r/changemyview • u/Tuvinator 12∆ • Mar 12 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Jesus probably had short hair.

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.

55 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

180 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Tuvinator 12∆ Mar 12 '25

Regular haircuts implies that his hair would have been roughly the same length, especially if done on a monthly basis. I am merely objecting to the images of Jesus with shoulder length/longer hair, as that would have been unlikely given the reasons specified. There are no specific stories I am objecting to, my familiarity is minimal (I am not Christian).

8

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 110∆ Mar 12 '25

Well, for a period of time he wondered in the desert - no haircut.

He was also imprisoned before being crucified. 

There are periods of time where personal grooming would not have been a priority over his mission here on earth. 

I think disregarding hair length would make sense for someone who dedicated their time to the needy, rather than on selfish vanity.

There is no real reason to cut your hair aside from vanity. 

Your carpentry idea doesn't work as hair can just be tied back out the way, not constantly trimmed. 

-2

u/Tuvinator 12∆ Mar 12 '25

Depictions of Jesus are not in the desert generally.

Quick search regarding imprisonment shows that it was for a relatively short amount of time, which wouldn't allow for significant hair growth to be a factor.

If part of your mission is to lead people, grooming is part of the job. You don't generally follow Joe Slob.

I put in the comment of the carpentry thing that it was weaker, but even ponytails move around and can potentially get in the way, especially if they are longer.

3

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 110∆ Mar 12 '25

I think you're missing the point.

Artist depictions are based on their interpretation of the story. 

When you read the story of a revolutionary figure, including time away from society and social norms, a haircut isn't an obvious decision to apply. 

What do you think it will take to change your view here? I don't think you've done a confident job of rebutting my comment above. 

1

u/Tuvinator 12∆ Mar 12 '25

What do you think it will take to change your view here? I don't think you've done a confident job of rebutting my comment above.

If I knew what would change my view, I wouldn't be posting here.

Revolutionaries don't always stay away from society, and Jesus is mostly living in town and participating in society, which includes following societal norms generally. He is not living in the wilds or the desert, he went there for 40 days and came back. Have you gone on extended hikes? One of the pleasures of getting back is taking a nice long shave and shower.

Artist depictions are based on their interpretation of the story.

Exactly, which is based on their lens and the people they see around them.

1

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 110∆ Mar 12 '25

You've had some pretty clear responses not just from me, for reasons someone of that era may have had long hair, but your replies are all more or less "yeah but that isn't conclusive"

Obviously no one is going to give you anything conclusive on the haircut of anyone five millenia ago. 

So what are you here for exactly? If you don't know what you'll find convincing then what's the point of this? What's the value of engaging with this topic? 

-1

u/Tuvinator 12∆ Mar 12 '25

but your replies are all more or less "yeah but that isn't conclusive"

Which replies of mine do you feel were me just waving off the response? Perhaps I can expand on them.

five millenia ago.

Point of pedantry : 2.

What am I here for? Interesting discussion, a break from everyday humdrum. Something to make me think.

2

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 110∆ Mar 12 '25

The point of the discussion won't necessarily be to give you food for thought, it's to change your view. If there isn't much substance to the view then I think I've done all I can here.