Here is a piece from another of those endless articles on “The Passion of the Christ.” I always know that seeing the words “Jesus Scholars” will have something in it especially dumb.
“He has a long-haired Jesus…Jesus didn’t have long hair,” said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. “Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair.”
“The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek,” said New York University’s Lawrence Schiffman.
Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome’s Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.
Lets see, you just watched a movie that from most accounts is a gripping visual portrayal of the last hours of Christ and you walk away complaining about the hair styles? Right off the bat I can think of good reason why a frieze might have shown Jewish men with short hair. That can be the sign of a slave and not making them equal with their capture. From what I have read previously I think the actual practice of Jewish men at that time was to wear their hair in a pony tail. The earliest images of Christ like the Pantocrator show this and if the Shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus’ burial cloth then this also showed Jesus having a pony tail. But I am not going to wig out on this subject and will get to the root of the matter. It truly does not matter what his length of hair or style of it was, though I guarantee that the God-man did not have a mullet. He died for our sins he did not have his hair dyed for our sins.