On consideration, I thought that it was possible that he
could have had a
loincloth. Consider the following:
the Gospels are actually our best historical record of the detail of crucifixion, and so there is
not much elsewhere to compare or corroborate
crucifixion practice
varied markedly from one time to the next: only death was essential
the word ‘loincloth’ (“periskeles”) is
not in the text, not in the NT at all, in fact (although it is in the LXX in Ex 28:42; Lev 6:10; 16:4, 23), which means that we
do not know whether there was one to remove
while the soldiers might want to take someone’s cloak and a seamless inner garment, another man’s loincloth is a
less attractive item, and so it might escape mention
a ‘tunic’ (“chiton”) could serve as an
outer garment (e.g., Joseph’s multicoloured garment in Gen 37 in the LXX), which may well suggest that you would want something under it
frankly, the
absence of a loincloth would make the seamless inner garment
considerably less attractive, and the soldiers were competing for it.
Having said all of that, there are some good reasons why he could have been
naked:
there is a historical reason already mentioned in this thread: the purpose of the act of crucifixion was not just execution (which could be delivered instantly with a gladius), but
degradation
there is a double
Scriptural basis:Then Job began to tear his cloak and cut off his hair. He cast himself prostrate upon the ground, and said, “
Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and
naked shall I go back again. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!” (
Job 1:20-1)and Adam and Eve were
naked in Eden before the Fall: Christ, as the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), could have been
naked in the world before the Redemption.
The end result is that the textual sources are
insufficient to prove it either way. You will have to decide for yourself.