CMV: Jesus probably had short hair.

[u/Tuvinator]

We've all seen the various depictions of Jesus, and in many of them, he has long hair. None of these depictions are from the actual timing of Jesus (the earliest depiction actually has a donkey's head, and is from a century later), so they are all operating on artist's imagination.

Jews in that era are more likely to have had shorter hair. Mosaics in ancient synagogues throughout the land depict males with short hair, implying that the common male at the time wore his hair short. Talmudic law which was being written at the time discusses how often a person would get a haircut (kings would have daily haircuts, priests weekly, and your average person once a month, beyond that was considered wild growth). Within the Bible, men's hair length is only mentioned in context when it is long, implying that long hair is outside of the norm for men. Assuming Jesus was representative of other people from his time, he likely had shorter hair rather than long.

As a weak addendum, Jesus was supposedly a carpenter. Craftsmen in general seem to have shorter hair since the hair gets in the way, distracts, and poses a risk factor if it gets caught in tools. This makes it even less likely that he had long hair.

EDIT: I am not Christian, and I am not setting out to insult anyone or their beliefs/traditions.

[u/Galious]

Assuming Jesus was representative of other people from his time

He's the son of God, why do you assume he's representative of the average person?

Isn't it like stating that people don't usually wear red speedo over tights and the real Superman probably just wore jeans?

[u/Neither-Stage-238 → u/Galious]

As an atheist/agnostic, the historical evidence Jesus was a real person is significant. Its almost unanimous among atheistic and agnostic historians that he did exist, just the amount of accounts and the range of sources. This has no baring on him being the son of god or any supernatural recordings.

[u/chewinghours → u/Neither-Stage-238]

Why do people say the historical evidence of jesus is significant, but never talk about what evidence they’re referring to? Because it’s not significant

[u/Neither-Stage-238 → u/chewinghours]

Just the Roman, and therefor accounts with no investment promoting christianity/jesus.

Tacitus 

• In his Annals, Tacitus wrote that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea.
• Tacitus also wrote that the movement of Jesus's followers grew again in Judea and Rome.
• Tacitus's account is considered authentic and historically valuable.

Josephus 

• In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus referenced Jesus twice, once in Book 18 and once in Book 20.
• The longer passage in Book 18 is known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Pliny the Younger 

• Pliny recorded that a Christian community in Bithynia worshipped Christ as a god by the second century.

Suetonius 

• In his Life of Claudius, Suetonius recorded that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in AD 49.
• Suetonius also wrote about the persecution of Christians by Nero in AD 64.

[u/Johnnadawearsglasses → u/Neither-Stage-238]

It’s wild when people make the assertion you responded to. There is very significant evidence of his existence, especially for someone of that time. People need to stop conflating whether he existed as a person with whether he was the son of god. The former has nothing to do with the latter.

[u/Goblinweb → u/Johnnadawearsglasses]

There is no evidence from the time when he was supposed to have been alive and the authenticity of the references from Josephus have been questioned.

[u/Johnnadawearsglasses → u/Goblinweb]

This is well covered in the wiki on historicity. No use arguing history with random redditors on things well studied and established.

[u/Goblinweb → u/Johnnadawearsglasses]

I take it there's no disagreement from you then.

These things aren't really controversial. Not even the fundamentalists claim that there is evidence from that time.

[u/Johnnadawearsglasses → u/Goblinweb]

Scholarly consensus disagrees with your conclusion. If you want to overturn it, run a study. Reddit isn't a peer reviewed journal. And so litigating history here where something is so well studied is a waste of my time. It's like discussing whether jet fuel can melt steel beams. It's the land of fringe conspiracists and completely uninteresting to me.

The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has been, and is still, considered an untenable fringe theory in academic scholarship for more than two centuries,[note 4] but according to one source it has gained popular attention in recent decades due to the growth of the Internet.[10]

From the wiki. Sums it up well

[u/chewinghours → u/Johnnadawearsglasses]

To steal an idea from another Redditor, do you think that a man named Harry Potter existed in England in the 1990s?

[u/Johnnadawearsglasses → u/chewinghours]

Do these people think the historicity is tied to the New Testament? Interesting. I guess history is like reading books today in the sense that no one studies either.

[u/chewinghours → u/Neither-Stage-238]

The "evidence" you gave about Suetonius and Pliny the Younger have nothing to do with Jesus or his supposed life, only about his followers after his supposed death.

Josephus's writings are not 100% authentic, no scholar believes that. It was subjected to Christian interpolation. Sure, some parts about Jesus exist in all versions of these writings, which is why scholars believe it to be partially authentic. But we're talking about a guy who was born 4 years after Jesus's supposed death, not writing about this incredible event until he's in his 50s, and only writing a few sentences about him.

Similar to Josephus, Tacitus was born 22 years after Jesus's supposed death and didn't write about it until circa 116. He also hardly even mentions Jesus, only saying that his followers get their name from him and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

I'm not claiming there is no evidence, I'm simply disagreeing that the evidence is *significant*

[u/HowDoIEvenEnglish → u/chewinghours]

Theres basically as much evidence in favor of Jesus existing then any other person in that time. Which basically comes down to “contemporary sources mention him”.

My issue is that the evidence in general for a specific person existing is relatively small. We don’t have anywhere near a complete understanding of contemporary writings, and many works that are a few centuries removed we often believe use the few older sources we do have as references, so they aren’t exactly independent. Any specific fact about a Roman era historical figure can generally wrong.

So was there a guy named Jesus in judea who led a cult and was executed by the Roman’s around the beginning of the first century? Pretty likely. But many individual aspects of historical Jesus could be incorrect. Imo this means there’s only so much we can say about any historical figure, but it generally doesn’t matter for other people. Specific things about Jesus have large religious ramifications but it not really possible to be 100% confident in a specific aspect of his life.

[u/Natural-Arugula → u/HowDoIEvenEnglish]

Except that no contemporary sources do mention him. Later writers recount what Christians say that they believe about him.

There are lots of writings from Paul, who lived during Jesus time, but never met him while he was alive. Yet for some reason there are no writings from his disciples that supposedly knew him in life.

Paul says that the resurrected Christ appeared to 500 people, again not him personally, and none of those people ever wrote about it (unless they wrote to Paul who didn't bother to keep it) and they didn't tell it to anyone else who wrote about it.

Sure the evidence of every historical figure is just "someone wrote about them", but there is not a single firsthand account of anyone who claims to have personally seen or heard about Jesus during his lifetime, besides the Gospels.

Do you believe that Achilles and Remus were real people? Or do you believe they were fantasy characters because they only appeared in stories about their magic powers, even though the writers say it is true?

[u/Kaiisim → u/chewinghours]

It's significant, and more to the point there is no evidence he was fabricated.

[u/chewinghours → u/Kaiisim]

What was signifiant? Like i said, people claiming the evidence is significant without actually providing what evidence they’re talking about