It being Easter weekend and all, Jesus is all over the place. Magazines, newspaper articles, you name it.
As usual, the guy is uniformly depicted as having long hair. Why?
Now don’t give me “That was the style then,” because I’m pretty sure that’s not so. Isn’t there a verse in the Bible (one of Paul’s writings, I believe) where he says something about long hair being “a glory unto a woman” but “a shame unto a man?”
Does anyone know how this tradition of depicting Jesus with long hair got started? Does anyone want to take the position that he really did have long hair? (Just to keep this thread forum-appropriate.)
Most of those pictures also show Jesus with relative Northern European features rather than the Semitic features he probably actually had.
In other words, medeval painters painted him to look like they did. Not an uncommon take-remember that Shakespeare’s plays were presented in ‘modern’ dress when first performed, even though it’s unlikely that Cleopatra dressed anything like Elizabeth I.
End result- long-haired, European featured Jesus. For all we really know, Jesus was a grossly over-weight midget with a buzz cut.
JMCJ
“Y’know, I would invite y’all to go feltch a dead goat, but that would be abuse of a perfectly good dead goat and an insult to all those who engage in that practice for fun.” -weirddave, set to maximum flame
The only even remotely contemporary description of Jesus described him as short, hunchbacked, and wild-eyed, with a unibrow (joined eyebrows). Someone with a better recollection than I can tell us the exact appropriate style, but I’m certain that a respectable Jewish male did not sport a hippie 'do in 30 AD.
Seems like the bible doesn’t give a good physical description for Jesus, or anyone else. On the one hand, it makes the bible seem like something phony that was made up. The writers were vague to cover things up. On the other hand, it makes it seem like the bible is saying that physical features do not matter. Spirituallity is what matters.
So, lack of physical descriptions could be taken as good or bad.
In New Testament times, woman had long hair, and men had short hair. Paul writes, in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15; “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair was given to her as her covering.”
Jesus did not have long hair. The hair we are used to seeing is ingrained in our minds because of artist’s imaginations.
There is a verse in Scripture that says the Lord was beautiful, the most beautiful man there ever was…or something like that. Hunchback my eye.
In Dr. Barbara Thiering’s Jesus the Man she provides some possible clues to his appearance.
Dr. Thiering does not believe that Jesus was from Nazareth. Rather she believes he was a Nazirite. The vow of a Nazirite to not cut his hair is stated explicitly in the Torah. The most famous Nazirite is, of course, Samson.
The cite in the above quote (John 20:15) reads a little differently in the KJV.
So was he small enough for her to lift. Perhaps.
I just thought I would share this information. (I would never post in another thread just to drum up interest in my own thread ((BTW-in this forum)) of course. That would be crass!)
Paul was not a Jew, he was a neo-greek roman. The neo-greeks believed in the beauty of the male body, which was usu shaved (at least the beard), and they wore their hair short. They also believed in long hair for women, ans a rather sexist attitude (which crops up now & then in pauls writings). drink was verboten, or at least drunkeness.
All this made them quite different than the aramaic Jew that Jesus was. Based upon contemporary art of Jewish zealots, Jesus would have been dark, w/ longish, shoulder-length hair, and a beard. Since there are no desciptions of him, and the Romans could not pick him out of a small group, there is nothing to suppose he was in any way unusual looking. (Certainly not a humpback). Possibly slight, yes, but not usually so.
Paul was a Jew. When speaking before a crowd in Rome, Paul says; “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cicilia, but brought up in this city.” Acts 22:3. He was a Jew, and a Roman citizen (Acts 22:27), at the same time.
Then one day he was preaching against abortion and passed around a drawing of Jesus holding an aborted fetus. He said the drawing was done by a woman with no previous artistic experience, and it was given to her by God.
The drawing showed Jesus with long hair.
I pointed this out to Max. He wasn’t terribly happy that I did.
I have not heard the “hunchback, uni-brow” description before, and would also be interested in a cite. If such a description exists, it would not suprise me if it were part of some early anti-Christian propaganda, designed to discourage people from joining that “weird cult.” I would like more info, though, before drawing that conclusion.
My interest is academic, since I am not of a religious bent myself.
The “hunchbacked” Jesus came from the writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian c37 - 100 AD. The unflattering description comes from his work The Jewish War. I am unable to find the exact passage online, only references to it.
Josephus is a notoriously UNreliable source. Josephus himself was a major brown-noser, willing to say almost anything to suck up to his Roman patrons, so even the words of Josephus himself are untrustworthy. Add to that, there are no existing originals of Josephus, and later authors edited in complimentary comments about Christians and Jesus; my own feeling is that Josephus would NEVER have made such comments, which would have gone against contemporary popular opinions.
The Bible never describes how anyone looks, unless it is relevant to the story. Rachel and Joseph are described as “beautiful”, Samson obviously has long hair, etc. The Bible describes people in terms of their personality, not their looks.
On why we persist in depicting Jesus with long hair: it’s a tradition. You may ask, how did this tradition get started? I’ll tell you: I don’t know. But by now, it’s ingrained.
Kind of like celebrating Jesus’ birthday on December 25 when we know that wouldn’t be the right season. Or like using the word “dial” for a telephone, when there’s no dial.
The site also contains an interesting artist’s sketch, as well as some text asserting that Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame was intended as a reference to the historical Jesus.