Hat, Hair or Halo
The Thing on John’s Head
Marc Zboch
Rels-4000: The Archaeology of Earliest Christianity
May 10, 2018
Preface
Outside of Ein Kerem a mysterious cave was rediscovered after centuries abandoned. Within this cave a carving. A carving of a man with his hands raised toward heaven, a staff, and a “thing” on his head. Before you write this paper off as a pointless exercise in over analysis, consider that your opinion on the “thing” not only will influence your view of a central figure of Christianity, but also of the entire timeline of early Christian iconography. The figure quite possibly could be John the Baptist, and the thing on his head… that’s up to you.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the three dominant theories surrounding the “Thing”on John the Baptist’s Head. The three camps that have formed back either the hat, hair or halo theory. Each of these camps have reputable scholars backing their assumptions, but only one’s primary assumption can be correct. The most definitive proponent of the hat camp is Joe Zias. He claimed the “thing” is a Cap and nothing more. The leader of the hair camp is Shimon Gibson, the archaeologist in charge of the cave where the carving was found. He claims in his book that the incises are most likely hair, possibly a cap of some sort, but not likely a halo. And representing the halo crowd is Adrian Boas, who believes it is not a cap or hair but a head covering or halo/nimbus. Let’s look at the arguments.
In Defense of Hair
When applying Occam’s razor to determine what is on top of someone head, (pun intended) the hypothesis that makes the least assumptions is hair. There does not need to be complex theory and hidden meaning, what is on top of the figure’s head is what is on top of most people’s heads. Shimon Gibson points this out when he says, “ The hair is set in a series of ‘buns’ representing curls, extending around the head from ear to ear; such hair arrangements are known from sixth-century iconography and earlier.” He points out two examples, a silver ampullae and the basin of St Sergius. Along with examples from the period, we know John was dedicated a Nazarite at birth. It says In the gospel of Luke verse 1:15, “ For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” It could easily be assumed that Johns hair would be quite long considering a key component of Nazarite vows is not cutting ones hair. If one is wandering the deserts, it would be quite logical to coil said hair around your head to keep it from dragging on the ground. Also coiling the hair on top of the head would keep it dry while performing baptisms.
In Opposition of Hair
A huge flaw in the hair theory is the lack of a facial hair on the carving. The image of John is distinctly clean shaven. If John had taken Nazarite vows, it would be strictly forbidden for him to shave as laid out in Leviticus 19:27 where it says, “ You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” The rebuttal Gibson gives to this is that bearded representations of John the Baptist are much more typical of the later Byzantine to Early Islamic periods. That is true, but only because of precedent. If later icons are modeled off older icons then It only makes since that the bearded representation became dominant. Of all of the 4th 5th and 6th century Byzantine icons I analyzed, I determined there is at least a 16:1 ratio of bearded Johns to shaven Johns. Furthermore, an unusually pronounced beard is quite often used to distinguish John from other characters in the image. Another way around this is claiming this was a representation of a young John. But why carve an icon of John prophesizing in the “orans stance” from a time when he was young, before his ministry?
All examples given by Gibson of similar hair representations use dots or circles to represent hair. This would be the only representation from that period I could find to use straight lines to portray hair. The carver obviously cared deeply about details, evidenced from the detail in the clothes. Why represent hair in a less detailed manor and in an entirely different fashion from all other representations at the time? Claiming it is hair without a beard and without a truly representative example may not be the most probable explanation.
In Defense of Hat
The headwear idea is a multifaceted theory. It is not enough to just say the “thing” is a hat, headwear carries meaning; requiring one to propose what kind of hat it is. Joe Zias and Gibson both agree on the possibility of a cap, but for different reasons. Joe Zias claims this based on a theory from the Hospitallers’ statute that specified garb for taking care of the sick. Gibson does not go into much detail about why it could be a cap, but simply states it as an acceptable alternative to hair.
Another theory claims the incises to be a crown. Evidence for the crown theory comes from the demarcations within the semi-circle. There are exactly 12 striations within the semi-circle. One could not pick a more biblically significant number. Is it mere coincidence? If depicting hair, there is no purpose to put any more meaning into the design than what is required to convey it is hair. If it is a crown / hat, then design choice becomes significant. This is evidenced in later icons in the form of the three pronged trinity crown. There are several representations of martyrs and saints being depicted with crowns starting around 550 ce. This could be used to signify authority from God in the case of John. Also the crown of Theodosius II, A prominent byzantine emperor of the time, is nearly identical to what is portrayed on John.
As for the hat idea, It looks like a Jewish Mitre. Defined as: (Heb. mitsnepheth), something rolled round the head; the turban or head-dress of the high priest ( Exodus 28:4 Exodus 28:37 Exodus 28:39 ;29:6 , etc.). The Mitre was a twisted band of fine linen, 8 yards in length, coiled into the form of a cap, and worn on official occasions ( Leviticus 8:9 ; 16:4 ; Zechariah 3:5 ). What occasion could be more special than the coming of the Messiah? Also the parallels to purification and sin removal associated with the turban are laid out in Zechariah 3:3-5 where it says “3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.” 5 Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by.” John’s whole message is centered around purification and sin removal. The turban / mitre is the physical representation of that. The mitre idea becomes even more fascinating when we consider possible connections between John the Baptist and the Essenes / Qumran. Someone who believed God’s presence was not restricted to the temple in Jerusalem, but could be worshiped elsewhere may signify that outwardly by wearing a mitre out of the temple. Being of the tribe of Levi and thus groomed for the priesthood he would have had a deep understanding of the mitre’s significance.
This may not be the strongest evidence, but several representations in early Islam show John wearing a turban. This does not prove anything, but does demonstrate it is in the realm of possibilities.
In Opposition to Hat
First I will address the crown hypothesis. The inclusion of crowns in 4th, 5th and 6th century icons exists, but is extremely rare. It is found in only a few isolated icons, none of which were found in Israel. The speculation about the mitre is just that, speculation. It is a theoretical construct with no precedent anywhere. It is merely an interesting possibility cobbled together from a collection of loosely correlated ideas. It would not only have been unprecedented and absurdly taboo to wear a high priests garb out of the temple, it could be considered profane. And this is all assuming John, an itinerate preacher, could have afforded the fine linen the mitre was made of.
In Defense of Halo
9 out of 10 people shown the carving of John the Baptist from the suba cave assumed it was a Halo. When looking at it objectively, lines radiating from the head of a religious figure seems to obviously be a nimbus. There are plenty of Examples of the nimbus being used in the Late 4th century, why should this one be any different?
In opposition to Halo
During the fourth century the nimbus was exclusively reserved for Christ. It was not until the fifth century the emperor could get a nimbus. Further yet it was not until the early sixth century that you start to see saints getting a nimbus. If this were truly a nimbus it would change our entire timeline of iconography, and that seems quite unlikely.
With all of the controversy surrounding a singular aspect of the carving, the only way to flesh out the full context of the “thing” is to peg a carver to it. And that may not be set in stone. (pun intended). In the Gospels John’s primary function is to witness to Christ. John gives witness when he points out Christ as the lamb of God (John 1:29), and also when he baptizes Christ. At the baptism John bears witness to Christ’s divinity. This is emphasized in the Gospel of John, in which the baptism is not described but only recalled by John the Baptist: “And John bore witness, ‘I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”. Up until the sixth century it was this aspect, John the Witness, that Byzantine artists overwhelmingly chose to represent. As far as I can tell from the surviving icons, prior to the sixth century John the Baptist was represented only in scenes of the Baptism of Christ. In these images the revelation of Christ’s divinity is represented by the dove of the Holy Spirit over the head of Christ and the hand of God appearing from a segment of sky. It was not until the sixth century that Christian artists began to represent John the Baptist as an isolated figure. The oldest of which was found in a monastery in Sinai. To take this carving out of this context and call it Byzantine is a claim of precedence. Especially in light of Gibson pegging it to the 4th or 5th century.
Dr. Shimon Gibson claims these drawings are “Byzantine period at the earliest” but to me evidence continues to mount that Byzantine attribution to the carvings must be re visited. While new precedent setting discoveries are found, they require extraordinary evidence. The complete lack of isolated icons of John from the period and the lack of the defining beard lend to me the idea the carving may be pre-Byzantine. Who carved it then? I really don’t know. It quite possibly could have been the followers of John the Baptist. Or maybe it really is a precedent setting Byzantine icon.
In summary, I feel the arguments for and against all sides of the debate have been laid out. Which side you choose says a lot not just on your opinions about John the man, but also your beliefs on icon development. With so many compelling arguments on both sides, the only thing I learned in writing this paper is that I don’t fully know what was on John’s Head.
Full Citation of Dr. Gibson’s Book
Gibson, Shimon. The Cave of John the Baptist: The Stunning Archaeological Discovery That Has Redefined Christian History. New York: Doubleday, 2005.
This paper refers to the incises located on or above the figure as “thing” to remain as neutral as possible. Any other description such as “head ware” could connotate bias and ruin the objective nature of this analysis.
Gibson, “The Cave of John the Baptist, The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History’’ pg. 68
Nimbus is the Latin word that describes the holy cloud / ring of light we refer to as a halo in religious images.
pp. 200–201 in Israeli, Y., and Mevorah, D. (eds), Cradle of Christianity . Israel Museum Catalogue No. 438: Jerusalem; see also the sixth-century representation of St Sergius on a silver basin from a site on the northern coast of Cyprus: p. 173 and Plate IX in Dalton, O. M., 1921. A Guide to the Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities in the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities . Second edition. British Museum: London.
Numbers 6:5 5 “All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.
Gibson, “The Cave of John the Baptist, The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History’’ pg. 68
Gibson, “The Cave of John the Baptist, The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History’’ pg. 68
K. Wessel, “Johannes Baptistes (Prodromos),” RBK 3, col. 616
See the examples in G. Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, I (Greenwich, Conn., 1971), 132 ff and figs. 350
Wessel, “Johannes Baptistes,” col. 616
Gibson, “The Cave of John the Baptist, The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History’’ pg. 79
Gibson, “The Cave of John the Baptist, The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History’’ pg. 56