Jul 19

Buzz-cut Jesus

Tag: Historical Jesus — doug @ 7:55 pm

Over on Thoughts on Antiquity there’s a fascinating post on the physical appearance of Jesus, providing a range of texts related to it. But it’s long seemed to me that perhaps the only thing we can be reasonably certain of is that he had short hair. It is one of the more easily over-looked implications of 1 Cor 14:

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?
οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν

6 Responses to “Buzz-cut Jesus”

  1. Justin Anthony Knapp says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    What does that mean?

  2. Richard says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    So you take φύσις to mean universal nature (with binding force) and not local culture? Not sure that can be easily sustained…unless, of course, your tongue was in your cheek - couldn’t quite see, my fringe was getting in my eyes - :-)

  3. doug says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 12:04 am

    I don’t think Paul would make the nature /culture distinction in that way. And there is the context of disputes over Paul’s authority at Corinth, which would suggest he would not make an easily disputed statement, to say nothing of his reference to all the churches of God. So in this case, no, my tongue is not in my cheek: I’m serious about the short-hair, though not the buzz-cut (which, Justin, means a No 1 all over)

  4. Richard says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 9:39 am

    Doug, regarding the ‘all the churches’ bit, do you not read the greek as simply saying ‘we have no such practice….’ etc - it seems to me that is the most natural way to translate it.

    Regarding φύσις, what’s your take on Rom 2:14? The arguments in favour of translating there as a cultural condition seem to me to command assent (viz. ‘those who are Gentiles by nature’ or ‘who do not have the law by nature’, rather than the, frankly unbiblical, ‘doing the law by nature’).

  5. doug says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    Richard, yes I agree that this means “we have no such practice” but I think the context implies something about men having short hair, and women long, as being the only civilized style, and so “natural.”
    Regarding Rom 2:14, I can’t see any arguments in favour of your preferred translation except doctrinal ones.

  6. Justin Anthony Knapp says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    Doug,

    I should clarify: I am familiar with what a buzzcut is. What I meant by “that” in my question is that sentence from the Bible. What does that mean?

    -JAK

Leave a Reply