The Shroud of Turin, Part II (Jesus' Hairstyle)

I’ve rewatched my old playlist and here’s a summary of the coincidences between the Sudarium of Oviedo (can be traced back reliably to the 7th century) and the shroud of turin. I’d say it constitutes tangible evidence.

  1. From the bloodstains we can tell that the sudarium was used to cover the face of a person who’s head was tilted forwards like so
  2. The Sudarium and the shroudFace side by side and to the same scale. The contours of the sudarium bloodstains are superimposed on the face.
  3. The dust around the nose area is present on both cloths, and both show the same characteristics as the limestone dust from the Calvary where Jesus is believed to have been crucified.
  4. Matching bloodstains from the crown of thorns
  5. The lock of hair
  6. Summary

Since when did Jesus have sidelocks and long hair in a pony tail? A Jewish man in first century Palestina would not have looked like that.

You know what this image is? It’s a common medieval era Jewish stereotype.

How unsurprising that a fake shroud made in the medieval era, would depict a medieval Jewish stereotype.


Not my problem.

Given you cited it as “tangible evidence” for the shroud’s authenticity, then it is your problem.


Are you sure that the evidence offered by Pascal for the resurrection are « tangible » evidence ?
I just did a little research on the internet and found some exciting arguments, especially psychological ones, but nothing, as far as l can see, that could be classified as tangible.

Well, if the believers are to be believed, the only test that really matters has not been done.

I mean it’s like fitting a shoeprint to a shoe. Kind of proves that the two pieces of cloth were once together. @Jonathan_Burke you’re citing a red herring. There are many reasons that a person might decide to have a long hair. I used to have long hair, now I don’t. The point is that it has nothing to do with disproving any of the points I copied. Ergo not my problem.

Funny enough I found a successful attempt at carbon dating a first century burial shroud. It was clearly undisturbed for 2k years.

If it was a red herring, why did you present it as evidence for the authenticity of the shroud? Remember, I am citing something you said was “tangible evidence” that the shroud is authentic. Do you still believe that this is “tangible evidence” that the shroud is authentic?

The very fact that the image on the shroud looks like a typical medieval Jewish stereotype, is actually prima facie evidence that the shroud is inauthentic. This is not a red herring at all, it’s an ironic footshot by people who believe the shroud is authentic because they don’t know enough history to detect the very obvious clues that it’s a fake.


What does this have to do with the current discussion?

Now you’re talking past me, and provoking me, and I don’t like that. Are you talking about 5th or fifteenth century? How does this relate to the comparing of piece A to piece B? If one is fake then how come the other one shows the exact same detail IMPLICITLY (the stitches on the Sudarium). What were the stitches for? It’s unclear because the answer to the question is on piece B the shroud which shows that the stitches were used to hold together this person’s long hair after he died.

You’re asking the why question of why did this person have long hair. My problem to say it so crudely again was to compare piece A to piece B to see if they fit together, but since you asked me the why question let me ask you back: why not? Was there anything preventing Jesus from having long hair? Your confusion seems to come from thinking that he had sidelocks which implies that this was his usual hairwear i.e. the jewish stereotype. How would you look after having beaten for twelve hours straight? Your hair would be all over the place, which is what we see. Why the hair was arranged the way we see it postmortem on the shroud? Good question. Maybe the parts of his hair that were loose enough to have fallen forward were drenched in blood so badly that there was no point in trying to put all of the hair back together into a ponytail, which for all we know could be a purely postmortem feature meaning that the person may’ve never even had his hair in a ponytail ever during his life.

1 Like

Just a sidenote.

I am not talking past you. I am responding directly to the evidence you provided, which you said was “tangible evidence” for the shroud’s authenticity.

The fourteenth to fifteenth century. The Jewish stereotype I showed (which is also seen in the image on the shroud, as described by the sources you posted), dates to that era.

It relates to the image on the Shroud of Turin. You posted videos saying that the image on the Shroud of Turin shows a man with a long ponytail and sidelocks, which the video claims is evidence for the shroud’s authenticity.

There was nothing preventing Jesus from having long hair in the same way that there was nothing preventing him wearing a kimono. However, in both cases it would be so unusual that strong evidence is required to support the claim. This is even more the case when it is claimed that he had a ponytail, and even more the case when it is claimed he had sidelocks.

No I am not asking that question. I don’t care why he had long hair. I am pointing out that the style of long hair which is shown on the Shroud of Turin is highly typical of a medieval Jewish stereotype. This is what we would expect if the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery. It is not what we would expect if the Shroud of Turin was authentic.

No. I don’t believe Jesus had sidelocks at all. However, the video you appealed to, says that the man represented in the image on the Shroud of Turin had both long hair in a ponytail, and long sidelocks. The video you appealed to says this is evidence that the man on the Shroud of Turin was Jesus. Please remember that these are claims being made by the source you provided.

I agree. However this is irrelevant to the point I am making. The point I am making is that it is vanishingly unlikely that Jesus would have had long hair in a pony tail, and sidelocks. There is an overwhelming likelihood that Jesus would have looked like this.

Because this is what an average medieval European thought that a Jewish man looked like, since this was the typical medieval Jewish stereotype. Simple.

Maybe you should write to the people whose video you provided as “tangible evidence” for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, and explain to them that you now think their “ponytail” theory is wrong. You might be able to help them out in other ways too, such as by explaining to them that the long hair and sidelocks are also totally anachronistic, and highly indicative of a medieval forgery. Maybe next time watch videos before you post them?


Do you know the Codex Pray and do you realize that by itself it falsifies the medieval dating?
Moreover, the image on the shroud being a negative, how on earth would a super forger would have had the idea to produce a negative at a time where photography was unknown?

Because creating bas-reliefs and bas-relief negatives was an art form which was around 1,800 years old at this point.


Bad example. There WAS something preventing him from wearing a kimono: Jesus would’ve had no access to japanese clothing items.

1 Like

I know of a 10th century praying manuscript that very likely depicts the shroud of turin

No it’s a very good example, because the likelihood of the two is highly similar. The Romans traded with the Chinese, and the Chinese traded with the Japanese, so it’s just barely possible but incredibly unlikely that Jesus could have worn a kimono, just as it’s just barely possible but incredibly unlikely that Jesus would have worn his hair in the same style as a medieval Jewish stereotype. In both cases strong evidence must be presented, since the likelihood is incredibly low.


That has already been mentioned here. If that’s the Shroud of Turin, where’s the image of the man on it?


There is an alternative: that the mediaeval dating falsifies the view that the Pray Codex shows the Turin Shroud.

1 Like