St. Paul, the Shroud of Turin, and Jesus’ Long Hair

[An English translation of the article „Św. Paweł, Całun Turyński i długie włosy Jezusa”, link]

One of the popular pseudo-arguments used by opponents of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin—mostly fundamentalist Protestants opposed to the veneration of images, though sometimes even atheists pick up this claim—is the assertion that men in Jesus’ time wore short hair. These skeptics refer to a quote from one of St. Paul’s letters:

“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14, unless specified otherwise, all Bible quotations are from the New International Version).

The fundamentalists’ reasoning goes like this: The Bible is the infallible Word of God and must be read entirely literally (never mind the context!). So, if Paul says that wearing long hair is a ‘disgrace’ for a man, then all the more reason to believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, could not have had long hair during His life on Earth.

And yet, on the Shroud of Turin, we clearly see the figure of a man with long hair.

 A section of the negative photograph of the Shroud of Turin, showing the front and back of the head of the man on the Shroud. Long hair is clearly visible.

The fundamentalists’ conclusion: since the Bible is infallible, the Shroud of Turin cannot be an authentic relic—the burial cloth of Jesus. Likewise, popular depictions of Jesus with long hair do not reflect reality. The first images of Jesus with a beard and long hair appeared in the catacombs around the 4th century. However, it wasn’t until around the 6th century, with the discovery of the “miraculous” image of Christ—the legendary Mandylion, or Image of Edessa (which, according to the theory popularized by Ian Wilson, may have been the folded Shroud of Turin)—that the classic image of the bearded, long-haired Christ took shape. The best example of this is the icon of Christ Pantocrator from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, dated to around the year 600:

The period of iconoclasm in Byzantium during the 8th–9th centuries brought a halt to naturalistic depictions of Christ and led to the destruction of most icons. However, this type of portrayal of Christ’s figure was revived after the defeat of iconoclasm, especially following the transfer of the Mandylion to Constantinople in 944. In the West, this image became widespread around the same time, approximately the year 1000. Since then, this representation of Christ has become so deeply ingrained in our consciousness that we cannot imagine Jesus looking in any radically different way than this distinctive “Christ-like” type.

But does the Bible really contradict this image, as iconoclastic fundamentalists claim? Not at all. This whole “argument” of the fundamentalists is a typical example of their mindless pseudo-exegesis, based on out-of-context passages used to support their own, by no means biblical, inventions.

Let’s take a closer look at the passage from chapter 11 of the First Letter to the Corinthians and see exactly what Paul is writing about. I have highlighted the key passage:

1 Corinthians 11:1-16:

1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

This is a rather long and complex discourse in which Paul instructs the Corinthians about order in Christian gatherings. This passage concerns whether men and women should cover their heads during assemblies. Paul believes that women should, while men should not. It simply comes down to a matter of decency. In Jewish tradition, married women were not supposed to appear publicly in the company of unrelated men with uncovered hair. Women’s hair in many cultures was seen as potentially “enticing” to men. Until recently, in Catholicism, women were obliged to wear head coverings in churches—this requirement was abolished by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

As for men, there was some flexibility regarding head coverings in Jewish culture at Paul’s time. The frescoes in the Dura-Europos synagogue from the 3rd century generally depict Jewish men without head coverings. However, in the Middle Ages, among Jews, the practice of wearing a head covering during prayer, called a kippah or yarmulke, became widespread. It is very likely that this was a reaction to Christian prayer practices: Christian men, following Paul’s instruction, prayed with uncovered heads, so the Jews adopted the opposite custom. [See the article “Jewish Practices & Rituals: Covering of the Head” on the Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/covering-of-the-head]

Paul tries to justify his view in some way. In his argument, he draws on both biblical and extra-biblical arguments. He also refers to the teaching he proclaims about Christ as the Head of the Church. This teaching is presented in the Letters to the Ephesians and Colossians:

Ephesians 1:3-10, 22-23:

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
5 In love
he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ,
in accordance with his pleasure and will—
6 to the praise of his glorious grace,
which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins,
in accordance with the riches of God’s grace
8 that he lavished on us.
With all wisdom and understanding,
9 he made known to us the mystery of his will
according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—
to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ as head.

[…]

22 And God placed all things under his feet
and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

(See also: Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19)

Paul states that Christ is the head (that is, the supreme, governing authority) of the Church, and as a man, the head of men. Therefore, according to Paul, men should uncover their heads during prayer. However, according to Paul, the head of a woman is her husband, the head of the household (in the sense of the traditionally understood patriarchal family model, a social structure accepted both in Israel and Greece):

Ephesians 5:21-33:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Although the patriarchal family model seems completely natural to Paul (much to the dismay of contemporary feminists), he nevertheless recognized the equal status of men and women as human beings, complementary sexes who have somewhat different social roles and accepted customs. In 1 Corinthians 11:7-12, Paul engages in an extensive discussion based on the first two chapters of Genesis about whether woman was created for man or vice versa. I have discussed this topic more extensively in the article “Adam and Eve in the New Testament” (link).

In any case, it appears that Paul realized these discussions do not lead to any definitive conclusion, and that men and women have equal status after all. But since the head of a woman is a man, let women’s heads resemble men’s—or let women cover their heads.

Paul makes the statement that a woman with her head uncovered looks as if she were shaved. This is intentionally paradoxical because by uncovering her head, a woman is actually displaying her hairstyle, which may be more or less attractive to men. However, Paul presents here his Jewish-tradition-rooted disgust for such customs — according to him, a woman without a modest head covering might as well have no hair at all.

In this whole argument, it is difficult to find any concrete logical reasoning. But the real issue is not about logical correctness, but emotional matters. And Paul is well aware of this, writing: “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” And further: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”.

The command for women to cover their heads cannot be logically derived solely from the authority of Scripture, but rather: “we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”. This essentially means that the Apostle’s instruction for women to cover their heads is not an unchanging dogma, but rather a matter of cultural propriety.  Paul also states: “This is why a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.”. This statement is interpreted in various ways, but perhaps it means that angels are witnesses to whether people—men and women—behave decently, in accordance with God’s will. Well, it doesn’t seem that Eve in the Garden wore any head covering (or any clothing at all…), but before the fall, no one was offended by that… Since the Churches of God united in the one Catholic came to a different view, head covering for women in temples ceased to be a mandatory obligation and became at most a voluntary custom. This gesture today has lost all its cultural symbolism and significance.

Alright, but when considering the question of who should cover their heads in church and who should not, we have so far overlooked a key passage that is the main subject of this study. Is it really true that long hair is a “disgrace” for a man? What is Paul really getting at? It seems this is the key to the entire above-mentioned pseudo-logical argument of Paul. He states (this time using a more literal translation):

(1 Corinthians 11): 14 Does not nature itself (φύσις, physis) teach you that if a man has long hair (Paul uses one verb κομᾷ, koma), it is a disgrace (ἀτιμία, atimia) to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair (κομᾷ), it is her glory (δόξα, doksa), for her hair is given to her instead of a covering.

Paul does not appeal to an argument from Scripture, but rather from Nature itself, which supposedly declares that a man “should not” have long hair, and a woman “should.” And from the fact that she should, Paul “concludes” (of course, this is not a formally valid conclusion, but that is not Paul’s point!) that women should wear a covering, and men should not. What is really going on here? It’s a very common phenomenon. Namely, men very often experience BALDNESS, which Nature has spared women… According to Paul’s story, this means that Nature considers that men should eventually lose their hair and thus uncover their heads, while women should not and should cover theirs. If women do not want to cover their heads, then let their heads resemble those of men. Therefore, For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off

But why does Paul use this argument? Well, the Bible does not contain a description of Paul's appearance, but we have a testimony in the Acts of Paul (an early 2nd-century apocryphal text). Although the author, a Christian presbyter, may have faced consequences for writing this work (which is written in the style of a loose romance, a prototype of an ancient novel), it is quite possible that he included elements of authentic tradition in it:

2 And a certain man named Onesiphorus, when he heard that Paul was come to Iconium, went out with his children Simmias and Zeno and his wife Lectra to meet him, that he might receive him into his house: for Titus had told him what manner of man Paul was in appearance; for he had not seen him in the flesh, but only in the spirit. 3 And he went by the king's highway that leadeth unto Lystra and stood expecting him, and looked upon them that came, according to tbe description of Titus. And he saw Paul coming, a man little of stature, thin-haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, of good state of body, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel. — Acts of Paul (Acts of Paul and Thecla) 2-3 (From "The Apocryphal New Testament" M.R. James-Translation and Notes Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, available at Wikisource:  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Apocryphal_New_Testament_(1924)/Acts/The_Acts_of_Paul )

This description later became the prototype for iconographic depictions of Saint Paul, in which he is usually (though not always) portrayed as a balding man. See, for example, the 17th-century painting Saint Paul Writing His Epistles by Valentin de Boulogne.

However, it seems Paul was not completely bald, because in Acts we have this account:

Acts 18:18:

Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.

This event took place near the end of Paul’s second missionary journey, around AD 52, a few years before he wrote 1 Corinthians. As for Paul’s vow, many exegetes see a connection to the Naziriteship described in Numbers 6:2–21.

Numbers 6:2-21:

2 ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: "If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, 3 they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine, must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins.
4 As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins. 5 ‘During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long. 6 ‘Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body. …
9 ‘If someone dies suddenly in the Nazirite’s presence, thus defiling the hair that symbolizes their dedication, they must shave their head on the seventh day—the day of their cleansing.
10 On the eighth day they must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest …
11 The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement … That same day they are to consecrate their head again. 12 They must rededicate themselves to the Lord for the same period of dedication and must bring a year‑old male lamb as a guilt offering. …
13 ‘Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the period of their dedication is over. …
18 “Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire …
21 “This is the law of the Nazirite who vows offerings to the Lord … They must fulfill the vows they have made, according to the law of the Nazirite."

There is a certain difficulty here, because according to the laws in the Book of Numbers, it would seem that the hair could be cut only in Jerusalem (?), yet Paul had his hair cut in Cenchreae, a port of Corinth. Nevertheless, this shows that such vows—if not strictly Naziriteship—were practiced by Jews. The Acts of the Apostles describe a similar episode following the end of Paul’s third missionary journey:

Acts 21:17–24:

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

According to the testimony of Hegesippus, a Christian writer of the second century quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History II.23.4–5), James the Just was said to have been a lifelong Nazirite who never cut his hair:

4 James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. 5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. (translation by Arthur Cushman McGiffert adapted from New Advent website: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm )

In any case, nowhere in the Old Testament is there any mention that wearing long hair was forbidden or shameful for a man—quite the opposite! In Judges 13–16, we find the story of Samson, who was a judge of Israel and a lifelong Nazirite. He was never allowed to cut his hair, and when he did—seduced by a woman—it became the cause of his downfall. When Samson, now blind and held captive by the Philistines, had his hair grow back (and had repented of his sins), his legendary strength returned. This allowed him to bring down the temple of the god Dagon, killing himself along with the Philistines gathered there. Paul certainly knew these stories, which shows that his statement about long hair being a “disgrace” (in the opinion of Mother Nature) for a man should NOT be taken in an absolute sense! And it in no way contradicts the belief that Jesus had long hair, as we see on the Shroud of Turin. Most likely, Paul is simply making a loose reference to his own baldness, using it to support a teaching that women should behave modestly (in accordance with the cultural norms of the time) and cover their hair during worship gatherings.

As for Christ’s hair, there is one more biblical testimony—in the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 1:12-14:
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

This testimony at least confirms that Christ was not completely bald—He had hair, although it does not specify how long (are there hair salons in Heaven where one can change hairstyles at will?).

In conclusion, we see that the entire fundamentalist argument against the Shroud of Turin and Christian iconography based on Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:14 is utterly baseless—it directly contradicts many other statements in the Bible. This whole mention can be explained by a careful contextual analysis and/or the testimony of Christian tradition. But what do Protestant fundamentalists care about that? Those (now that I have presented a solid argument, I feel justified in calling them) fools, ignoramuses, deceivers, frauds, sectarians. That’s what kind of “biblical Christians” they are—snatching isolated verses out of context whenever it suits them! The Bible is not just on their lips but effectively in their proverbial backsides; their own sectarian inventions matter more to them! Yet the Bible has already pronounced condemnation upon them (2 Peter 1:20). So, dear Reader, if anyone tries to convince you that the Bible—or specifically 1 Corinthians 11:14—negates the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, now you know who you are dealing with. And treat those people accordingly.

July 2025