A common objection to the Shroud of Turin is that the hair on the man in the Shroud is too long to be Jesus' hair. Biblical passages like 1 Corinthians 11:14 are cited as evidence that Jesus wouldn't have had hair so long. And the issue of acceptable hair length is relevant in other contexts (how long we can let our hair grow today, the quality of artistic depictions of Jesus and other Biblical figures, etc.).
Steve Hays wrote some posts on the subject last year, largely addressing 1 Corinthians 11:14 and other Biblical issues. See here and here, for example. What I want to do in this post is discuss more of the extra-Biblical data and add some further conclusions to what Steve wrote last year.
I intended to put this post together a long time ago. I've been busy with other things. Last year, I consulted a lot of books and other sources on this issue of men's hair length in antiquity, especially Jewish men's hair at the time of Jesus. I came across a lot of claims, but not much documentation. I emailed scholars and other relevant sources on the topic. Some didn't respond, and others replied with answers that were of little value. Some went into more depth and made some good points, even as they told me that they didn't know the answer to my question or that it's hard to answer. I was told that hairstyles may have varied from one generation to another and from one social class to the next. One scholar told me that ancient Jews were often regarded as philosophers, which might mean that Jews often had the sort of lengthy hair associated with philosophers. On the other hand, surely some Jews would have wanted to emulate the shorter hairstyles of the Romans, for a variety of reasons. Another scholar told me that the Dura-Europos synagogue portrays Jewish men with a variety of hairstyles, sometimes lengthy ones, but added the qualifier that Dura-Europos is significantly distant from Jesus geographically and chronologically. I was told about some coins that might depict ancient Jewish men with long hair, but the ones I examined (through photographs) seemed ambiguous or dubious to me. I couldn't get much confirmation about just what's supposed to be portrayed on the Arch of Titus or just how long all of the hair is on the men portrayed there. One of the difficulties in evaluating some of the artifacts in question is that it's sometimes difficult to tell whether the figure portrayed is supposed to be a Jew and/or whether he's supposed to be a male. My impression, from the online and offline sources I've consulted, is that Jewish men of Jesus' day probably had a large variety of hairstyles, including some lengthy ones, and that there's a reasonable possibility that Jesus had lengthy hair even if we set aside the Shroud of Turin for the sake of argument.
If any of you can add anything to what I'm outlining in this post, please do so. I intend to update this post as I come across new information. What's below is just a beginning, and I'm open to any corrections or additions any of you have to offer.
Richard Hess wrote:
"This [Leviticus 10:6] is not a prohibition against long hair in itself; rather, it describes groomed hair, however long it is. On men, longer hair could be drawn back and tied, as reliefs in and around Israel suggest." (The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Genesis-Leviticus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008], 665-666)
I don't know what reliefs Hess has in mind, but see here, here, and here for some examples of ancient depictions of Jewish and Gentile men that show both with long hair.
The Jewish historian Josephus was a contemporary of the apostles and was born less than a decade after Jesus' death. Here are a couple of relevant passages from his writings:
"They therefore came to the tabernacle to offer sacrifice for the birth of the child [Samuel], and brought their tithes with them; but the woman remembered the vows she had made concerning her son, and delivered him to Eli, dedicating him to God, that he might become a prophet. Accordingly his hair was suffered to grow long, and his drink was water." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 5:10:3)
"Their riders [Solomon's bodyguards] also were a further ornament to them, being, in the first place, young men in the most delightful flower of their age, and being eminent for their largeness, and far taller than other men. They had also very long heads of hair hanging down, and were clothed in garments of Tyrian purple." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 8:7:3)
Josephus seems to associate Samuel's long hair with "vows" (plural), becoming a prophet, or both. Biblical figures like the Nazirites and Absalom had long hair for a variety of reasons. Josephus expands the circumstances in which long hair was acceptable. Somebody who had taken a vow and/or a prophet could have long hair. So could a king's bodyguard. We don't know how widely long hair was considered acceptable on men beyond the categories mentioned by the Biblical authors, Josephus, and other sources. But these sources give us a minimum to go by. Long hair was at least considered acceptable in these circumstances. It may have been accepted even more broadly.
Would, or could, any of these categories mentioned above have applied to Jesus? Yes. More than one of them, in fact. In various contexts, Jesus claimed to be or was perceived as a king, a close associate of a king, or a prophet, for example. And Jesus may have had long hair for some other reason or series of reasons. But even if we limit ourselves to what the extant ancient sources tell us about when a man could have long hair, there are multiple potential justifications for Jesus to have kept his hair long.
I can't believe I am reading this at a protestant site.
ReplyDeleteAre we talking about the same shroud of Turin?
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%200066b%20TheShroudofTurin.pdf
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
John 20:4-7
Thank you.
RPV,
DeleteThere's nothing anti-Protestant about the arguments for the Shroud. And the passage you've cited from John 20 has been addressed widely in the Shroud literature for a long time. We've discussed the passage in previous threads here. See here, including the comments section of the thread, for a discussion of some of the possibilities.
I don't have an opinion on the Shroud. That said:
Deletei) John Robbins's objection is based, in large part, on his rejection of sense knowledge. That's hardly representative of mainstream Protestant theology, past or present.
ii) In addition, if the Shroud is authentic, then the fact that it later become a Catholic relic is a purely adventitious association, just as the fact that some important Greek MSS of the NT are in the custody of the Roman Catholic Church doesn't make them Roman Catholic MSS, in any meaningful sense.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOne I remain unconvinced, that it is or even could be the burial cloth of Jesus. Call me what you will, doubting Thomas or whatever.
Two, even if it was true, it is unnecessary. Faith does not come by pictures, even the picture of Christ imprinted on the supposed shroud.
Steve,
One, Robbins's position might be an over reaction to empiricism, but that said, as above, the shroud is not necessary to establish true biblical faith in Christ, without which it is impossible to please God. Heb.11:6.
Two, that it could become a Roman relic is not chance, but a confirmation of the perverted Roman genius. Why walk by faith when you can walk by sight?
Further and incidentally, confessionally speaking WCF 1:8 originally referred to the providence of God in preserving faithful copes of the autographs in the common usage of the (Greek speaking) church.
With Warfield WCF 1:8 morphed into providential restoration of the apographa by textual critics reclaiming better copies of the text of Scripture from Antichist's library and the waste can of a Palestinian monastery.
It would be much more honest to openly discuss and modify the WCF if the last is the interpretation the P&R are going to go with.
Thank you,
Bob Suden
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteOn second (fallible) thought, the brass serpent comes to mind. It was a type of Christ and a commanded image, that was later destroyed by Hezekiah because it had become the object of idolatry.
Could God, John 20:7 notwithstanding, permit the real shroud to be found, in order to try the elect and tempt the reprobate to idolatry, I suppose is possible, but not very likely. If folks want to pour their time and money into the shroud, that's their business, but I think it only serves as a distraction and red herring, if not a satanically inspired occasion for schism and division. After all and at best from what I know, evidence and evidentialism are hardly primary in reformed apologetics.
If not, I am sure I will promptly apprized of that fact.
thanks again,
RPV writes:
Delete"One I remain unconvinced, that it is or even could be the burial cloth of Jesus….On second (fallible) thought, the brass serpent comes to mind. It was a type of Christ and a commanded image, that was later destroyed by Hezekiah because it had become the object of idolatry."
Part of the problem here is that you don't seem to have given this issue much thought, yet you keep posting about it. How would you know that the Shroud couldn't be one of Jesus' burial cloths? And you hadn't even thought of the bronze serpent in this context before? You were so unfamiliar with the arguments surrounding the Shroud that you thought citing John 20:7, without any elaboration, would be a good counterargument?
You write:
"I think it only serves as a distraction and red herring, if not a satanically inspired occasion for schism and division."
You're not giving us any reason to agree with your assessment. I could say that your posts are "a distraction and red herring, if not a satanically inspired occasion for schism and division". Saying it doesn't demonstrate that it's probable.
It takes time, effort, and other resources to study the Shroud. In that sense, it distracts from other things. And there's disagreement over the Shroud. But the same can be said of other things in life that we commonly accept, such as archeological artifacts and historical documents. For example, earlier you cited an article by John Robbins, the Westminster Confession, and other extra-Biblical sources. Yet, it takes time to consult those sources, and the time spent reading them isn't being spent doing something like reading the Bible or praying. Does that mean they're "distractions"? It takes time for people to read your posts, time they could have been spending reading the Bible, for example. And your posts are divisive. Should we conclude that your posts are "a distraction and red herring, if not a satanically inspired occasion for schism and division"?
You write:
"Two, even if it was true, it is unnecessary. Faith does not come by pictures, even the picture of Christ imprinted on the supposed shroud."
Why would something have to be "necessary" in order to be worth studying, discussing, etc.? Your comments in this forum aren't necessary. You post them anyway.
People can come to faith and be strengthened in their faith by more than one means. Historical evidence is one of those means. That's why the Bible appeals to prophecy fulfillment, eyewitness testimony, the historiographical standards and language of the Biblical era, etc. See here.
Long story short, Jason and yes, I think things could get divisive.
ReplyDeleteLikewise I have given it some thought whatever it might "seem".
"How would I know I know that the shroud couldn't be from Christ's burial?"
That is not the question. The question is what difference does it make?
What does it prove?
Does it prove Christ rose from the dead?
No, it doesn't.
So at the end of the day where are we?
Does faith still come by the Word and that preached or does it come by even a picture of Christ imprinted on what may or may not be the cloth his body was wrapped in for burial?
As in the other thread, WCF 1:6
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
The authority of Scripture does not depend on the testimony of any scientist, carbon dating or DNA testing or any Church traditions surrounding the shroud. That’s all.
pax
Bob Suden
RPV wrote:
Delete"The question is what difference does it make? What does it prove? Does it prove Christ rose from the dead? No, it doesn't. "
The Shroud is relevant to what Jesus looked like, the details involved in the events surrounding his death, the historicity of the ancient accounts of his death, and many other subjects. This thread, which is about the acceptability of long hair on men, is itself an example of the Shroud's relevance to a large variety of issues. And, yes, the resurrection is one of those issues. I've explained elsewhere at this blog how the Shroud is evidence of Jesus' resurrection, and others who think the Shroud is one of Jesus' burial cloths have done the same. You're not interacting with any of the arguments.
You write:
"Does faith still come by the Word and that preached or does it come by even a picture of Christ imprinted on what may or may not be the cloth his body was wrapped in for burial?"
That's a false way to frame the discussion. Faith and the strengthening of faith among those who already have it are produced by multiple means, as I argued in the thread linked in my last response to you. And faith isn't all that's relevant. If the Shroud increases a person's love for God, gratitude, or something else other than faith, that's significant as well. Do you dismiss hymns, prayers, encouragement from other Christians, and other extra-Biblical aspects of the Christian life, since they're outside of the Bible? Why should the Shroud be dismissed just because it isn't scripture?
If scripture is all we should be concerned with, then why are you giving us arguments for what you believe? Shouldn't you just let scripture influence us? Why would your arguments be an acceptable addition to scripture, but the Shroud wouldn't be? Why is it that we should read your posts and let your arguments influence us, yet we shouldn't study the Shroud or let it influence us?
You write:
"The authority of Scripture does not depend on the testimony of any scientist, carbon dating or DNA testing or any Church traditions surrounding the shroud."
You're repeating an error that's already been corrected. Again, the issue isn't what's "necessary", as you put it earlier, or whether the authority of scripture "depends" on the Shroud. The Shroud can be useful even if it isn't necessary and scripture doesn't depend on it.
"I've explained elsewhere at this blog how the Shroud is evidence of Jesus' resurrection,
ReplyDeleteres ipsa loquitor
Is it fallible evidence or infallible?
Does it "prove" Scripture?
That's a false way to frame the discussion.
Whatever, Jason. If you care to quarrel with Rom. 10 and Heb. 11 that's your business.
Why is it that we should read your posts and let your arguments influence us, yet we shouldn't study the Shroud or let it influence us?
My posts are subject to the same scrutiny yours are. Do they agree with and are they consonant with Scripture or do they contradict it? No more, no less.
If Paul says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word, who am I to quibble? If knowledge of the shroud is necessary to a Christian, how come the same is not contained explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures which are sufficient to every good work, even that of determining the value of evidences like the shroud?
You're repeating an error that's already been corrected.
Asserted to be corrected. The authority of the Scripture is ultimately not subject to empirical verification.
Whether by the shroud, the tradition or the magisterium.
That's romanism, if not arguably lutheranism.
cheers
RPV
Delete"If Paul says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word, who am I to quibble?"
So you think faith doesn't come from the Holy Spirit. It only comes from hearing the Word.
That's the problem with your selective prooftexting.
You also fail to draw some elementary distinctions between the source of faith and grounds of faith. For instance, although regeneration is the source of faith, miracles and testimonial evidence supply some of the grounds.
Does faith still come by the Word and that preached or does it come by even a picture of Christ imprinted on what may or may not be the cloth his body was wrapped in for burial?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a false way to frame the discussion.
Whatever, Jason. If you care to quarrel with Rom. 10;17 and Heb. 11:6 that's your business. It certainly seem to be a scriptural way to frame the debate.
My apologies for the error.
RPV wrote:
Delete"If knowledge of the shroud is necessary to a Christian, how come the same is not contained explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures which are sufficient to every good work, even that of determining the value of evidences like the shroud?"
This is the third time I've had to correct you on this point. The issue isn't what's "necessary". The fact that you keep framing the discussion in such an unreasonable way, even after being corrected repeatedly, suggests that you're either highly careless or highly dishonest.
You cite Romans 10 and Hebrews 11, yet you ignore what I said about that subject in the thread I linked earlier. You're assuming that your interpretation of those passages is correct, even though it's under dispute and you haven't interacted with the counterarguments.
You wrote:
"My posts are subject to the same scrutiny yours are."
We weren't discussing whether something is subject to scrutiny. I haven't denied that the Shroud is subject to scrutiny. You've criticized the Shroud for not being scripture, as if its extra-Biblical status makes it insignificant, something we shouldn't spend time on, etc. By the same reasoning, your arguments and your posts are insignificant, something we shouldn't spend time on, etc. Yet, you keep posting.