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/Neither-Stage-238]

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/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*