Do we know what Jesus actually looks like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hope said:
But didn’t they live in Bethlehem according to Luke until after the Presentation. According to Matthew, it was longer.
Click to expand...
That’s just unknown. The Presentation was 40 days after the birth.

Luke does not say where they lived in the interim.

Matthew likewise does not say. Herod “sent” the Maji to Bethlehem, but that’s not the same thing as saying they actually followed Herod’s directions. The Gospel says they “followed the star” but doesn’t directly say where the Holy Family was actually staying at the time.
 
He may have looked more middle eastern. You must realize though, depending on the region that Christianity is introduced, the people there will create their own image of Jesus in order to further connect to him. I don’t think he would have cared what we think he looked like.
 
I would say the I am your Jesus of Mercy picture is the closest, because Saint Faustina actually saw him and had the picture redone until it reflected his true image as he appeared to her.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
The fact that Luke also records them as being frequent travelers indicates that they did hav
Click to expand...
Every Jewish male was required to travel to Jetesulum three times per year.
Click to expand...
Not during the time of the 2nd Temple, which is the time period we’re discussing.

By then, the Jews were so widespread that every male going to the Temple 3 times every year would have been completely impossible. If a Jewish man in India went to Jerusalem 3 times a year, he would literally never be home, but would be on constant pilgrimage his entire life.

See this article by a Rabbi

Pilgrimage in the Time of Jesus | Jerusalem Perspective

www.jerusalemperspective.com www.jerusalemperspective.com

While there was originally an obligation of 3 trips a year to the Temple, by that time period, it was understood differently.

My knowledge of 2nd Temple Jewish law is a bit rusty. I have to rely on rabbinic sources and their knowledge of the Mishna. So what?

Does it somehow make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem free? Does it mean that Joseph was paid for his time away from his work? Does it mean that the food they had to buy along the way was free?

It does not prove that the Holy Family was poor.

The notion that they were poor is pious legend; it is still not based on any known fact.

It does not change the historical evidence that a builder-carpenter was a middle class income at that time.

The idea that they were poor does not coincide with known facts. It’s very convenient. It fits a certain narrative, but a forced one.
 
Just my two cents on the whole issue of whether Jesus’ family was ‘poor’.

Well, first off, I guess we can all agree that they weren’t wealthy / aristocratic. 😃

The thing is, while Father is right and that while you could say that Jesus’ family as a whole economically speaking might have a middle-class income in today’s terms, some scholars argue that strictly speaking, there was really no ‘middle class(es)’ back in the day.

One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus’ society wasn’t industrial, but agrarian in nature. In such societies, the main structural distinction is between the ‘ruler’ and the ‘ruled’, the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. It’s the wealthy, powerful elite on one side and various degrees of non-elite ‘peasantry’ (which is used in a very broad sense here) on the other.

Society at the time is like a pyramid: at the top you have the ruling elite, below them you have the ‘retainers’ that keep things running for the elites (so bureaucrats, soldiers, brokers, tax collectors, scribes, etc.), below them you have the working ‘peasantry’ (of various degrees of wealth: some have enough resources to hire workers or own slaves, but most are some shade of ‘poor’ - again used in a broad sense here instead of literally meaning ‘penniless’), and at the very bottom are those who are truly destitute. Technically, it’s only those at the top of this pyramid that has real clout: everyone below them - retainers included, since they were dependent on the elite, who were their patrons - were part of the ‘have-nots’.

Joseph and Jesus, who were artisans/craftsmen (‘carpenters’), certainly weren’t part of the rich elite, but they weren’t on the very bottom of this pyramid either.

Artisans like Jesus generally speaking were sort of like a glitch in the Matrix. Much of ancient Mediterranean society was agrarian: most of the working class were in some way dependent on the land, which was the basic economic engine. Artisans, who supported themselves by a sort of skill or trade, did not belong neatly in this structure. Because they did not rely on land-owning or farming, depending on who you ask, artisans could be either above the land-owning agrarian peasantry or below them (since some artisans apparently were people dispossessed of their own ancestral lands due to some factor).
 
(Continued)
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Click to expand...
We know from this passage by Eusebius (Church History 3.20) that these two grandsons of Jude (one of Jesus’ ‘brothers’), Zoker/Zechariah and James, were farmers who jointly owned thirty-nine plethra (depending on how you interpret plethra, it could either be something as small as nine to ten acres or at the maximum, around twenty-five acres) of land with which they supported themselves. Of course, Jesus and His relatives were not wealthy people, but the fact that these grandsons owned a small farm - which would have been a family inheritance - show that Jesus’ family were not exactly destitute either. This is probably the reason why Joseph (and Jesus) were artisans: not because they had no land, but because the land the family owned was not enough. Joseph and later Jesus may have worked as an artisan or ‘carpenter’ to supplement the extended family’s basic income, which would have come from farming (just like most people around them).

As per Jewish inheritance laws, the eldest son inherited the family home and a double share of the land, while the rest was divided among the other sons. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) Dividing the property was fine in theory, but as you go further down the family line, the land that will be inherited will get smaller and smaller until the individual plots become too tiny to support even one person - in other words, pretty much worthless. In those cases, the younger siblings had no other choice but to sell their land for cash and consider other options: work someplace else, rent, beg, steal.

The other way was for brothers to (continue to) live together and keep a smallholding undivided as the joint property of the ‘father’s house’, rather than divide it. (cf. Psalm 133:1 “How good and pleasant it is that brothers dwell together in unity” - the term “dwell together” there is actually the legal term for joint tenancy.) And this is what we see in Zechariah’s and James’ case: they jointly owned the now-minuscule family property and used it sustain themselves. It’s possible that two generations earlier, Joseph and Clopas (who is said to be Joseph’s brother) would have jointly owned the same farm as well.
 
Last edited:
But the Biblical descriptions of Jesus, rare as they are, describe Him as short (I think) and unattractive.
 
Tekton simply means worker with hands, it doesn’t imply Joseph was a carpenter, though that’s not an impossibility.

Going to the Temple was not some sort of vacation, but a pilgrimage, and it’s not as though there was gas money or something involved, mainly the expense would have been food.

And we see they stayed with Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, for instance, as a place to stay. We don’t know how much money was saved up for their his pilgrimage, whether it be most of their extra cash after tithing or what, but it would presumably be something seen as important and worth saving for, and possibly making even if it was not worth it financially speaking.

When forced to go to Egypt, it wasn’t a vacation either. It was after revelation that Herod was trying to kill Jesus. Such a trip when urged by an ANGEL to protect the child just born of the VIRGIN MARY as the Messiah would likely be seen as important over any monetary findings, even if they cannot afford it. If it was necessary, I wouldn’t see why they wouldn’t have Divine help for getting to Egypt.

Now we should take Nazareth. How great of a village was it? It was not a wealthy village.

Ultimately the Holy Family most likely wasn’t in abject poverty, but they weren’t rich either.
 
No, but one was Isaiah something and maybe Paul.
However, there’s a doctor who is a Shroud enthusiast that I’d watched when he did a presentation on EWTN. I got his email address and occasionally correspond with him.
He also did a webinar at my parish on the Shroud.

He told me that it was not uncommon for 5’9” in that year, and that Jesus on the Shroud is not 6’.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for answering! I know Isaiah says that he was “unattractive,” so to speak, but that was when he was being tortured to death. I am not aware of any Scripture that describes him as unattractive as far as his everyday appearance.

It wouldn’t matter if it did, just like it really doesn’t matter how tall he was. I only asked because, if there is a scripture passage that described him I would want to read it, since I can’t think of one. It made me worry that I had somehow skipped a part in all of my studies!

Thanks again!
 
In Johns Gospel when He heals the lame man at Bethesda, Jesus slips away into the crowd and the lame guy doesn’t know it was Him. If Jesus was somehow distinguishable, that wouldn’t have been the case. When He was arrested, Judas kissed Him on the cheek. Judas would’ve been able to point him out if He was distinguishable.

And here’s the Isaiah passage:

2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
** and like a root out of dry ground;**
he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,
** and no beauty that we should desire him.**

So it seems Isaiah’s talking about before and not just during the Passion.
 
Awesome! Thank you. I hadn’t considered the passage from Isaiah that way, and I like it.
James817 said:
In Johns Gospel when He heals the lame man at Bethesda, Jesus slips away into the crowd and the lame guy doesn’t know it was Him. If Jesus was somehow distinguishable, that wouldn’t have been the case. When He was arrested, Judas kissed Him on the cheek. Judas would’ve been able to point him out if He was distinguishable.
Click to expand...
John 5:10-13

10 So the Jews said to the man who was cured, “It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet.”
11 But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk.’ "
12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your pallet, and walk’?”
13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.
I don’t think that it is indisputable to conclude from the passage that he was nondescript. I have always read it that the man didn’t know his name and couldn’t point him out since he was no longer there.

Maybe he, like myself, did not possess uncanny or even average powers of observation. In that case, it wouldn’t prove or disprove anything about Jesus’ appearance.

Maybe he was incredulous at Jesus’ command at first, and then so distracted by having been able to walk to the pool for the first time in 38 years that he didn’t even notice who it was, but when he turned back to see him he was gone already.

As far as Judas…it was the prearranged signal.
Matthew 26:47-49

47 While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the Twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him."
49 And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Hail, Master!"And he kissed him.
From that it is not possible to conclude that Jesus was so average he could not have been distinguished by description, although it could be true. The prearranged signal could have been anything they agreed on, and not because of Jesus’ appearance. The kiss heightened the depth of the betrayal: Judas betrayed him with a greeting that meant friendship.

If he had pointed Jesus out, it likewise would not have meant he was remarkable in appearance. Or if Judas had described him to the Jews and he was identifiable by description. He still could have been as ordinary as it gets, or as ugly, or as beautiful. We are all describable in some fashion, even if it just, “the most ordinary, average, non-descript man…that will be him.”

I don’t think these arguments can sort out whether or not he was remarkable in appearance.
 
I actually love the idea that he may have been nondescript. Or even extremely unattractive.

Once a girlfriend of mine was describing a professor and said, “Once he looked at me with those eyes and smiled that smile, I would have signed up for ANY class he taught!” (🤦‍♀️)

So it works for me if he was not attractive physically and less than impressive in size, but drew in the world solely because of who he was and what he taught. I vastly prefer, “Once he gave a lecture with that wisdom and taught with such authority, I would have signed up for ANY class he taught!”

And it also works for me if he was imposing and gorgeous.

I think it didn’t matter what he looked like, once they knew him he couldn’t have been anything else but perfect.

Yeah. Shameless love goggles. Whether they were needed, or not.
 
Last edited:
Teek said:
I actually love the idea that he may have been nondescript. Or even extremely unattractive.
Click to expand...
Tertullian was actually apparently sort of big about Jesus being unattractive, because he believed that it is the fufillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.
Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His dispensation. Whatever that poor despised body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be He inglorious, be He ignoble, be He dishonoured; for such was it announced that He should be, both in bodily condition and aspect. Isaiah comes to our help again: “We have announced (His way) before Him,” says he; “He is like a servant, like a root in a dry ground; He has no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but His form was despised, marred above all men.” Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before: “Inasmuch as many will be astonished at You, so also will Your beauty be without glory from men.” (Isaiah 52:14) For although, in David’s words, He is fairer than the children of men, yet it is in that figurative state of spiritual grace, when He is girded with the sword of the Spirit, which is verily His form, and beauty, and glory. According to the same prophet, however, He is in bodily condition "a very worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and an outcast of the people."
Click to expand...
Jesus is Jesus and will be Jesus, whether He was actually a tall, physically fit person who looks like Robert Powell or Jim Caviezel or Johnny Depp or whatever or He was actually a short, stocky guy with a receding hairline 2000 years ago.
 
FrDavid96 said:
No. Nothing.

We know that he was a first century Palestinian Jew. That says more than people often want to admit.

The Jewish people have a long history of not inter-marrying (not very much anyway).

Dangerous stereotypes aside (where know where such things lead) he would have looked…well…for lack of a better way to put it…Jewish and middle-eastern, so that means darker skin (not pale like some modern Russian Jews), black or brown hair, caucasian, shorter than modern men of his age. He would certainly have kept a beard (only the Egyptians and sometimes the Roman men shaved at that time).
Click to expand...
He was also the Son of God. I think he would have looked Jewish, but also have been the image of male perfection. After all, he did all things perfectly and was divinely concieved, so I would imagine his genetic profile to have been perfect too. That said, I think he probably was tall, dark, and very good–looking, no imperfections, with an athletic physique as he worked as a carpenter for years.

Obviously this isn’t factual, but it makes sense to me.
 
Kei said:
Tekton simply means worker with hands, it doesn’t imply Joseph was a carpenter, though that’s not an impossibility.
Click to expand...
I once asked a Greek friend about tekton. He has a good knowledge of classical Greek and he told me he is unaware of the word tekton ever having been used to designate any trade other than a carpenter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top