Did Jesus have long hair? Bible appears to say "no" (?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter boomerang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

boomerang

Guest
We have always thought of Jesus as having at least shoulder-length hair if not longer. But 1 Corinthians 11:14 says in the NIV: Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him…? That seems pretty cut and dried. But the Douay says it a little different: *Does not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? * The “long hair” interpretation is clear, but the “nourish” translation is a little murkier. “Nourish” could mean a lot more than just “long”. The Greek says something like “koma” which, when I translated with the many usually horrible online translators, means “tresses”. According to the dictionary, “tresses” are normally thought of as “curls”. In other words, a fancy hair-do.

So what is the bottom line on these interpretations? Is this a prohibition on men with “long hair” or men that cultivate their hair into fancy hair-do’s? Which? :confused:

Atheists like to use this passage to discredit our beliefs in Jesus, saying he always had short hair and our depictions of him are just wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
In those days, women in Jesus’ culture never cut their hair, so it was quite long–much, much longer than shoulder length. And women tied up their hair to keep it out of their way–some over did this by doing elaborate braids for show. St. Paul is only saying that a woman grows her hair long and puts it up but a man’s hair is not treated the same way. He’s only talking about the differences between the sexes, evident in his culture, not really about hair length.
 
boomerang said:
We have always thought of Jesus as having at least shoulder-length hair if not longer. But 1 Corinthians 11:14 says in the NIV: Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him…? That seems pretty cut and dried. But the Douay says it a little different: Does not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? The “long hair” interpretation is clear, but the “nourish” translation is a little murkier. “Nourish” could mean a lot more than just “long”. The Greek says something like “koma” which, when I translated with the many usually horrible online translators, means “tresses”. According to the dictionary, “tresses” are normally thought of as “curls”. In other words, a fancy hair-do.

So what is the bottom line on these interpretations? Is this a prohibition on men with “long hair” or men that cultivate their hair into fancy hair-do’s? Which? :confused:

Atheists like to use this passage to discredit our beliefs in Jesus, saying he always had short hair and our depictions of him are just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Click to expand...
And their point is? We don’t have any photos or archival footage of Jesus, so every single artistic portrayal of Him is by definition the product of that particular artist’s imagination.
 
Consider the context. Paul was writing to Corinth, a center of sexual immorality. He was condemning cross dressing and transsexual behavior.

He says nothing about Jesus or the other Jews in Judea.
 
Remember that long and short are relative terms. If in a given culture the men have shoulder-length hair and the women have waist-length hair, then shoulder-length hair will be thought of as “short.” This, I believe, was the case in much of earlier Jewish history.

Art from the first century generally shows Jews with short beards and afro-poofs of curly black hair. It’s probably safe to assume that this look really was common among Jews at the time, and conincidentally it’s consistent with how St. Peter is often depicted (except with gray hair, of course). It’s unlikely to have been universal though.

Also in any case the Nazirites did not cut their hair during the period of their vow. The famously long-haired Samson was one of these. St. James traditionally had very long hair, implying he was also one. From Acts it appears that St. Paul himself was one as well, and completed the time of his vow before or during his final visit to Jerusalem, when he was arrested and eventually sent to Rome. All this needs to be taken into account in interpreting the passage.

Really we do not know how Jesus physically looked. The image we have of him today reflects the look of Frankish kings as much as anything else.
 
Jesus would have had long hair at least until age 3. Upsherin is the Jewish custom where little boys at age three get their first hair cut which symbolizes the end of babyhood and the start of formal education in Judism. I never knew about it until my friend told me her sister,nephew, brother in law and both sets of grandparents went to Israel to get his first haircut. I had seen Moses a few times I noted he had long hair for a little boy (it was pulled back) and assumed it was a Jewish custom but I guess you go to the Wailing Wall and the have barbers there and everyone gets dressed up. A few weeks later I finally saw The Passion of Christ and I picked up that when Mary sees Jesus fall as the were taking him out of Jerusalem, she has a flashback when he was little and fell and Jesus was depicted as a toddler and had long hair. It’s so not American but I think it’s kind of cute.
 
There is such a thing as a Vow of the Nazirite where a Jewish man grows their hair (or refrains from cutting it). This is probably why Jesus is depicted bearded and with long hair. These men are “Holy unto Yahweh” and at the completion of their vow, they would bring a sin offering to the temple. You can say that Jesus’ earthly ministry was his vow and at the completion of this is his offering of himself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Remember that long and short are relative terms. If in a given culture the men have shoulder-length hair and the women have waist-length hair, then shoulder-length hair will be thought of as “short.” This, I believe, was the case in much of earlier Jewish history.

Art from the first century generally shows Jews with short beards and afro-poofs of curly black hair. It’s probably safe to assume that this look really was common among Jews at the time, and conincidentally it’s consistent with how St. Peter is often depicted (except with gray hair, of course). It’s unlikely to have been universal though.

Also in any case the Nazirites did not cut their hair during the period of their vow. The famously long-haired Samson was one of these. St. James traditionally had very long hair, implying he was also one. From Acts it appears that St. Paul himself was one as well, and completed the time of his vow before or during his final visit to Jerusalem, when he was arrested and eventually sent to Rome. All this needs to be taken into account in interpreting the passage.

Really we do not know how Jesus physically looked. The image we have of him today reflects the look of Frankish kings as much as anything else.
Click to expand...
What is this vow of the Nazarites you refer to? Personally it doesn’t matter to me if Jesus had long or short hair. But we seem to have two different translations of that passage ( 1Corinth. 11) Either Paul was literally meaning “long” hair or he meant cultivating it into something fancy. I was just curious which it was. The Douay version implies something other than just length, and I tend to respect the Douay version. If it was meant to be read as “long” why didn’t Jerome translate it that way? That should have been a no-brainer for him. Instead he uses “nourish” which to me implies some sort of active cultivation, instead of just passively letting the hair grow long. Just curious.
 
Let us remember too that St. Paul’s letter was aimed at the Corinthians, not the Jews. There were different standards of society. They were Greeks of pagan background. We shouldn’t apply what was said about them and to them to Jesus who lived on earth as a Jew.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is such a thing as a Vow of the Nazirite where a Jewish man grows their hair (or refrains from cutting it). This is probably why Jesus is depicted bearded and with long hair. These men are “Holy unto Yahweh” and at the completion of their vow, they would bring a sin offering to the temple. You can say that Jesus’ earthly ministry was his vow and at the completion of this is his offering of himself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
Click to expand...
Nazirites were supposed to abstain from wine or any other product made out of grapes and avoid ritual impurity by avoiding corpses (Numbers 6:1-8). If the accusation of “glutton and winebibber” tells us anything it shows us that Jesus may have at least drunk wine (also, the wedding at Cana), not to mention that He now and again came into contact with the dead and the ‘unclean’. If Jesus was a Nazirite as an adult during His ministry, He wasn’t very good at keeping the vows.
 
patrick457 said:
Nazirites were supposed to abstain from wine or any other product made out of grapes and avoid ritual impurity by avoiding corpses (Numbers 6:1-8). If the accusation of “glutton and winebibber” tells us anything it shows us that Jesus may have at least drunk wine (also, the wedding at Cana), not to mention that He now and again came into contact with the dead and the ‘unclean’. If Jesus was a Nazirite as an adult during His ministry, He wasn’t very good at keeping the vows.
Click to expand...
Probably not a Nazirite in the sense that he had the vow of one, but he does bear the holiness of one and also the end of his ministry culminated in a sacrifice, similar to what Nazirites did. Also being God, he surely can change the rules 😉 remember he was criticized for hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors and even Samaritans. Jesus lives the spirit of the law (as he is the spirit of the law and the law giver) rather than a legalistic application of the law.

Also the point here that long hair isn’t beyond Jews of the day. As I pointed out, St. Paul’s letter wasn’t addressed to Jews, thus it shouldn’t apply to Jesus or any Jew of his day.
 
patrick457 said:
And their point is? We don’t have any photos or archival footage of Jesus, so every single artistic portrayal of Him is by definition the product of that particular artist’s imagination.
Click to expand...
How about the Shroud of Tourin? Would that count?
 
kolmywaykurtz,
you know the saying, “day late and dollar…”
 
fred_conty said:
How about the Shroud of Tourin? Would that count?
Click to expand...
We have no 100% certainty that the Shroud is actually Jesus’; the best that can be said about it is that it may be/not be. I mean, I believe that it may be authentic, but I leave it out of the discussion on purpose because of the grey areas.
 
fred_conty said:
Mr. Killjoy, thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Grinch is really my long-lost twin. I have the skill of sucking the fun out of stuff and making them utterly bland and tasteless, you see. Which, you know, can get tedious sometimes, but you eventually get used to it anyway. On rare days I could actually produce one taste - sour - but only during special occasions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top