TFan has taken issue with Jason Engwer’s miniseries on the Shroud of Turin. I myself don’t have a dog in this fight. I haven’t kept up with current developments in the ongoing debate over the authenticity of the Shroud. I don’t have an informed opinion to offer on the Shroud, one way or the other.
That said, I’ll comment on one of TFan’s objections:
Moreover, the longhaired person depicted in the shroud does not correspond well with Paul's comment about nature teaching that is a shame for men to have long hair, though it accords well with medieval European iconography.
This raises several issues:
i) It’s ironic that TFan contradicts Calvin's interpretation of 1 Cor 11:14:
Doth not even nature itself. He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.
Of course, Calvin is not infallible. His commentaries are dated. Still, in my experience it’s unusual for TFan to take issue with Calvin.
ii) Turning to recent commentaries, here's something from Thiselton's standard commentary on the Greek text of 1 Cor:
In Paul's sense of the term, "natural" need not refer to a structure inherent in creation but may include "the state of affairs surrounding a convention"...Unless we take fully into account "the ambivalence of 'natural,'" we shall find insoluble problems with such historical counterexamples as the custom of Spartan warriors wearing shoulder-length hair (844).
Depending on the context of thought Paul may use he phusis sometimes to denote the very "grain" of the created order as a whole, or at other times (as here) to denote "how things are" in more situational or societal terms (845).
On that interpretation, Paul is simply referring to the social customs or social mores of that time and place, not what's intrinsically right or wrong. A matter of social decorum.
In his commentary on 1 Cor, Fitzmyer says:
If Paul means only custom or usual practice, he may be appealing to Roman custom, where short-cropped male hair was usual, but Greek custom was not so uniform or well established (420).
I think it highly unlikely that Paul would make Roman hair style an absolute standard for Jews. After all, Romans were pagans who subjugated the Jews. They were the enemy. The oppressor. The idolater. Hardly a model of morality or piety.
Seems more likely that Paul's policy statement is adapted to the situation in Roman Corinth, where members of the Corinthian church need to be sensitive to the cultural sensibilities of their immediate surroundings.
iii) A more serious problem with TFan's position is that if men with long hair is inherently shameful, then that contradicts the Nazirite vocation in Num 6:5:
All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.
Cf. Judg 16:17; 1 Sam 1:11.
iv) Moreover, TFan implicitly makes Paul a hypocrite, for Paul himself took a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). In that event, his statement in 1 Cor 11:14 is self-incriminating–if we accept TFan's interpretation.
At this rate, TFan may need several gallons of turpentine to escape from the corner he's painted himself into (vis-à-vis long hair).
Hey, that's a really good looking feather in his hair! :)
ReplyDelete>>What does this mean for Rom 1:26 when it speaks about sodomy as being 'contrary to nature' which is the same Greek word I believe? Is this text now a poor place to go for the Bible's view of homosexuality?
ReplyDelete>>Also, it does not follow that just because something brings shame, that we should therefore never do it. The Nazirite vow could be read in that light - exceptional circumstances may call for a temporary diversion from what nature teaches. Why not think Paul was fine with this? The exception can be seen to confirm the rule, not disprove it. We allow all sorts of things like this in other areas e.g. deathbed converts not being baptised etc. This hardly justifies teaching that it is fine not to be baptised.
But perhaps the examples of Samson and Absalom bear on this point - Absalom's long locks seems to perhaps be something commendable.
>>Thielson and Calvin's argument from historical examples are not especially strong since scripture teaches that we are fallen and sinful creatures. We have deviated from 'nature' in so many other areas of morality - why not hair length? Why presume that hair length is something that is beyond the taint of the fall?
In any case, what I find strange is that with the hermeneutic that most conservative evangelicals use today about 1Cor11 that they don't preach that men must have long hair in our western culture (where it does happen to be generally thought of as a bit shameful), ditto with women not wanting long hair - 'their glory'. Although the question of African women is an interesting one as I'm not sure if they can all grow long hair - whatever is defined as 'long'
An interesting related point is why we also don't, at the very least, preach that women should cover their heads in many middle eastern churches - where it is unarguably a culture where it is shameful for a woman to be with uncovered head in many of the regions.
Makes one wonder whether we really do believe the hermeneutics we profess.
>>Finally, it should recognised that Paul does not define how many centimetres classes as 'long'. I have heard it said that the longer hair of some of the Puritans was not actually long by the standards of the day - women had what was thought of as 'long' hair - right down to the arch of their backs.
So with a number of these considerations I don't think Turritenfan needs that many gallons of turpentine.
Henry wrote:
ReplyDelete"Finally, it should recognised that Paul does not define how many centimetres classes as 'long'. I have heard it said that the longer hair of some of the Puritans was not actually long by the standards of the day - women had what was thought of as 'long' hair - right down to the arch of their backs. So with a number of these considerations I don't think Turritenfan needs that many gallons of turpentine."
Keep the context in mind. TurretinFan was responding to the Shroud of Turin and my arguments for a traditional view of the Shroud. Your point concerning the relativity of the term "long" is a point I made in response to TurretinFan. Here's what I wrote in response to him in a discussion last week:
>>>>>
As James Jeffers notes, "Jews [in the New Testament era] typically wore beards and longish hair" (The Greco-Roman World Of The New Testament Era [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999], 44).
Kenneth Stevenson, a member of the 1978 STURP team, and Gary Habermas wrote:
"Several Orthodox Jewish rabbis and scholars have told us that they agree that the [Shroud] man's beard and hair style are consistent with that of Jews of the first century....He [Ian Wilson, a historian] calls it [the pigtail on the back of the head of the man on the Shroud] 'the most strikingly Jewish feature' on the Shroud. The German scholar Gressman and the French scholar Daniel-Rops have shown that it was a common fashion for Jewish men in Jesus' time to wear their hair caught at the back of the neck in a pigtail form. Orthodox Jewish rabbis and scholars confirm this....A forger would probably not have known that Jesus may have worn his hair in a pigtail form, and he would scarcely have painted him this way in the fourteenth century....Experts agree that facial features identify the man buried in the Shroud as a Caucasian. Carlton Coon, a leading ethnologist, says he has the physical features of a Jew or Arab. The man’s hairstyle, characterized by a beard and long hair parted in the middle, further identifies him as a Jew. In addition, the hair in back is cut in the form of a pigtail, a hairstyle very common for first-century Jewish men. It is thus probable that this crucified person was a Jew." (Verdict On The Shroud [Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1981], 35-36, 118)
>>>>>
HENRY SAID:
ReplyDelete"What does this mean for Rom 1:26 when it speaks about sodomy as being 'contrary to nature' which is the same Greek word I believe? Is this text now a poor place to go for the Bible's view of homosexuality?"
i) Paul's indictment of sodomy in Rom 1 is scarcely reducible to the meaning of a single word.
ii) You're also disregarding Thiselton's qualifications. He said the meaning is context-dependent. So what it may mean in 1 Cor 11 doesn't automatically carry over to Rom 1.
"Also, it does not follow that just because something brings shame, that we should therefore never do it."
In that event, you deny the prohibitive force of 1 Cor 11:14. And by that logic, Jesus could have long hair, even if that's shameful, in which case you've scuttled TFan's objection to the Shroud. Seems like a pretty counterproductive way of defending his thesis.
"The Nazirite vow could be read in that light - exceptional circumstances may call for a temporary diversion from what nature teaches. Why not think Paul was fine with this? The exception can be seen to confirm the rule, not disprove it. We allow all sorts of things like this in other areas e.g. deathbed converts not being baptised etc. This hardly justifies teaching that it is fine not to be baptised."
You're grasping at straws rather than dealing with Num 6 on its own terms. There was nothing "shameful" about the Nazirite vow. To the contrary, ordinary Jews had to observe a minimal degree of ritual purity, priests had to observe a higher degree of ritual purity, while the Nazirite vow went above and beyond the ritual purity required of priests. So it's the polar opposite of what's shameful. It signified a superlative degree of cultic holiness and consecration to God.
"Thielson and Calvin's argument from historical examples are not especially strong since scripture teaches that we are fallen and sinful creatures. We have deviated from 'nature' in so many other areas of morality - why not hair length? Why presume that hair length is something that is beyond the taint of the fall?"
Cultural diversity in male hairstyle is germane if Paul's argument is attuned to social expectations in Roman Corinth. And even that's directed at Gentiles rather than Jews.
Cont. "In any case, what I find strange is that with the hermeneutic that most conservative evangelicals use today about 1Cor11 that they don't preach that men must have long hair in our western culture."
ReplyDeleteThere is no general hairstyle code for men in modern western culture. That varies according to age, ethnicity, social class, occupation, and the current fashion. So it's unclear how you think evangelical pastors should extrapolate 1 Cor 11 to modernity in that regard. There's no uniform custom to accommodate.
"An interesting related point is why we also don't, at the very least, preach that women should cover their heads in many middle eastern churches - where it is unarguably a culture where it is shameful for a woman to be with uncovered head in many of the regions."
Are you saying western pastors should tell middle eastern women how to comport themselves in middle eastern churches? That doesn't make much sense.
There's also the complicated question of whether to resist or acquiesce to Islamic dress codes. That depends on who has the upper hand.
"Finally, it should recognised that Paul does not define how many centimetres classes as 'long'. I have heard it said that the longer hair of some of the Puritans was not actually long by the standards of the day - women had what was thought of as 'long' hair - right down to the arch of their backs."
Which, once again, torpedos TFan's objection to the Shroud.
"So with a number of these considerations I don't think Turritenfan needs that many gallons of turpentine."
Having just responded to your considerations, I'd say he should keep the paint thinner within easy reach.
[Btw I did not/do not intend my comments as a defence of Tfan, I have not even read his post(s), I'm just interested in this particular topic of 1Cor11 and long hair].
ReplyDeleteii) You're also disregarding Thiselton's qualifications. He said the meaning is context-dependent. So what it may mean in 1 Cor 11 doesn't automatically carry over to Rom 1.
I agree about context dependence. My point is that i would be interested in some specifics as to why Rom 1:26 escapes the same charge. With the evidence presented at the moment, it might not.
In that event, you deny the prohibitive force of 1 Cor 11:14. And by that logic, Jesus could have long hair, even if that's shameful
Jesus wearing long hair would not be of the temporary nature of a Nazarite vow. Also, my general point is that temporary exceptions do not necessarily overturn a general pattern God gives, especially when those exceptions are ordained by God himself.
You're grasping at straws rather than dealing with Num 6 on its own terms. There was nothing "shameful" about the Nazirite vow.
Unless long hair is shameful for a man. But I grant that you would not see that from Num 6 unless you come in with that belief.
But my example of baptism (many others could be given) serves to show that there can be legitimate exceptions for some scriptural ordinances.
There is no general hairstyle code for men in modern western culture. That varies according to age, ethnicity, social class, occupation, and the current fashion. So it's unclear how you think evangelical pastors should extrapolate 1 Cor 11 to modernity in that regard. There's no uniform custom to accommodate.
And how then could Paul apply it in his day? Do you think there was a uniform custom in Corinth?
I think today the majority of people would have some opinions of most kinds of long hair looking shameful on a man. Which is why it is not very popular.
Are you saying western pastors should tell middle eastern women how to comport themselves in middle eastern churches?
I am saying that if Tom Schreiner's interpretation of 1Cor11 in RBMW is true, then blanket statements about it not applying today contradict the actual cultural argument he makes - given the diversity of cultures that exist. E.g. as well as the middle east, in many parts of India women cover their heads when they go to the temple. On their own terms, RBMWers should be more careful in their blanket applications.
It is probably an oversight, but it would be a good test of the integrity of their hermeneutic to see how they would apply 1 Cor 11 in other parts of the world where head coverings are a cultural practice. I have never even heard it mentioned.
Not saying I have made up my mind on the matter, just interested in thinking about this issue a bit more thoroughly.
Unless long hair is shameful for a man.
ReplyDeleteSo wait, the Nazarite vow to God involved doing something shameful? Is that really what you're suggesting God commanded?
"So wait, the Nazarite vow to God involved doing something shameful? Is that really what you're suggesting God commanded?"
ReplyDeleteI think he's suggesting that what constitutes "shameful" is not absolute and is bound by the culture of the day.
Of course, that opens a whole other Pandora's box ....