He must have been highly distinctive.
[Eric Cartman]The body of Christ, sleek swimmer’s body, all muscled up and toned.
The body of Christ, Oh, Lord Almighty, I wish I could call it my own.
You’re one time, two times, three times my Savior…
Whenever I see Jesus up on that cross I can’t help but think that he looks kind’a hot…[/Eric Cartman]
I’d personally venture to guess that only a minority of Christians know that.
So here’s where we are:
We know that Paul met and worked with the apostles of Jesus. He referred to himself as the least of these.
If any of the apostles of Jesus wore their hair long, Paul presumably would not have written that long hair is shameful. So a reasonable deduction is that the apostles had short hair.
If the apostles all had short hair, why would anyone imagine that Jesus had long hair? Conversely, if Jesus had long hair, wouldn’t it have made sense for some of his disciples to emulate that?
In the absence of evidence to the contrary (of which I see none), I would imagine the citizens of the Roman province of Judea adopted the prevailing hairstyles of the Roman Empire, i.e., cropped hair for men. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians seems to confirm that this was the prevailing style, and that not only was it the style, but to run counter to that style was regarded as shameful.
Paul and Jesus were contemporaries. We don’t know for sure that Paul never met or at least caught sight of Jesus. Judea was not that big a place. On the other hand, it’s a fair argument that if Paul had seen or met Jesus (other than in ghostly form) he would have mentioned it in his writings. So let’s assume that he didn’t. Doesn’t change any of the circumstantial evidence listed above. Aside from which, Paul lived among hundreds, or even thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus. Is it reasonable to assume he never asked anyone about the appearance of the object of his worship?
The only actual evidence we have as to Jesus’s hairstyle is Paul’s letter to Corinthians, which describes his understanding of the social mores governing men’s hairstyles at the time. That evidence is circumstantial, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and I see none here), it supports the idea that Jesus most likely had short hair.
You may disregard Paul’s letter, but to do so requires you to make certain assumptions. For some of you, your argument seems to boil down to “I don’t like Paul, therefore he was probably lying about this.” OK, but you do understand that this is rank speculation based on your own biases.
Blake argues, fairly but I think incorrectly, that the letter was only intended for the Corinthians and may have reflected only their hairstyle mores. Well, you can make that argument, but then you still have to believe that Paul was lying in the letter just to make a point. He didn’t really believe himself that long hair was shameful, but he was willing to say so for the sake of an illustration. Again, this is rank speculation, unsupported by any actual evidence.
Again, the only actual evidence we have (Paul’s letter) weighs on the side of short hair.
Folks seem really emotionally wed to the idea that Jesus had long hair. Why? Is it just because you’ve seen so many representations of him that way? The evidence in this thread suggests the artistic convention of Jesus with long hair likely arose some time after the 3rd century, since the two surviving depictions of him from that century show him with short hair.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a reasonable inference, though, especially considering how fractious the early churches were. Paul was already at odds with the other apostles over a number of other issues, such as circumcision and preaching to the gentiles. It’s entirely possible that his comment about long hair being shameful was part of that friction.
You may have missed it, but earlier I posted a link (admittedly, to Wikipedia) that indicated that the passage about hair might have been inserted into the text at a later date. If so, then there’s not even circumstantial evidence about how people viewed long hair at the time.
I’m not seeing a lot of emotionalism in this thread. You’ve presented a lot of arguments, some pretty strong, some with distinct flaws in them. I think paring away the weaker arguments you made still leaves you with a very slightly stronger case for long hair than for short, but nowhere near strong enough for the matter to be considered settled. The bottom line is that, regardless of how one feels about Paul, a single passage (of questionable provenance) in a single letter, the full context of which has been lost to history, is simply not strong evidence.
Speculation
I saw it. It is a minority scholarly opinion, and my sense is that some scholars don’t like this passage because it means our image of Jesus might be wrong.
Not overt, but I see a very strong reaction against the idea of Jesus having short hair. A reaction that is not based on any actual evidence. Which leaves me with the idea the strength of the reaction is emotional.
Is this a typo? I think so, but please clarify. What evidence for long hair?
That letter is the only evidence we have, and it weighs in favor of short hair. It’s provenance is not questioned by most scholars. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence on the side of long hair. (Or at least none that’s been presented here.)
But not unreasonable speculation, given what we know of the man, and the politics he was engaged in. Certainly, far more reasonable speculation than, “Maybe he met Jesus in person.”
Speaking of speculation. The wiki cite gave three fairly good reasons to suspect that passage was a later interpretation. What leads you to think that the real reason people question that passage is an irrational insistence on Jesus having long hair?
I’m not seeing a particularly strong reaction against the idea of a short-haired Jesus in this thread. Which posts are you thinking of in particular? There’s not anyone in here who’s denying the possibility outright, just a lot of people pointing out that the evidence is scant, and open to multiple interpretations.
Gah. Yeah, that was a typo, sorry.
Yes. But it’s not very good evidence, is the point. Really, only slightly better than no evidence at all. I think the only reasonable conclusion to the question of how long Jesus’s hair was, is “Nobody knows.”
You must be joking. Speculating that Paul had a spiteful grudge against the apostles (despite his writing nice things about them elsewhere)? Speculating that the apostles had long hair? Speculating that Paul expressed his (speculated) grudge against the apostles in a bizarre passive-aggressive manner? By attacking their (speculated) hairstyles? In a letter to some gentiles?
You regard this stack of speculations as more reasonable than speculating that Paul might have chanced to meet or at least glimpse a prophet who had a large following in the small province of Judea?
You are mistaken. Your wiki cite is not clearly written, but it is talking about two distinct passages, I Corinthians 11:2-16 (the hair passage) and I Corinthians 14:34-35. It is this second passage for which several reasons are given to question its authenticity.
For the first passage, if you check the footnote, the only reason given for doubting it is that some scholars (a minority) find its argumentation “awkward.” For this reason, “a few scholars” consider it a later addition. No other reason is given.
That’s a pretty weak reason for doubting authenticity, which is why I am admittedly speculating that part of the reason for resistance to that passage is that it suggests our image of long-haired Jesus may be wrong.
You think it’s not good evidence. Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man. To me it looks like pretty strong evidence of first-century Judean hair styles and mores. Strong enough that I’d say our default should be a short-haired Jesus unless someone presents evidence to the contrary (of which I see none).
.
Yes. By a significant margin, particularly given the supporting info provided by Sage Rat - particularly the description of James as unshorn and unshaved.
I’m not sure you’re reading that correctly. Note that the sentence marked by the second footnote consistently refers to verses, plural, which indicates to me that the arguments are referring to both passages, and not just the second one.
Look, the vast majority of extant images of Jesus show him with long hair, and you want to fuck with that? Man, nobody fucks with the Jesus!
Depends on what you mean by “long”
*Paul’s argument is that men were not to be known for hair that looked like that of women. While this does not indicate the length of Jesus’ hair, it does reveal that He likely had hair shorter than Jewish females of the time. Though some exceptions are found in the Bible of men with long hair (such as Samson and John the Baptist), most Jewish men kept shorter hair to distinguish themselves from women as well as for practical purposes.
Statues of men from this time period generally reveal men with short hair. While nearly all statues from this period were Greco-Roman, the consistent portrayal of short-haired men affirms this was a more likely scenario for Jewish men as well during this time period.
Based on these considerations, Jesus likely had hair that was in the “normal” range for His culture. It would likely not have been down to His shoulders nor was His head likely shaved. Instead, Jesus would have had mid-length hair common in His time. This is not to indicate what the Bible teaches regarding men’s hair, but rather the most likely deduction to answer whether Jesus had long hair during His time on earth.
*
*There is also Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 11:14, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” The length of Jesus’ hair would have been whatever was culturally appropriate for a man. Jesus’ hair would have looked masculine. Now, what that precisely means is subject to debate. Could His hair have been shoulder length? Possibly. Would Jesus have had a buzz cut or otherwise very short hair? Probably not. The key is that it would have been masculine-looking. And that seems to be Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 11:3–15. A man’s hair should look masculine. A woman’s hair should look feminine. What this means can differ from culture to culture, but the principle remains, regardless of culture.
So, did Jesus have long hair? The answer depends on what is meant by “long.” Could it have been longer than the typical hair length of men today? Yes. Would it have been so long that it appeared feminine? No.
*
Exactly.
It’s not a matter of liking or disliking. I don’t disregard a story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree because I dislike the original person who told that story, I disregard it because the evidence would indicate that it’s fiction.
I don’t say it out of any dislike for Christians nor Christianity, but you have to realize that, realistically speaking, it’s far more likely that Jesus was the Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard of his time than he was its Gandhi. Paul of Tarsus is more likely to be a Brigham Young or David Miscavige than anything else.
All of these guys, not just Paul, really have all of the trustworthiness of a used car salesman. The only way to read the Bible, if you want a real history, is to ignore the justifications and explanations given and instead just pay attention to the actions, timing, personal connections, and targets of attack.
We are told by Luke, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Eutychius that the Jerusalem church, after James’ death, moved to East to Pella, across the Jordan.
However, we are also told by Hegesippus that after James’ death, the decision of who to name the next head of the Jerusalem church was Simeon, a man who was friendly to Paul’s church. But that there had been another man, named Thebutis, who had been the runner up and he took a mere splinter faction to Pella. We’re also told that Simeon was elected after the fall of Jerusalem, even though all other evidence has James dying 8 years earlier. So who was in charge for those 8 years? It’s not clear who Simeon ever actually lead, since he seems to have stayed in the region of Jerusalem, whereas every one else seems to have left.
While this one source says that Thebutis lead the way, in all of the remaining documentation, we’re just told that Ebion, “The Poor One”, took the Jews from Jerusalem to Pella. Note that “ebion” was a positive and generic term for “the followers of Christ”, within the church. We’re told that Ebion founded the Ebionites, but really weren’t that different from Paulines, beyond accepting Jewish Law.
However, we are also told that the Ebionites included, in their library of works, one named the Book of Elchasai. The Book of Elchasai was also studied by the Essenes, the Elcesaites, and the Nazarenes. So, as far as we can tell, there was no great divide between these groups in actuality. The Ascents of James was also linked to the Ebionites and, of course, the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Mani was a follower of the Elcesaites and founded Manichaeism.
From what we know about the Ascents of James, one large component of it is that it basically calls Paul a big fat liar and asshole.
The only remaining part of the Gospel of the Ebionites that we have (though other works within the Nag Hammadi library repeat the tradition) maintains that Jesus was the spiritual successor to John the Baptist. In the Bible, we are told that Peter and his cousin were both followers of John, who went over to Jesus after his death. From various other materials we are told that both Simon Magus and Dositheos were also followers of John the Baptist, who took on some of John’s former pupils and continued his teachings. It’s reasonable to think that the teachings of John, Jesus, Simon Magus, and Dositheos are all pretty related.
Both Dositheos and John the Baptist are recognized as the founders of Mandaeism. Based on the Quran, the Mandaeics and the Manichaeists were both lumped under the heading of “Sabians”, back in the day, so at least to the Arabs, there was no large difference between the two groups. The Mandaeans used to refer to themselves, in their history, as Nazarenes.
The Mandaeans have one large work, the Ginza Rba and the Book of John. Both works basically call Jesus a big fat liar and asshole.
Now compare those lineages to Paul.
Paul was tended for, while sick, by a Christian man (Ananias). Claimed a revelation from Christ, claimed that he knew nothing about Christianity before that point, and then built his own church, with no interest of introducing himself in Jerusalem until such a point as he could save them from disaster. By the time he got to Jerusalem, he already had years and years of stuff he’d preached, of which, who knows which percentage he could actually have learned from Ananias. You’re basically looking at a man who, unless you believe in magical revelation, must have painted himself into a corner.
But if you compare the beliefs of Manichaeism and Mandaeism, both of which really have a better lineage to John and Jesus than Christianity does, they’re really not all that similar to Christianity. But they are kinda similar to one another (in that they’re both Gnostic). So the safe bet is that Paul did in fact not know much about Jesus’ teachings, had painted himself into a corner, and for years and years, was out there making shit up.
I would not trust the man’s word on much of anything.
I’m guessing you meant Paul there, and not Jesus?
Also, was Dositheos regular flavored, or Ranch?
No, the Mandaeans think that Jesus stole John the Baptist’s ideas and usurped everything. I’ve been meaning to go through the Ginza to see if any of Jesus’ quotes can be traced back to John. St Peter was, after all, a follower of John and probably the key source of information on Jesus, used for all the Pauline works. But all evidence would seem to indicate that John was really the big name back in the day, and subsequently I would expect to be the one who really knew how to string some words together. Jesus only ended up thriving thanks to Paul.
According to the Bible, he and Simon Magus were both big fat liars and assholes.
No, you are still wrong.
Again, your wiki cite is talking about two different passages, I Corinthians 11:2-16 (the hair passage) and I Corinthians 14:34-35.
Here’s the whole, confusingly-written paragraph:
All of the bolded language appears to apply to I Corinthians 14:34-35, but not to I Corinthians 11:2-16. The “appeal to the law” is in 14:34. Note also that one of the bases for questioning the authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with 11:5, which, you will note, is part of the hair passage. So that reason assumes the authenticity of the hair passage.
The only reason given for anyone disputing the authenticity of the hair passage is set forth in footnote 1, which says:
So yeah, a “few scholars” think the “awkward argumentation” calls the passage into question. That’s it. That’s all there is.
(Hah! I knew it! You are getting emotional!)
And that vast majority of images all date from after the 3rd century, which means they have zero evidentiary value. Our two third-century images show Jesus with short hair.
I’m perfectly calm, Dude.
My thought would be that Jesus sported something along these lines.
.
"My hair like Jesus wore it!
"Hallelujah, I adore it!
"Hallelujah, Mary loved her son!
"Why don’t my mother love me?!
“Haaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrr!”
It is. It’s also certainly plausible that it’s a response to specific questions asked by the people in Corinth.
And it’s possible it is an interpolation.
At any rate, the gentile men of Corinth may have been arguing over whether to cut their hair like Romans, or wear it longer, as was typical in the more rural areas of Judah (albeit, not as long as woman). Some of them may have taken the mitzvah not to mar the corners of one’s beard as meaning that however long one’s beard grew in front, was how long one’s hair should be all the way around (I’m not pulling that out of my ass-- that apparently was a minority opinion at various times of that halakah).
Paul, who has told gentiles they don’t need to be circumcised or keep kosher, has probably told them the rule about beards can be disregarded as well, but if this is from men who want to wear beards, just not all the way around, so to speak, Paul tells them that men and women must be different. He has some back-up here in the text that men and women should dress distinctly from one another, but personally, I don’t think it applies to hair. But it’s Paul, and he loved making when amount to ex cathedra pronouncements.
There is not much consensus on the appearance of Jesus. In fact, He once appeared to me in a vision, and He looks in all respects exactly like Danny DeVito; that is why the Gospels avoid describing Him.