Early Depictions of Short Haired Clean Shaven Christ

[StevusMagnus]

didi,

As HK has said the Church has nowhere mandated belief in the shroud as authentic. If it has please provide the document where it did so.

The chart is reliable and lists verifiable depictions of Christ. The web author's views on other notions are irrelevant to the chart's contents which is merely a list anyone can independently verify.

[StevusMagnus]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154a.htm

Publius LentulusPublius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written the following letter to the Roman Senate:

  •

[didishroom]

didi,

As HK has said the Church has nowhere mandated belief in the shroud as authentic. If it has please provide the document where it did so.

No HK put it, as I did right before, on the same level as Fatima. It is not a tenent of our Faith but it has the full approval and promotion from the Church. Only a fool would profess to be a good Catholic and completely ignore Fatima as false.

As for the Shroud. I know it is one the longest venerated relics of Christendom and has been venerated as such by countless popes and saints.
I will have to wait till the weekend when I have access to my books to get you official info-so bear with.

Interestingly enough, I found on the Shroud's "official website" a Q&A that deals with the subject of long hair on Christ.

Q: Could you give some insight as to the length of the hair the men wore during the time of Christ? This question came up in light of the scripture reference found in I Corinthians 11: 14, 15, where it indicates that nature itself teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. The image on the Shroud appears to have shoulder length or longer hair.. Therefore, it does not seem feasible that Jesus would do something that he did not want his followers to do and give them instruction on how to appear in regards to the grooming of their hair if he wore his hair in direct opposition of the instructions he gave to them.
Once again I asked Rev. Albert "Kim" Dreisbach, a biblical scholar, theologian and Shroud historian to draft the response to this question. Here is his reply:

A: Recently I had a very similar question posed by a young man from Indiana. My response was as follows:

I'm afraid that your "Jewish authority" is mistaken with regard to the length of hair for Jewish males in the first century C.E. (i.e. Common Era).
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.

 

 

LOL. Did you notice that, LaRoza? Our Lord and Savior had a pony tail. I guess you're in the clear.

[The_Harlequin_King]

No HK put it, as I did right before, on the same level as Fatima. It is not a tenent of our Faith but it has the full approval and promotion from the Church. Only a fool would profess to be a good Catholic and completely ignore Fatima as false.

Actually, didi, I was stating that in Stevus' defense. I do believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and that its long history of devotion makes it worthy of serious consideration... but I don't accept that disbelieving in it makes one a bad Catholic. And I say the same about Fatima. It might make one a stupid Catholic to deny them, but stupidity isn't a sin.

[StevusMagnus]

The author uses "C.E." instead of A.D.? C.E. is a secular innovation meant to strip history of the use of A.D. since it refers to "Our Lord". Interesting. Also his only source seems to be the "Interpreter's Bible Dictionary"?

Nevertheless, I don't want this to devolve into a debate on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. You can start a separate thread under Theological Debate if you wish to delve into that discussion.

The point remains that no Catholic is obliged to believe that the Shroud is authentic.

[StevusMagnus]

Actually, didi, I was stating that in Stevus' defense. I do believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and that its long history of devotion makes it worthy of serious consideration... but I don't accept that disbelieving in it makes one a bad Catholic. And I say the same about Fatima. It might make one a stupid Catholic to deny them, but stupidity isn't a sin.

I would not put the Shroud on the same level as Fatima in the realm of evidence for belief. Fatima was accompanied by a public miracle witnessed by tens of thousands that was reported to have occurred even in the secular press.

In contrast, JPII had this to say about the Shroud in 1998

The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.

There is a plausible scientific argument against the Shroud's authenticity. Thus Catholics who take no position on the Shroud's authenticity or doubt it, are not stupid nor lesser Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
 

Radiocarbon dating

Main article: Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Turin Shroud

In 1988, the Holy See agreed to permit six centers to independently perform radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud, but at the last minute they changed their minds and permitted only three research centers to undertake such analysis. The chosen laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, produced consistent results indicating that the analysed portion of the shroud dated from the 13th to 14th centuries (1260–1390).^[4] Some members of scientific community had asked the Holy See to authorize more samples, including from the image-bearing part of the shroud, but this request was refused. One possible account for the reluctance is that if the image is genuine, the destruction of parts of it for purposes of dating could be considered sacrilege. The 13th and 14th century dating matched the first appearance of the shroud in church history.^[42]

[didishroom]

Actually, didi, I was stating that in Stevus' defense. I do believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and that its long history of devotion makes it worthy of serious consideration... but I don't accept that disbelieving in it makes one a bad Catholic. And I say the same about Fatima. It might make one a stupid Catholic to deny them, but stupidity isn't a sin.

Nor did I say it was a sin either. I was commenting on Stevus Magnus just dismissing the Shroud for no reason other than that's not required to believe it. I can't understand why a Traditional Catholic would do such a thing. I can't see Stevus defending Paul VI removing St. Christopher from the Calendar because there was no 'proof' he was real. In fact, any traditionalist would argue that since he was so revered for so long is proof that he was real. That's what I'm talking about with the Shroud. Why would a Trad just dismiss it with a wave of his hand but then rely on dubious info he found on the internet?

[didishroom]

In contrast, JPII had this to say about the Shroud in 1998

I also remeber you showing that JPII approved of practices condemned as 'evil' by other pope. Do you only refer to JPII when it is advantageous to you?

[StevusMagnus]

Nor did I say it was a sin either. I was commenting on Stevus Magnus just dismissing the Shroud for no reason other than that's not required to believe it. I can't understand why a Traditional Catholic would do such a thing. I can't see Stevus defending Paul VI removing St. Christopher from the Calendar because there was no 'proof' he was real. In fact, any traditionalist would argue that since he was so revered for so long is proof that he was real. That's what I'm talking about with the Shroud. Why would a Trad just dismiss it with a wave of his hand but then rely on dubious info he found on the Internet?

This goes back to my questions as to what is required for one to be a Traditional Catholic.

For you, is belief in the Shroud's authenticity and belief in St. Christopher's existence, necessary requirements for one to be a Trad?

[StevusMagnus]

In contrast, JPII had this to say about the Shroud in 1998

I also remeber you showing that JPII approved of practices condemned as 'evil' by other pope. Do you only refer to JPII when it is advantageous to you?

No matter what your opinion of JPII his words stand as the official position of the Church towards the Shroud, unless you can show a more recent statement that says otherwise.