What did Jesus look like?
This question has become a source of discussion within the modern western world. The truth is, we don’t know. Trying to use modern regional ethnicities to reconstruct the face of Jesus, or even his skin color, ignores the history and migrations of ancient peoples throughout the region of the Mediterranean. The wall paintings in the synagogue of Dura Europos (third century AD), in Syria, depict biblical figures possessing a very Mediterranean look. They resemble people depicted in the wall paintings uncovered in the Roman city of Pompeii. We do not know what Jesus looked like. The Gospels do not tell us how tall he was, the length of his hair, his hair or eye color, or even the impression his physical appearance left on those who met him. They do, however, tell us two details of his appearance, and while these are often brushed aside, they prove foundational in understanding Jesus of Nazareth. We will return to this momentarily
.
Far more than Jesus’ physical features and skin tone, dramatic and artistic portrayals of Jesus use clothing as part of the narrative and interpretive act. The clothes which adorn Jesus in dramatic and artistic depictions often sever the piece of art from its historical subject. Jesus and his disciples wear various colored tunics and mantles (which look like bathrobes), yet Jesus’ Jewish opponents don distinctively “Jewish” attire. Jesus and his disciples look like common Mediterranean people depicted in “sword and sandal” films, yet the Jewish leadership looks, well, Jewish. The Jewish leaders usually wear something akin to a modern “prayer shawl” (tallit)—which Jewish men did not wear in the first century. Apart from the historical anachronism, the wardrobe selection makes a profound visual statement, and whether we consciously notice it, it registers within our subconscious. Jesus stands outside of Judaism.
But do these depictions fit the two solitary details we know about Jesus’ physical appearance from the Gospels?
Before we answer this question, let’s discuss dress in the ancient world.
Dress in the Ancient World
Ancient written sources, artistic depictions from the ancient world, and archaeological discoveries of garments from the ancient world enable us to understand dress as worn in the Mediterranean cultures in the first century AD. Archaeological discoveries in the arid region along the Dead Sea yielded portions of garments preserved for millennia due to the dryness of the region. The fabrics were primarily of wool or linen. None of the fabrics found thus far in the land of Israel are of “mixed” fabrics, wool and linen combined, which accords with the biblical law (Deut. 22:11). This contrasts with fabrics found elsewhere within the eastern Mediterranean.
Jews dressed similar to non-Jews within the Hellenistic-Roman world. The basic dress consisted of an undergarment worn directly on the body, a “tunic” (haluk in Hebrew; chiton in Greek; and tunica in Latin). Tunics could be made of either wool or linen. Since its purpose was to be lighter than the outer garment, it was often made of linen. The outer garment, or mantle (tallit in Hebrew; himation in Greek and pallium/palla in Latin) was usually made of wool. The tunic consisted of two identical rectangular pieces of fabric sewn together above the shoulders and at the sides leaving openings at the top and sides for the neck and the arms. Woolen tunics had two colored bands (clavi) woven through the threads that started near the neck opening and ran vertically down the front and back. Linen tunics apparently lacked these colored lines, perhaps due to the difficulty in dying linen. Jewish linen garments would not have woolen threads woven into them due to the prohibition of “mixed” fabrics. Men wore short tunics which reached to the knees or just below. This permitted ease of movement while working outdoors. Women wore longer tunics reaching to their ankles. Women’s tunics were often gathered at the waist or beneath their bosom with a strip of fabric.
The mantle consisted of an elongated rectangular sheet of fabric that was usually woven of wool. Roman men often chose not to wear the mantle preferring to wear an elliptically shaped fabric as an outer garment known as a toga. Sages preferred the rectangular mantle because it had four corners to which the tzitzit (fringes) could be attached. The mantle could be draped around the wearer, with the excess material thrown over the right shoulder. Men’s mantles were either dyed in light colors or not dyed at all. Women’s mantles were dyed in more vibrant colors
.
Jewish Dress
Jews wore a linen or wool tunic against the body and a woolen mantel over the tunic, as was common in the Hellenistic-Roman world. The Bible commanded Jewish men, however, to fix fringes on the four corners of their cloaks (Num. 15:37-41; Deut. 22:12; see Sifre Deut. 234; and m. Menahot 3:7-4.1). These fringes were known as tzitzit (ציצית: fringes). Women did not wear the fringes. The garments discovered to date in the land of Israel from the first and second centuries AD do not have tzitzit attached to them. Literary sources, however, indicate many Jewish men wore tzitzit on the corners of their garments in the first century, but not all of them. A particular group of pious Jewish wonderworkers, referred to as Hasidim, were known for strict adherence to the commandments about the tzitzit: “The pious men of old (חסדים הראשונים) used to insert the tzitzit as soon as three fingerbreadths of the garment had been woven…It is different with the Hasidim for they impose upon themselves additional obligations” (b. Menahot 40b-41a). Jesus shared many similarities with this group, including his piety.
Although called a tallit in Hebrew, the mantle did not serve as the prayer shawl, which developed centuries later in Judaism for Jewish men to wear when they pray. Jewish men did not use the prayer shawl in the first century. The mantle (tallit) served as part of the daily dress and did not carry any religious significance beyond bearing the tzitzit. People would remove the tzitzit from the mantles in certain cases when a person died. The mantle then served as a shroud for the deceased. Not everyone followed this practice, however.
Jewish men did not use head coverings in a religiously significant way in the first century. The murals in the Dura Europos synagogue (third century AD) depict all male figures, except for kings, with bare heads. Jewish men, like Greek and Roman men, typically did not wear head coverings.
Women, on the other head, have their heads covered with their mantles. These ancient artistic representations parallel Paul’s directive in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where he instructed men to pray with their head uncovered while women should cover their heads whenever they appear in public. Paul’s concern for women covering their hair in public reflects his conservative Jewish sensitivities as we see elsewhere in the New Testament where the “sinful woman” appears with loose, unbound hair (Luke 7:36-50). So too, in the rabbinic sotah ritual enacted upon a woman suspected of adultery, her hair was exposed (m. Sotah 1.5). A woman, primarily a married woman, who appeared in public with her head uncovered brought shame upon herself and in some instances might lose her marriage contract (ketubah; m. Ketubot 7:6; t. Ketubot 7:6; y. Ketubot 7:7, 31b; b. Ketubot 72a-b; see also Genesis Rabbah 17:8; Avot de Rabbi Nathan version B, 9:25 and 42:17). Even within Hellenistic-Roman culture women covered their heads in public. It was a sign of honor and shame, modesty and subjugation, identifying her as belonging to one particular man; she was no longer available to other men (see Plutarch, Moralia 267). Unmarried girls in the Hellenistic-Roman world wore their hair lose as a sign of their freedom.
What did Jesus look like?
The Gospels mention only two physical features about Jesus of Nazareth. While they seem incidental to modern readers, they should, in fact, frame how we understand and interpret Jesus. Luke tells us Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (Luke 2:21). At this time, he was given his name. Judaism still observes the practice of naming a son on the eighth day at his circumcision. The Bible commanded the male descendants of Abraham to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth (Gen. 17), but the practice of naming the son at his circumcision is first mentioned in Jewish tradition with the births of John the Baptist and Jesus in Luke’s Gospel (1:59-62; 2:21).
Romans knew of the Jewish practice of circumcision, and they hated it. The Roman writer Cornelius Tacitus, who did not like the Jews, said this about the practice of circumcision:
“...the other customs of the Jews are base and abominable... They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Those who are converted to their ways follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account” (Tacitus, Histories 5:1-2).
If you have ever wandered through a museum in Italy or Greece filled with statutes from the Greco-Roman world, you will notice the male statues are uncircumcised, the way the male form is created. Institutions within the Greek and Roman world, like the gymnasium and bath house, in which activities took place in the nude, exposed a Jewish male who sought to participate in either the gymnasium or bath house. In a world of uncircumcised flesh, the circumcised man is found lacking. When a gymnasium was built in Jerusalem, Jewish youths underwent surgical procedures to cover up the marks of their circumcision (see Paul’s directive against this in 1 Corinthians 7:18), “So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant” (1 Macc. 1:14-15).
Luke’s mention of Jesus’ circumcision distinguished him within the ancient world. It identified him as a Jew. Put simply, if we lined Jesus of Nazareth up with one hundred non-Jewish men from the first century, on this detail alone, you could identify him. He would stand out. Yet, if we put him in a line-up of one hundred Jewish men from the first century, we could not identify him. (Note we could perform the same experiment with Paul with identical results; see Phil. 3:5).
What are the implications of this for our understanding of Jesus? How should this impact how we read him in relationship to ancient Judaism?
The second detail the Gospels provide about Jesus’ appearance pertains to his dress. The Gospels describe Jesus as wearing a mantle with fringes attached to it (Matt. 9:20-21; 14:35-36; Mark 6:56; and Luke 8:44), and people, like the woman with the issue of blood, sought to touch his fringes to be healed. The Greek word used in the Gospels (κράσπεδον; kraspedon) can mean “border” or “fringes,” but the translator of the Septuagint used this word in Numbers 15:37 to translate the Hebrew term (ציצית; tzitzit)—the fringes God commanded to be attached to the four corners of a cloak (Num. 15:37-41; Deut. 22:12; see Sifre Deut. 234; and m. Menahot 3:7-4:1). The Evangelists also used the same Greek word to describe the dress of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:5; see Sifre Num. 115; b. Menahot 41b-42a; b. Gittin 56b). The Gospel writers present Jesus as wearing the same Jewish dress as the Pharisees! Not all Jewish males wore fringes on their cloaks, but those who followed a strict observance of the Jewish law, like the Hasidim and Jesus, did.
It is a sad irony how most translations of the Gospels describe people touching the “edge” or “corner” of his garment, yet describe the Pharisees as “lengthening their fringes,” even though the same Greek word is used in all instances. Is there a fear of making Jesus appear too Jewish?
What does it say about Jesus that he wore the fringes on his mantle?
Again, this detail about his physical appearance enables us to distinguish Jesus from all other non-Jewish men within the Roman world. Yet, his dress identifies him as an observant Jewish man. Let me say that again. His dress alone identified him as a Jewish man, but not any Jewish man, as a Torah observant Jewish man, one who adhered to the stricter practice of the Torah. Jesus was not “marginally” Jewish. He represented an adherence to the Jewish law and custom not observed by all his Jewish contemporaries. You could distinguish him by his dress as a Jew, and not a Gentile, Roman.
The modern debate about what Jesus looked like ignores these two details provided by Gospels about his physical appearance. Most likely because these debates are not about encountering the historical Jesus, but rather about making Jesus into our image. Why do we see Jesus’ dress as presenting him outside of Judaism in art and movies? Because we become uncomfortable seeing Jesus as Jewish. No matter what Christian community portrays Jesus, they portray him as they are. But certainly not Jewish. We make him a man for all times and all people, and in so doing, we deny the Incarnation—God entered a specific time, within a specific space, amidst a specific culture. We find comfort in him looking like us and ventriloquize him with our voices. But none of those Jesus’ is Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus.
Two little details: he was circumcised on the eighth day and wore the fringes as commanded in the Law of Moses. Instead of debating things we cannot know about his appearance, perhaps we should explore what these two details mean, and how we should read and understand the words of Jesus of Nazareth considering them. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew; this is a historical fact. The question remains, what kind of Jew was he? The Gospels indicate he identified deeply with the faith and redemptive hopes of his fellow countrymen, even down to the fringes of his robe. Perhaps artistic depictions of Jesus of Nazareth would do well to take seriously the historical reality of the Incarnation. And maybe, so should we.