Underlying article:
Given the number of times that this shroud has turned up on this forum, I thought this might be of interest.
[Hat-tip: Slashdot]
8 Likes
It won’t have any effect though. Critics have enough evidence already, and believers don’t care about evidence.
6 Likes
Ars Technica linked to the paper and another: Image Formation on the Holy Shroud—A Digital 3D Approach - the full text is paywalled. The paper argues that the shroud more closely resembles the imprint of a low-relief model than a human body.
2 Likes
It’s interesting that this study concludes that the shroud is a work of art—which is exactly what the Bishop of Troyes concluded and announced to the public when the shroud first “appeared” in the mid-1300s. (If memory serves, the Bishop also claimed to have confronted the artist who then confessed to his role.)
In any case, the man depicted in the shroud has always struck me as much closer to the 14th century expectations/assumptions of Jesus looking like a typical nobleman of that era. I’m thinking specifically of the long hair. It made sense for the expectations and typical depictions of Jesus at that time—even though a first-century Jesus would most certainly NOT have had shoulder length hair.
Of course, relics at shrines were big business in those days. Tourists would come in droves and pay admission (or simply make generous donations) to see and sometimes touch such relics. (Many relics were believed to have miraculous powers for the faithful. Many came in hopes of miraculous healing.)
So even though my opinion as a non-expert doesn’t mean much, I’ve been inclined to think that the shroud was simply a promotional investment for a shrine that needed the tourist revenue. I’ve always been fascinated that some Christians think it very important that the Shroud of Turin be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. (And they don’t like anyone saying otherwise.)
1 Like
Are you sure?
Yes. I’m no less sure after reading the not-peer-reviewed, amateurish paper from Joseph Marino, a guy with nothing but a bachelor’s degree in “theological studies” who has been an entrepreneur of the Shroud of Turin industry for decades. (Yes, there’s good reasons why he is left to publishing in Academia.edu instead of a peer-reviewed academic journal.)
NOTE: Some readers may assume that the “.edu” domain tag means that Academia.edu is somehow tied to an academic institution. No. It has that domain because its domain predates the strict 2001 policy change to academic-institutions-only being eligible for “.edu” status. Academia.edu was grandfathered.
I was struck by the number of logic non sequiturs and the reliance on “pop” sources instead of peer-reviewed scholarship. (Some of the “scholars” are not scholars at all, by any typical definition. And being a Shroud advocate who writes books and lectures about the Shroud does not a scholar make.)
As to Leviticus 19:27, “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard,” it is not describing wearing uncut (and thereby long) hair but rather particular ritualistic styles that were found among ancient Israel’s pagan neighbors—especially when they were honoring their gods. (Some of those “cuts” were associated with funerary rituals appealing to the gods for favor.) In the context of the Torah, everybody understood that it was referring to distinct Canaanite rituals, not a prohibition against cutting your beard and flowing hair so it didn’t fall into your soup.
I don’t have the time to detail each face-palm of his pseudo-scholarly, self-published paper. It reads too much like an undergrad term paper.
It is also worth mentioning that the depiction of Jesus with long hair didn’t get established in Christian art until about the 5th or 6th century, if I recall correctly. (I think there might have been a long-hair depiction from the 3rd century.
In any case, if you were to survey the rabbinical scholars, Torah scholars, and NT scholars at a conference of the American Academy of Religion or Society of Biblical Literature, you would find VERY FEW who would agree with the “Jesus had long hair” Shroud advocates. I’ve been retired for a good while but I would be very surprised if any of the big names are now supporting this idea.
Obviously, the Nazirite vow was a special exception that everyone recognized, such as with Samson and Samuel. Absalom is also often cited but he was not a Nazirite. He actually cut his hair once per year but it is described as an example of his vanity and pride, not something to be copied. (Of course, that also made it fitting that his doom came when he caught his hair in the branches of a tree.)
4 Likes
OK. I can’t resist this paragraph (apparently quoting Interpreter’s Bible Commentary?)
A careful study of the Shroud of Turin will reveal that not only did this man have shoulder length hair and a beard, but if you study the dorsal or back side you can also detect an unplaited ponytail - a hairstyle favored by young men at that time. Logic alone would seem to indicate that one wouldn’t have enough hair for a ponytail unless at least that hair on the back of the head was long.
If you look at the shroud, you will be very hard pressed to identify an unplaited ponytail. (And that’s why it is not the prevailing view.) It is hardly more than a smudge. And as to “a hairstyle favored by young men at that time”, that would have been representative in Palestine (if at all) of a rarer and much younger Hellenized youth who was flaunting his appearance. It is NOT the “fashion” of a mature Jewish man of the 1st century in that land. He would have outraged/scandalized everyone around him in the pious Jewish community.
Shroud “scholars” try too hard and it shows.
1 Like
It’s actually from the Shroud.com FAQ, interpreting a quote from the The Interpreter’s Bible. The full quoted passage, with proper indentation, is:
According to R.C. Dentan in an article written for The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary:
“HAIR. The hair’s capacity for constant growth has always made it seem an important seat of life and, therefore, religiously significant. The most notable example of this in the Bible is in the case of the NAZIRITE VOW (Num. 6:12 1; Judg. 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam. 1: I 1), one aspect of which was to allow the hair to grow long so that it might be presented to God as an offering (Num. 6: 18; Acts 18:18; 21:23-24). Samson’s hair, in the final form of the story (Judg. 13:5), appears to have been left long in fulfillment of such a vow, although originally it had a more primitive significance as the repository of his strength Judg. 16:19, 22). The shaving of the head in mourning (Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 7:18) and the offering of the hair to the dead were part of ancient religious practice, but forbidden to the Hebrews (Deut. 14: 1). Indeed, the complete shaving of the head was forbidden to them for any purpose (Lev. 19:27; cf. Jer. 9:26; Ezek. 44:20). In the OT, long hair on men was greatly admired (II Sam. 14:25-26; cf. Song of S. 5:2, 1 1), but in the NT it is frowned upon as contrary to nature (I Cor. II: 14). Although women wore their hair long (I Cor. 11:15), the biblical writers deplore the excessive ornamentation of it (Isa. 3:24; 1 Pet. 3:3). The hair is a symbol of the fine (Judg. 20:16), the small (Luke 21:18),and the numerous (Matt. 10:30).”
When it comes to the passage from I Cor. 11:14-15, one must remember that it was written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus. Closer study will reveal that it is simply Paul’s personal opinion and certainly not a regulation which would have applied to Jesus during his lifetime. Once again a quote from The Interpreter’s Bible volume devoted to I Corinthians may prove useful in this case:
“[Today it would be] considered folly to argue, as Paul implies, that men are likely to be less spiritually sensitive or alert because their hair is worn long, or that a woman loses spiritual and social standing because her hair is short, or because she appears in public with her head uncovered. The argument would have been unconvincing, in some respects at least, even in Paul’s day; for Greek heroes often wore long hair, and many ancient philosophers, as well as their modern counterparts, followed the same practice. Paul is entitled to his opinion and to his adherence to social custom. He is not entitled to make his personal opinion, or the prevalent social customs of his time, the basis of a moral law or of a categorical imperative of the Kantian order . What is permanent in all this discussion is that the conduct of church affairs, and public worship in particular, should be marked by reverence and order, by dignity and decency. Nothing should be permitted that attracts undue attention to itself.” [Emphasis added.]
A careful study of the Shroud of Turin will reveal that not only did this man have shoulder length hair and a beard, but if you study the dorsal or back side you can also detect an unplaited ponytail - a hairstyle favored by young men at that time. Logic alone would seem to indicate that one wouldn’t have enough hair for a ponytail unless at least that hair on the back of the head was long.
Though Jesus was not a Nazarite, this group is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as:
A body of Israelites specially consecrated to the service of God who were under vows to abstain from drinking the produce of the vine, to let their hair grow and to avoid defilement by contact with the dead (Num. 6) .
Once again we have evidence that at least some Jewish males wore long hair.
If you study art from the Byzantine to Western European, Jesus is traditionally portrayed with long (i.e. shoulder length) hair. The objection to this style is relatively modern and is probably based on a bias to its making the wearer appear too feminine.
The whole FAQ answer is cited to “The Rev. Albert R. Dreisbach, Jr.” Marino simply mangled his extended quote, by failing to indent it properly to show which bits were the main quote, and which bits were the quote quoting something else. The words you yourself quoted were Dreisbach’s own.
According to his obituary republished here Dreisbach appears to have had no formal training beyond “a M.Div. followed by ordination”, and his ‘scholarship’ on the Shroud was purely amateur.
You dismiss the piece I referred to on the ground that its author lack scholarship. But can you cite a reference from an author of the level of scholarship that suit you that supports your claim that Jesus could in no way have had hair the length of the man in the shroud?
A ridiculous request since it isn’t about whether he “could” have had long hair, but whether that would be plausible or likely for a man from that region, culture, and time period.
It’s just another data point on the side of the scale holding evidence against shroud authenticity.
3 Likes
Yes. Easily. The first which comes to mind is the scholarship of Joan Taylor. She is Professor Emerita of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King’s College in London. What Did Jesus Look Like? (2018) is a great explanation of her conclusions that Jesus had short hair. She analyzes copious textual, archaeological, and anthropological evidence. In peer-review, the academy gave her considerable praise for her careful analysis of the evidence.
Of course, Dr. Taylor did NOT pioneer some new concept of a short-haired Jesus. You can find tons of short-haired Jesus scholarship prior to her excellent book. Taylor, like a good scholar does, updated the academy’s view by collecting new evidence as well.
Meanwhile, we’ve always had lots of representations of typical Jewish men of that era in everything from synagogue art to the Roman Judaea Capta coins, which were struck by the Romans after the Jewish revolt in 70 CE. Those coins depict captive Jewish men with beards and the shorter hair we would expect.
By the way, I’ve known a few Shroud advocates who claim that Jesus followed in the mold of John the Baptist and thereby had long hair—and that that meant that Jesus was a Nazirite. (Yes, the “reasoning” makes no sense.) That’s impossible because Jesus drank wine. Long-haired Nazirites don’t drink wine.
4 Likes
And, moreover, long hair is consistent with how Jesus was portrayed in Medieval art and artifacts. Therefore, another data point in favour of Medieval origin.
1 Like
This is supposedly one of the earliest known depictions of Jesus:
Among the earliest depictions clearly intended to directly represent Jesus himself are many showing him as a baby, usually held by his mother, especially in the Adoration of the Magi, seen as the first theophany, or display of the incarnate Christ to the world at large.[22] The oldest known portrait of Jesus, found in Syria and dated to about 235, shows him as a beardless young man of authoritative and dignified bearing. He is depicted with close-cropped hair and wearing a tunic and pallium—the common male dress for much of Greco-Roman society, and similar to that found in the figure art in the Dura-Europos Synagogue.[23]
1 Like
Jesus was portrayed with long hair well before the medieval ages. For example, the famous Pantocrator Christian icon below dates from the 6th century.
And then there’s the Christ of the Catacomb of Commodille, dating from the 4th century and one of the earliest known representations with a beard. Interestingly, this iconographic change corresponds precisely to the arrival of the shroud in Edessa.
I didn’t say otherwise.
Since we know, from the C-14 dating, that the “shroud” didn’t even exist until the 13th century at the earliest, we know that claim is bullshit.
1 Like
A purely speculative event for which you have no actual evidence.
I am reminded (somehow) of this fine (and flowing) organization. 
2 Likes
Nobody has the slightest idea of Jesus appearance, apart from what is customary for the time. Did King David look like Michelangelo’s sculpture? The image on the shroud bears resemblance to the popularized portrayal, and this does not flag a question in your mind?
Well, what about the reverse, that is that the popularized portrayal of Jesus bears resemblance to the image on the shroud?