Replies

annalex: "The Nazarites did not cut their hair,"

Where does it say Jesus was a "Nazarite"?

annalex: "nor is it easy to imagine St. John the Baptist giving himself a crew cut. "

Was John the Baptist ever considered a possible "King of the Jews"?

annalex: "In 1 Corinthians 11 there is actually no "long", literally, St. Paul says that hair in itself is a disgrace to a man, "κομα ατιμια αυτω εστιν" (St. Paul himself, according to iconography, was bald). The literal reading is thereby excluded, and idiomatic readings are many: then men, unlike women, naturally grow bald, or that men are not preoccupied with their hair "

Here we see an easily testable claim. So let's go find what the real experts say about it.

1 Corinthians 11:14

New International Version: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"
King James Version: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? "
New King James Version: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"
American Standard Version: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? "
New Living Translation: "Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair?"
Young's Literal Translation: "doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? "

This particular link lists 20 different Bible translations -- all but one of which use the terms "long hair" and "disgrace," "shame" or "dishonor."
The one exception is a ludicrous jazz riff on the original words called, "The Message":

The Message [13-16]: "Don't you agree there is something naturally powerful in the symbolism—a woman, her beautiful hair reminiscent of angels, praying in adoration; a man, his head bared in reverence, praying in submission? I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception."

So the vote amongst recognized experts in this field is 19 translations of "long hair," and one "head bared in reverence."

annalex: "I could just as plausibly argue that Jesus physically intimidated his assailants BY his large stature, although most likely natural explanation is His commanding psychological presence, many times attested to in the Gospels."

Jesus' "commanding psychological presence" obviously did not keep him out of this tight spot in the first place, so it is not a satisfactory explanation.

The obvious explanation WOULD be that, at the last minute Jesus' friends showed up and formed a protective barrier around him, allowing him to pass through the crowd. I say WOULD be, because that's not what the New Testament says happened. So the more reasonable explanation is that he did, in fact, slip through the crowd unnoticed.

Again, it points to the idea that Jesus was not unusual looking for a first century Judean.

annalex: "Would you be satisfied with the instruction "pick the tall one"? "

Especially not if Jesus were no taller than his fellow countrymen.

Let us note that when the Bible sees a person's physical stature as unusual or important -- i.e., a Sampson or Goliath -- it points that out to us. Where no such mention is made, we have to assume the person's appearance was not out of the ordinary.

The question then is whether the Shroud image was "ordinary" for Jesus' time.
As Swordmaker points out, some experts say it totally was.
Other say "no."
My opinion (for whatever that might be worth) is the image could possibly represent someone considered a potential "King of the Jews," but not someone as our modern scholars identify, a "marginal Jew."

Imho, we can't have Jesus both ways...

The Nazarites, and John the Baptist, were important figures and role models for the Christian community. St. Paul can be counted on being aware of that. Hence, he wouldn't have insulted every one with long hair as you would have him do. That is the point, not whether Jesus Himself was a Nazarite.

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 προσευχεσθαι
in 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.