Or it could mean that it was a view that he had that he wanted spread, much like the rest of what he thought was Jesus’ message.
I’d say this is a reasonable theory. Possibly he preferred the way males in the core provinces of Rome groomed themselves (which was shorter hair and well trimmed beards) and this was reflected in his writings on the subject. I tried to find paintings or other pictures of 1st century men, but most were Roman. I have my doubts that Jesus groomed himself as a Roman from the core provinces would.
You mean Paul’s fairly progressive views on women compared to the general populace, right (see: Sarah Ruden’s “Paul Among the People”)? 
With the head coverings, I’m thinking that he was discussing what was already practice for women (recall the whole business with the sobbing woman, cleaning Jesus’s feet with her hair, would have been deeply shocking due to the whole uncovering of her hair stuff).
Or it could be that some folks are oddly invested in the idea that Jesus had long hair and don’t want to give that idea up despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Or it could be that some folks are oddly invested in the idea that Jesus had short hair and don’t want to give that idea up despite a lack of evidence to support it.
I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other. But your cites up thread really just show how Roman’s depicted him, so it’s no stretch that they depicted him based on their own views on grooming. This says nothing about how people who were in more of a backwater (and at least semi-rebellious) Roman province and weren’t part of the core Roman citizens in crowd would or wouldn’t have groomed themselves. I suppose it hinges on whether you think Jesus was conforming to Roman fashion, of if you think that Judea in the early 1st century was so acclimated to Roman fashion that even those on the periphery (or in opposition) followed it.
Just for the record, I have no investment in Jesus having a beard and long hair or not. My favorite Jesus deception is this. 
Paul’s letter is circumstantial evidence of the mores of the time with respect to mens’ hairstyles. You can reject that evidence, I suppose, but it requires some mental gymnastics. Meanwhile, there is zero contemporary evidence Jesus had long hair.
One possibility is that I Corinthians is a response to Corintian doctrine - Paul quotes some of their doctrine, and then disagrees with it.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/414/did-the-corinthians-ever-write-back
Also, just to be clear, the images I linked were not submitted as proof that Jesus had short hair, but rather as proof that there is no continuous tradition of Jesus having long hair. Jesus with long hair is an artistic convention which must have developed at some later date.
There is zero contemporary evidence as to the length of his hair, period.
But it’s an idea that was pretty contiguous from around at least the 6th century, which was what the OP was asking (i.e. ‘Who started the Jesus with long hair idea’). I get what you are saying, and I actually agree…different societies filter what he looks like through their own perceptions, and the Romans who depicted him earlier would have done so based on their own perceptions and grooming standards.
I am using contemporary to mean evidence from people who lived in Judea during Jesus’s lifetime. Paul’s letter is evidence. It is circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but to say that there is “zero” evidence is simply false.
To reject Paul’s letter as evidence, and to hold onto the belief that Jesus had long hair, you must make some or all of the following assumptions:
- Paul never met Jesus.
- Paul never saw Jesus.
- Paul never discussed Jesus’s appearance with the other apostles. (They never, for example, asked him, “Paul, when you saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, what did he look like?”)
- There were no contemporary depictions of Jesus. (Because if there were, and if they showed Jesus with long hair, Paul would not have written that long hair is shameful.)
- None of the apostles wore their hair in the same long-haired style as Jesus. (Because if they had, Paul would not be writing that long hair is shameful.)
- Paul was either lying or misinformed about it being the common perception that long hare on a man is shameful.
This is what I mean by mental gymnastics.
- The Dude was dead.
- The Dude was dead.
- The only discussions we know of between them are the ones in the Bible.
- Since The Dude was dead, we have no idea who(if anyone) Paul saw on the road. Any further speculation is moot.
- More speculation/projection. Once again, we don’t know which of the original apostles he met, what their hair lengths were, and whether he we wrote what he wrote because he approved of their hair length or because he wanted them to change their hair length.
- That it was a common perception that long hair on a man was shameful was your assumption-all we know is that Paul didn’t like it.
We’re ignoring the possibility here that the J-man had long hair but wore it up.
At the time the letter was written Jesus was dead, but Paul and Jesus were contemporaries. No reason they couldn’t have met during Jesus’s lifetime. You are assuming they didn’t.
So therefore those are all the conversations they had? You don’t think that they would have discussed the object of their worship in great detail? That Paul would have wanted to know every detail?
Isn’t that exactly why the apostles would have quizzed Paul about the appearance of the man he met on the road to Damascus?
Why would Paul want to change their hair length? Or anyone’s hair length? What would be his motive? If Paul knew that Peter, for example, had long hair, do you think he would write to the Corinthians about how shameful long hair is? Why?
Again, it’s not a question of what Paul did or didn’t like. The passage is not Paul preaching against long hair. He is just using long hair on men (and the apparently common perception of the time that such was shameful) to illustrate his point. If that had not been the common perception, it would not have worked as an illustration.
(Wow. You are really wed to the idea of a long-haired Jesus. Me, I’m an atheist. I don’t really care either way. I am just trying to analyze the historical evidence before us.)
I’m sorry. What??
I’m under the impression that these two are relatively solid historical facts, and not assumptions. Surely, if Paul had met Jesus, or even seen him in person (apart from his “vision”), he would have mentioned it in at least one of his lengthy letters on the subject of who Jesus was and what he wanted from mankind?
Per Paul’s own account, he was immediately struck blind by the vision (he got better) and most of his supposed interaction with Jesus was verbal. So, if anyone asked him that question (and we’re dealing with, essentially, religious cultists here, not empirical investigators) he had a handy out ready.
That’s not really much of a stretch. Other than the nobles and the wealthy, how many people back then had their portrait painted? And, of course, if such images did exist, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Paul would have seen them.
If he’d met any of the other apostles. I know he mentions that he met James. Do we know if he met any of the others? I’m also not so certain that he’d be particularly deferential to the other apostles. Paul tends to come across as a self-important dick most of the time. It’s not a stretch to imagine him looking down on the other apostles for not following his own personal ideas about how men should dress and groom themselves.
Or he was a moralistic religious lunatic, and was promulgating his own concepts of acceptable appearance by dressing it up as instructions from God. I mean, he was already out of step with mainstream society of the time just by being Christian. It’s not unlikely that he had other views that were similarly out of joint with his contemporary culture.
I don’t know. How many books about Renaissance art have ever been printed?
Paul meets all of them at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). And he also says that he is less than all of them (“I am the least of the apostles” 1 Cor 15:9).