Regarding the "testable claim" -- I tested it by going to the Greek original. No "long" there, just "hair" without any adjective. You disagree -- find it. Most English translations try to produce a readable text and this would not be the only time when accuracy suffers.
Here it is again, test away (Stephanus, from your Bible Gateway source; the interlinear word by word is mine):
13εν υμιν αυτοις κρινατε πρεπον εστιν γυναικα ακατακαλυπτον τω θεω προσευχεσθαιin your selves judge proper is woman uncovered to God pray
14η ουδε αυτη η φυσις διδασκει υμας οτι ανηρ μεν εαν κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν
or not itself the nature teaches us that man indeed if hairs dishonor him is
15γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη
Woman though if hairs honor hers is because the hairs instead covering given her
It is a bit awkwardly written ("if hair"), -- my interlinear is also ugly because I wanted to match words for the ease of following without a dictionary,-- so naturally translators insert something to help it make better sense. But, there is no "long" (κομα μακρα, or something like that) there.
I say WOULD be, because that's not what the New Testament says happened (about the escape form assault in Luke 4)
So, you speculate. I however rely on several references to Jesus speaking with authority (without any authority obvious to the Pharisees). The Jesus evidently allowed the anger against Him to be expressed, but yet did not accept a physical assault, is also consistent with His behavior, refusing to be apprehended before His time.
Especially not if Jesus were no taller than his fellow countrymen
But it is not necessary to assume that. His stature, whatever it was, is not a way to indentify a prisoner in a crowd at night, so your argument is hollow.
"...he wouldn't have insulted every one with long hair as you would have him do." ? Not I would have him do -- what every serious translator of the Bible over many centuries "would have him do."
Why those recognized experts translated this way, of course I have no idea. One has to assume there are sufficient historical and contextual reasons, such that every serious translator agrees Paul is here talking about "long hair," and not just some vague reference to his own baldness!
So you are not arguing against me, pal. You are arguing against virtually every translator who's ever looked at this passage. They simply don't disagree amongst themselves. If even just some had developed another interpretation, then I'd say, "OK, you may have a point here." But they didn't.
And we also need to take very clear note of what you are doing:
on the one hand, you argue with NO EVIDENCE whatever -- none -- that the Shroud of Turin could be (or is?) the burial shroud of Jesus (it's not even proved to be a burial shroud, must less first century, much less Jesus').
On the other hand you argue the translations of dozens of biblical & linguistic scholars over many centuries are wrong!
In short, you argue the Shroud is authentic, but the Bible is in error! Amazing. And Wpin keeps claiming that I am the one insulting his/her religion?
annalex: "So, you speculate."
No, I refused to speculate, since that was NOT what the Bible says. You by contrast speculate that Jesus spoke "with authority," to escape, even though the text does not report him doing that. Indeed, I'd say that since "speaking with authority" is specifically reported elsewhere, the fact it was not mentioned here indicates that's NOT what happened.
The text here clearly wants us to understand that Jesus "passed through the crowd" to escape, and nothing else. Not that he gave some inspiring speech, or that his friends came to his rescue. "Passing through the crowd" implies what? That the angry mob either could not see him, or seeing could somehow not touch him. And yet they had "touched" him to drag him there in the first place.
Process of elimination...
annalex: [Jesus'] "stature, whatever it was, is not a way to indentify a prisoner in a crowd at night, so your argument is hollow."
Hollow? Jesus' stature, "...whatever it was" was not unusual enough to merit any mention in the New Testament, anywhere. And Jesus in Gethsemane was one place where such mention would logically have occurred -- had it been important. But it wasn't.
I'll say again: the Shroud image necessarily raises the question of whether our modern historical understanding of who Jesus was, and what he looked like, is even remotely accurate? If as some experts say, the Shroud image is too tall, face too thin and hair too long, then Jesus was not who those scholars have imagined him to have been -- a "marginal Jew" from the Galilee.
Jesus would have been someone very different, and quite unknown to them. Of course, I don't exclude this possibility, but would not automatically assume it.