally
accepted a visit to the baths as a natural part of life. About 200 AD, Tertullian, in his Apology, addressing the
Roman governors, states that "the Christians are no different from other people: they go to the forum, to the
marcellum, and to the baths…." Mixed bathing continued, in some cases still to be practiced even by monks in
the 7th century. However, the Church fathers condemned this practice, and were particularly worried about the
morals of the female attendants. At the Council of Chalchedon in 451, a bishop was criticized for bathing with
females. Mixed bathing was gradually given up, eventually to be strictly forbidden, and when the Moslems
took over the Roman bath as the hammam, mixed bathing became unthinkable.
– Niels Hannestad (Castration in the Baths)
We now turn to a contemporary of Clement, namely Tertullian (155 - 225 AD). He is regarded as one of the
greatest Western theologians and writers of Christian antiquity. He was the first important Christian
ecclesiastical writer in Latin and his writings are witness to the doctrine and discipline of the early church. A
zealous champion of Christianity, Tertullian wrote many theological treatises, of which 31 have survived. He
wrote with brilliant rhetoric and biting satire. His passion for truth led him into polemics with his enemies. In his
various works he strove either to defend Christianity, to refute heresy, especially Gnosticism, or to argue some
practical point of morality or church discipline. Tertullian's writings demonstrate a profound knowledge of Greek
and Latin literature, both pagan and Christian. He was the first writer in Latin to formulate Christian theological
concepts, such and having no models to follow, he developed a terminology derived from many sources, chiefly
Greek and the legal vocabulary of Rome. He is regarded by some as the Father of Latin Theology.
The most famous work by Tertullian is Apologeticum (c. 197), an impassioned defense of Christians
against pagan charges of immorality, economic worthlessness, and political subversion and it is to this work that
our attention is drawn to the issue of Christians visiting the baths to bathe. At the time Christians were slandered
and mocked for being different, but Tertullian fought back by saying:
But we are called to account as harm-doers on another ground, and are accused of being useless in the
affairs of life. How in all the world can that be the case with people who are living among you, eating the same
food wearing the same attire, having the same habits, under the same necessities of existence? We are not
Indian Brahmins or Gymnosophists, who dwell in woods and exile themselves from ordinary human life. We
do not forget the debt of gratitude we owe to God, our Lord and Creator; we reject no creature of His hands,
though certainly we exercise restraint upon ourselves, lest of any gift of His we make an immoderate or sinful
use. So we sojourn with you in the world, abjuring neither forum, nor shambles, nor bath, nor booth, nor
workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any other places of commerce. We sail with you, and fight with you,
and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings—even in the various arts
we make public property of our works for your benefit. How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business,
living with you and by you as we do, I am not able to understand.
– Tertullian (Apologeticum)
Roy Bowen Ward makes the observation:
Tertullian of Carthage in his Apologeticum (197 CE) claimed that the Christians were no different from
other people: they went to the forum, the food market, and the baths.... These three passages, among the earliest
references to Roman baths by Christians, suggest no ethical reservations about going to the baths.
– Roy Bowen Ward ("Women in Roman Baths,") Harvard Theological Review 85:2, 1992).
What about Tertullian himself? Did he go to the baths to bathe? Well, read his own words:
4
How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business, living with you and by you as we do, I am not able
to understand. But if I do not frequent your religious ceremonies, I am still on the sacred day a man. I do not at
the Saturnalia bathe myself at dawn, that I may not lose both day and night; yet I bathe at a decent and healthful
hour, which preserves me both in heat and blood. I can be rigid and pallid like you after ablution when I am
dead.
– Tertullian (Apologeticum)
Bathing at the baths were so important to the Roman Citizen that it is inconceivable to think that the
Christians would have ignored this deep rooted social and cultural habit, as Fikret Yegül points out:
Bathing in the ancient world, especially in the world of the Romans, went far beyond the functional and
hygienic necessities of washing. It was a personal regeneration and a deeply rooted social and cultural habit—
in the full sense of the word, an institution. For the average Roman a visit to the public baths in the afternoon
was an irreplaceable part of the day's routine…. It would have been unrealistic to expect the Church to take a
consistent stance against an institution [that is, bathing in the Roman baths] that had become a deeply ingrained
part of daily life.
– Fikret Yegül (Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. New York, NY: The Architectural History
Foundation, 1992)
This is echoed by Peter Brown [as quoted in A History of Private Life] when he comments on the
"indifference to nudity in Roman public life," citing the public baths as one locus for nudity. It appears from what
we have seen so far that the earliest Christian authors may have been equally indifferent.
One cannot help wonder if, during the times when mixed bathing was allowed, whether or not Christians of
both sexes participated. As one researches the many Christian writings that appeared during the first two
centuries of the Christian era, we find neither condemnation nor approval. Since, as a Roman, bathing was
deeply ingrained into the social fabric, one may assume that Christians did participate...and did not Tertullian say
that they, Christians, were just like everyone else in what they did? Whatever is the truth behind the matter,
things were soon about to change. Nonetheless a visit to the baths by men or women at any time would have
exposed the bathers to the sights of nude sculpture of both sexes, as they would have done so when journeying
to the baths. Nude sculpture could be found everywhere and could not be avoided. The naked form in all its
glory was highly praised in Roman society, as we have seen elsewhere in this book. An interesting observation
is made by which shows how, in later times, such statues in the baths became objects of fear and some were
sexually mutilated.
When nude mythological statues were transferred to the baths, they were not as safe as they were when
they were acquired for stately homes. The hot and damp bath was always considered a place of demons, and
superstition grew with growing Christianity. (22) To appear naked, and thus unprotected, to the daemons could
be frightening. In pagan times, apotropaic eyes or phallic symbols, mainly in mosaics, offered protection; in
Christian times, the cross appeared. A metal cross could be inserted above the entrance door, and you had to
cross yourself before entering a bath. Stories about exorcism are numerous, and pagan statues could be
considered to represent daemons. In particular, they could present a threat if naked. To make such statues
harmless or impotent (in the strict sense of the word) they could be sexually mutilated. The males were
castrated, and occasionally another protruding point, the nose, could also be hammered away. Likewise, the
females could be sexually molested.
It can, of course, be difficult to distinguish between what could have been simple vandalism and what was
deliberate sexual molestation. The topic of the sexual molestation of naked sculpture in Antiquity has, to my
knowledge, never been investigated systematically, and is not often mentioned in catalogues. No wonder the
phenomenon has not caused the same attention as the much more widely used and definitely more refined fig
leaf, invented in the Renaissance to hide male shame—even the Vatican never felt offended by the classical
(and fairly abstract) female nudity. People of Late Antiquity simply—and rather crudely—hammered away the
offensive parts. The way this was conducted can, for the male statues, vary from a hammering off of the
genitals, which sometimes looks as if it could be accidental damage, to an almost clinical chiseling away of any
trace of the offensive parts The treatment of the females demonstrates a similar pattern; the pudenda could be
merely scratched or radically cut away, hollowing out the marble surface. The breasts were only scratched,
sometimes with some cuttings on the outer parts, but never entirely removed. If the female statues were partly
dressed, their breasts were not touched. Accordingly, decently dressed males were never harmed. Asclepios, for
example, who was the god of cure (and for this made the iconographic model of the very early type of Christ),
is frequently met in the baths, and he could feel safe.
5
Asia Minor appears to be the area of most cases, which must be due to the long continuation of the
establishments and the great amount of well preserved sculpture, of which much is fairly recently excavated,
and therefore not restored. The south baths of Perge in Pamphylia, excavated during the late 1970's and the
1980's, contained a wealth of sculpture, much of it scattered around. The baths were established during the
reign of Hadrian, restored in Severian times and again in the 4th or the 5th century. The central hall, named
after the dedicator of statues, as the 'Claudius Peison Gallery', contained at least 32 pieces of sculpture. Some
of the naked statues have been molested, others not. A Meleager, a Marsyas and a Horus have been stripped of
their genitals, and the three graces were each molested in the area of the pudenda by irregular cuttings and
scratching. Their three sisters from nearby Side were not harmed in that way, presumably because they were
exhibited in the theater. Then, for other reasons much discussed, statue of the sandal-tying Hermes has
apparently not suffered the same violation.
– Niels Hannestad (Castration in the Baths)
When Christianity became adopted as the State religion by Constantine, who incidentally was, at his
deathbed baptized naked according to the custom, it did nonetheless did not stop him from adorning baths with
nude statues of the Roman and Greek Gods. There is good reason for this, but this will be discussed later in this
work.
When Constantine the Great in 330 restored the Baths of Zeuxippos, one of the capital’s oldest and
grandest thermae, he furnished them with a very fine traditional collection of sculpture: images of gods and
demigods, figures of mythological heroes, mostly related to the Trojan cycle, and portraits of famous Greeks
and Romans.
– Bassett, (Historia custos (supra n. 2) 491-505)
So we find that indeed, Christians had visited the baths and witnessed both naked living flesh and naked
men and women sculptured in stone. But things were going to change! As the dawn of the third century began, a
cloud of darkness and evil was already gathering across the Christian world. Two centuries of persecution and
death was reaching a climax and the evil one had failed to stifle the light of the Word that now had spread far
and wide throughout the Roman realm. A change of tactics became necessary, one where confusion of the truth
would separate and divide, while the original tactic used by the Serpent—the shame of nakedness— would
cloud the minds of those who [held firm] so that "even the elect would be deceived." After all, the tactic had
worked before with the first humans, but now it was time to build on the seeds that had been sown. Slowly,
almost imperceptibly, an anti-sex revolution permeated the Christian movement. Good nudity and sex merged
and became entangled with moralistic platitudes, so that they became indistinguishable. Even the rite of baptism
would be altered beyond recognition, and eventually nude immersion would cease altogether.
The entrenchment of anti-sexual teachings in Christianity is actually not as traceable to the
misinterpretations of the Bible as it is to the intentional anti-sexual teachings and writings of certain
individuals. In the centuries following Jesus, a group of ascetics rose to positions of power and influence in the
Church…. Under Emperor Constantine, Christianity became firstly tolerated and later installed as the imperial
religion of Rome (Edict of Milan, AD 313). Heavily influenced by sex-negative Gnostic teachings, fractured
into rival Christian groups that hurled accusations of bizarre sex practices at each other and becoming all too
eager to distance themselves from any sign of sexual impropriety, the great separation of human sexuality and
spirituality began in earnest in Christianity.
(No reference.)
That is not to say that bathing in the baths by Christians immediately died out. Pockets of resistance to the
anti-sex lobby of the Western Churches prevailed for a time in the East. We read for example that Sisinnius,
Patriarch of Constantinople (who died December 427 AD), still visited his local baths to bathe:
It will not be out of place here, I conceive, to give some account of Sisinnius. He was, as I have often
said, a remarkably eloquent man, and well-instructed in philosophy. But he had particularly cultivated logic,
and was profoundly skilled in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; insomuch that the heretic Eunomius
often shrank from the acumen which his reasoning displayed. As regards his diet he was not simple; for
although he practiced the strictest moderation, yet his table was always sumptuously furnished. He was also
accustomed to indulge himself by wearing white garments, and bathing twice a day in the public baths. And
when some one asked him ‘why he, a bishop, bathed himself twice a day?’ he replied, ‘Because it is
inconvenient to bathe thrice.’
– Socrates, (Historia Ecclesiastica 6.22 PG vol. 67, 728B)
Likewise, we read in the same work what happened to John Chrysostom. He is regarded as a Doctor of the
Church, a term that is bestowed on certain ecclesiastical writers who have received this title on account of the
6
great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Eastern Church there were three
Doctors that were pre-eminent: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The feasts of these
three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI, the Wise, the deposer of Photius.
In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honor in the early Middle Ages: St.
Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The "Four Doctors" became a commonplace
among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles
sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22). What is of interest with respects to the present work is what the followers of
Chrysotom did after their leader was exiled. Before leaving the Church to follow him, it being Easter, went to the
bath to celebrate this event.
Accordingly Chrysostom was silenced, and went no more to the church; but those who were of his party
celebrated Easter in the public baths, which are called Constantianae, and thenceforth left the church.
(No reference.)
Their parting however, was not without incident. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
They had scarcely left Constantinople when a huge conflagration destroyed the cathedral, Senate-house,
and other buildings. The followers of the exiled bishop were accused of the crime and prosecuted.
– St. John Chrysostom (Catholic Encyclopedia)
So, the baths were used even to celebrate Easter! If the early Christians visited the baths, can we say the
same with respect to the immediate disciples of Jesus?
What about the Apostles?
Peter, John and Paul were the primary leaders of the Church to the Gentiles, although Peter tended to "eat
with the Jews". We know from the scriptures that Peter was not averse to nudity and he himself is reported in
the scriptures as having fished naked as has already been related in this work. Elsewhere, and in the 8 th Homily
of Clement, we read that Peter bathed in the sea, prior to partaking of a meal with his hosts and associates:
But he, when he was at the very gate of his lodging, turned round, and promised to the multitudes that
after the next day he would converse with them on the subject of religion. And when he had gone in, the
forerunners assigned lodgings to those who had come with him. And the hosts and the entertainers did not fall
short of the desire of those who sought hospitality. But Peter, knowing nothing of this, being asked by us to
partake of food, said that he would not himself partake until those who had come with him were settled. And on
our assuring him that this was already done, all having received them eagerly by reason of their affection
towards him, so that those were grieved beyond measure who had no guests to entertain, Peter hearing this, and
being pleased with their eager philanthropy, blessed them and went out, and having bathed in the sea, partook
of food with the forerunners; and then, the evening having come, he slept.
– Clement (Fallen Angels and Giants Homily VIII)
However, as to Peter visiting the baths the scriptures and the writings of the early Christians are silent. It is
evident though that John frequented the baths at Ephesus. Let us look at the ancient metropolis of Ephesus.
With a population of 150,000, it was one of the most important eastern frontier cities of ancient Greece, then
later, of the Roman Empire. Perhaps because Ephesus was an Asian province settlement, the Roman
occupation preserved much of the original Greek building and influence. It was here that the Roman general,
Marc Antony walked hand-in-hand with the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra, down the famous Marble Road. Here,
too, the first Christians fled from Jerusalem to start spreading their beliefs, including the Apostle John and Paul,
the author of the Epistles to the Ephesians.
Ephesus became the capital of the Roman Province of Asia Minor and as such boasted all the trappings of
leisure that Roman civilization could muster. Within the city's limits were two theaters, two agoras
(marketplaces), multiple temples to Greek and Roman gods, a huge library, multiple baths, public latrines with
an underground sewer system, a brothel, fountains, gymnasium, stadium, basilica, palaces, and private homes
of rich Ephesian citizens. But it is to the baths that our attention is focused because it is here that Irenaeus of
Lyons (France/Gaul), in his monumental and important work Against Heresies (AD.182-188), reported a story
from Polycarp about the John, the Apostle, who preached there. Polycarp was an esteemed disciple of John the
Apostle as Eusebius of Caeserea writes:
Polycarp was not only instructed by the apostles and conversant with many who had seen the Lord, but
was appointed by the apostles to serve in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna.
– Eusebius of Caeserea (The History of the Church, Penguin Classics. p. 116)
Irenaeus relates the story thus:
John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of
the bathhouse without bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bathhouse fall down, because Cerinthus,
the enemy of the truth, is within.
7
– Eusebius of Caeserea (The History of the Church, Penguin Classics. p. 116)
It is clear that John had gone to the baths with the intention of bathing, but seeing Cerinthus, whom he
regarded as a heretic inside, left the baths in haste. This episode is mentioned in such a matter of fact manner
that it clearly show that it was not unusual for a disciple that had known Jesus to bathe at the Baths. What about
Irenaeus? He does not say specifically, but what are we to make of what happened in his hometown.
In his hometown, during the early summer of 177 CE, feeling among the populace of Lyons gradually
seethed up against the Christians. First, they were banned from the baths and the market places; later they were
excluded from all public places. Then, at a moment when the provincial governor was away from the city, the
mob broke loose. Christians were assaulted, beaten, and stoned. The fact that they were banned from the baths
clearly suggests that the Christians visited the baths at one time, and no doubt this included Irenaeus, and were
prevented from doing so during this time of unrest.
Paul and John were the primary apostles that brought the Good News about the Christ to the Gentile world.
We have already seen that John visited the baths, what can we say about Paul? There are no Scriptures or
writings that specifically say that Paul visited the baths, but, when we look at his background, it is inconceivable
that he did not do so. The baths were the social center of any urban Roman society, as we have already noted.
It was a place that could not be ignored. While Paul was a Jew of the school of the Pharisees, he nonetheless
was brought up in a Greek/Roman world and would have been well acquainted with the Greek attitudes towards
nudity.
As we have seen Greek and Roman culture regarded the undraped body with reverence and the
gymnasium within the baths provide the opportunity to build the body beautiful, to bathe and to sunbathe while at
the same time keeping up with news and gossip. Indeed, Paul would also have visited the houses of the wealthy
as well as the poor, and would no doubt have been confronted by the wall paintings like those uncovered intact
at Pompeii, most of which depicted naked men and women. Everywhere, statues of naked gods could be found
in the public areas of the town, as well as in the private gardens of individuals and therefore image of nudity
could not be avoided. Paul would have been accustomed to such sights everywhere he went in the Roman and
Greek world. He spent a lot of time in Greece, and as he said "I came a Jew, I became a Gentile".
As a result of his familiarity of Greek/Roman culture we can see from his writings that he had a thorough
knowledge of the Greek, that he quoted the Greek poets, with the familiarity and correctness of a cultured
Greek, and that he showed an intimate acquaintance with Greek philosophy.
But Paul also inherited Greek culture, which permeated the eastern Mediterranean following the
conquests of Alexander the Great (335-323 BC). Paul later showed his mastery of Greek in his pastorial letters
(1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), which can be counted among the classics of Greek literature. In addition, Paul
was a Roman citizen, which gave him special freedom of movement, protection on his travels and access to the
higher strata of society…. Finally, Paul's principle of being 'all things to all men' helped him to move with
relative ease between the synagogues, his base of operations, and Graeco-Roman society, where ultimately the
gospel received the greatest response.
– The History of Christianity, p. 64. Lion Publishing PLC
Although Paul was well versed in Greek literature and culture, he nonetheless did not neglect the religion of
his fathers and entered the school of the renowned Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel, and was "brought up at his
feet," Gamaliel is described in the scriptures as "a Pharisee…a doctor of the law, had in honor in all the people"
(Acts 5:33), so what he know of the custom of the Rabbinical schools, implies that he must have spent three or
four years, at least, under this great Master of the Law in Jerusalem. Now we come to the issue of Paul visiting
the baths. If, as has been noted, that Paul was taught by Gamaliel, if we learn that Gamaliel visited the baths,
can we not conclude that Paul did so too, or at least, could do so if he wished without condemnation. We can
read about this in a story is related in the Mishnah, in the treaty on 'idolatry':
Proklos, the son of Philosophos (or the philosopher), asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acre while he was
bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite, and said to him, 'It is written in your Law, And there shall cleave naught of
the devoted thing to thine hand. Why [then] dost thou bathe in the Bath of Aphrodite?' He answered, 'One may
not make answer in the bath' (it is forbidden to speak words of the Law while naked). And when he came out he
said, 'I came not within her limits: she came within mine! They do not say, "Let us make a bath for Aphrodite",
but "Let us make an Aphrodite as an adornment for the bath.
– Abodah Zarah (translation H. Danby, The Mishnah. Corr. ed., Oxford 1933. 3.4)
So, we see that the great teacher bathing naked in the vicinity of a sculpture of Aphrodite, in the baths
dedicated to her name. No doubt, the sculpture of the patron god was carved naked in marble, a naked woman
looking down upon the bathers, because of this she is depicted elsewhere in this way. His answer to Proklos,
who evidently was a Greek judging by his name, was such to suggest that the baths were so named after the
8
goddess, after her statue was installed as an adornment for the bath and not because the baths were dedicated
to her, like that of a temple. If bathing naked at the baths was accepted as a normal part of life for Gamaliel, can
we not conclude that Paul would have thought so too, him being a pupil of the great master?
So did Paul use the baths and watch the games such as the wrestling and track events? The answer must
be yes, such was his background, he could not done otherwise. While his writings do not mention the baths and
whether or not he visited them directly this does not mean he did not do so. In fact, as we look closely to his
writings we can deduce that he was acquainted first hand with Greek cultural nudity. Take for example, what we
read in one of his letters, the epistle of the Hebrews, wherein it says:.
...let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the
race that is set before us , looking unto Jesus the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy that was set
before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God .
– Hebrews 12:1
In those few words, Paul says a great deal. The word "race" (agon) is a particular race applied to an athletic
contest in Hellenic times. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance the word weight (ogkos) used in this
context means a mass (as bending or bulging by its load) i.e., burden (hindrance). From this the believer is told
to lay aside, to throw away or cast off anything that would impede his progress. In the case of an athlete, he
casts of his clothes to wear as little as possible, or nothing at all, which was often the case in the Greek world,
so nothing would hinder him in running the race and ultimate victory.
Here Paul uses the example of the athlete who is not impaired by any clothing to galvanize Christians to
run their race, to endure until they eventually reaching the prize of salvation promised to them by Jesus Christ.
But there is something more, which Paul makes reference to, and this is also connected with nakedness. He
follows the example by saying "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and
hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." This is very strange because there was no need to add
"despising shame" in this sentence. However, when we think about it, the athlete is know to be naked, and
Jesus died on the cross this way to "take away our shame,"…what are we to do? We are to despise shame, in
other words, not to feel ashamed because, as Jesus said:
When you undress without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like
little children do and trample on them, then you will see the Son of the Living One and you will not fear.
– Elliot (The Apocryphal New Testament. p. 140. Claredon Press)
Paul uses the idea of the naked athlete to make various points in his arguments when witnessing for Christ.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you
may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but
we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body
and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
– (1 Corinthians 9:24-27 RSV)
From whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each
part is working properly (energeia), makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
– (Ephesians 4:16 RSV)
To answer what Paul had to say about it is in Hebrews 12:1 "..let us lay aside every weight, and the sin
which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us," using an athlete or
runner who runs naked without any weight, as an example of our Christian faith and he did so without
condemning them for their nudity. Acts 15:20 shows the instructions to the gentiles turning to God,
…but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things
strangled, and from blood.
– Romans 6:13
The key is to use your whole body as a tool to “do what is right for the glory of God." Reading this, we can
see that nothing is mentioned concerning dress code. We are enjoined to abstain from sexual immorality, but
nothing is said about nudity, public baths or the Roman Olympics for which the gentiles were accustomed to
participate and enjoy. Once again, Paul uses the human body as a means to illustrate a topic he is preaching.
He writes from the Greek province of Macedonia.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth within you? If any man
defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
– 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
When Paul speaks of the body as God's temple, he does not mean that the body should be worshipped
and indulged – but rather that its "base" instincts and desires like sex and gluttony should be suppressed so as
not to defile the temple. He further writes:
9
"Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are
not your own? So glorify God in your body.”
– 1 Corinthians 6.19
So we are to glorify god in our bodies. In other words, we are to look after it just like the athletes do in order
to run the race and to endure. Abusing the body through illicit sex, excess alcohol or excess food, is not the way
to offer God your body as a holy offering, is it? Nor should we look at nudity with shame, because Jesus and his
disciples did not. As for Paul visiting the baths, I think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the
view that he did. What do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I invite feedback to any of the editorials I write in this nudesletter. I truly value your opinions. It’s not a one way street. If you send me your emails, I’ll do my best to answer as time permits, either on-line, or here. I encourage our readers to contribute to this, the “Open Mic” section of
the nudesletter. I never tire of hearing how people come to nudism and how it has benefited them in their lives. Such stories can offer help and
hope to others as well. Remember that we’d like contributions of poetry, anecdotes, and nudist experiences (including first time) for future
nudesletters. Since this is “our” publication, we need you to succeed. Photos are also desired (with permission, of course). In addition, if you
know a friend who you think would like to get on our mailing list, let me know his or her e-mail address and I’ll add them. Please, no swingers,
voyeurs, or generally twisted applicants. You can be removed from our mailing list, or can request previous issues, simply by e-mailing me.
10