I’m not sure, Miller. The Wikipedia entry says that half a billion reproductions of the Sallman picture of Jesus have been made. How many copies have been made of the Leonardo da Vinci painting?
He might have meant that many pictures painted by European artists depict Jesus as having European features. Most likely Jesus really looked something like this.
I took a couple Art History classes in college, and we were taught that the typical “modern” depiction of Jesus, with long hair, a beard, wearing a white robe with a purple sash, came from The Romans after they adopted Christianity as the official Roman religion- Jesus was meant to appear king-like, according to the Roman idea of what a king looked like. Roman Catholicism was also structured in a military manner, with the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, and parish priests mirroring Caesar, generals, lieutenants, etc.
Earlier depictions of Christ, while Christianity was still an underground religion (literally, because services often took place in catacombs), were all over the place- including one very early depiction we were shown (a mosaic, I think) of a Greek-influenced beardless Jesus with short blond curly hair (meant to look like Apollo).
I doubt the long hair was a Roman thing - they were very anti- long hair on men, for all the Imperial period, AFAIK.
Are you sure? This bust of Caesarshows long hair.
“Was a contemporary of” means lived at the same time, and does not necessarily mean they were personally acquainted. Paul and Jesus (assuming the traditional narrative) were most certainly contemporaries.
I thought the oldest depiction of Jesus was the “Alexamenos worships his god” graffito, which shows Jesus having the head of a jackass. A crucified jackass, but nonetheless. Antiquity has nothing to offer.
That looks like my cousin Bruce, when he was in grad school.
Jesus looked like Ringo Starr?
Not only did they live at the same time, but Paul knew and worked with the apostles. Presumably they discussed Jesus the man at some point in their acquaintance.
So yes, it would be odd for Paul to write about the shamefulness of long hair if Jesus were known to have worn his hair that way.
Conclusion: it is unlikely Jesus had long hair.
It could be that the length of Jesus’ hair never came up in conversation, so the only conclusion is that Paul didn’t like long hair.
I’d always read that the long haired, white skinned, sometimes blond Jesus was a result of deliberate syncretism on the part of the early Christians to conflate him with Apollo, the Roman sun god.
Similarly, most Christian holidays have ended up on or near what used to be various pagan holidays- as far as anyone can tell, Christ wasn’t actually born in late December, for example.
I disagree. I think we can conclude from Paul’s writing that long hair was not the norm. Note that he is making an argument from the position that “Well everybody knows long hair on a man is shameful.” Not an argument you could make if long hair were common, or even socially acceptable. At the very least, it seems that long hair would have been highly unusual.
So I think we can conclude that Jesus most likely had short hair, even if only as a matter of statistical probability.
.
What was “long hair” on a man in first century Judah? It probably wasn’t as long as some of the portraits that have been posted, but it’s pretty likely that women let their hair grow without cutting at all, and men wore their hair short, relative to women’s hair, which still could have been shoulder-length. When Paul wrote that men shouldn’t have “long” hair, he probably didn’t mean they should have high-and-tights, he probably just meant you should be able to tell men from women from behind. If women had hair that was generally to the center of their backs, at the shortest, and some women had hair quite a bit longer, Paul’s “short” hair on men could easily be the way men wore their hair for a good deal of history. The first five or six US presidents had hair below their collars, and the “pageboy” cut is called a pageboy.
The Judeans of course had the example of short-cropped Roman hair. So I think the argument that “maybe short hair was relative” fails.
Considering his views on women, I don’t think it wise to mistake Paul’s personal views as those of the general populace, and his views notwithstanding there is no knowledge that he knew how Jesus wore his hair.
Alternate conclusion: Paul didn’t write I Corinthians.
Although several of the “Pauline letters” may not have been written by Paul, I believe the scholarly consensus is that Paul did write I Corinthians.
Yes, but we are not just talking about Paul’s views. Understand that the point of the passage was not to condemn long hair on men. It was rather part of a discussion about whether women should cover their heads when they pray:
Paul is just using men’s hairstyles to illustrate his point about women. And he is working on the assumption that everyone knows long hair on men is disgraceful. He would not have made that assumption or used that as an illustration if his audience wouldn’t have understood and agreed with it. Conclusion: most men wore their hair short.
.
I dunno. How many first century Judeans had ever actually seen a Roman in person? It wasn’t like they could just Google an image.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, classifying its authorship as “undisputed”. The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion.
However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Cor 11:2–16 dealing with praying and prophesying with head covering.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never been quite sure what to make of that bit from I Corinthians about long hair/head covering. I’ve wondered if something got lost in translation—if there’s some cultural context I’m missing.
At any rate, if taken at face value the verse means that not only did Paul (or whoever wrote it) have a problem with long hair on men, he expected his audience to share his view, so it seems reasonable to infer that it was a common one.
Just an anecdote, perhaps not appropriate in GD. **Wendall Wagner **mentions the Sallman picture of Jesus. I had one of those images used as a marker in my missal when I was a young teen. I was told by a shuddering nun that we were not permitted to use that picture anymore, that too many young girls had lustful thoughts towards Jesus!
Never bothered to check whether it really was forbidden or not, and just handed her the picture. I hope it didn’t give her lustful thoughts.