The historical Jesus was a Middle Eastern (Jewish) male not a blond haired, blue-eyed Indo-European, not a black African, not an American Indian, etc. etc. so some modern representations are more “ethnocentric” towards a particular group and not really historially correct.
We don’t know what Jesus looked like. The Shroud image might be worthy of credit, as some of the visionaries’ might be.
But we really don’t know. I think it would be a mistake to picture Jesus in the way many of us think a “middle eastern Jewish male” ought to look, because there is not a typical “Middle Eastern Jewish look”. Most of us in America think of a “Jewish look” as that of an eastern European Ashkenazi appearance. Some, in Britain for example, might think of the “Jewish look” as a very different western European Sephardic “look”.
There is no particular reason to think either one is correct. Despite ancient Jewish ethnocentrism, there were all sorts of “races” in the Levant over the course of time; some Semitic, some Hamitic, some Indo-European.
Jesus might, indeed, have been blonde and blue-eyed. There are lots of those in the Levant. He might have had dark straight hair and brown eyes, and there are lots of those too. He might have had red hair (Persians, remember?). He might have had dark curly hair and, indeed, he might have shared some African features such as many in the Arabian peninsula do. Fewer, but still lots of those.
Regardless, it has always seemed fine with me if various peoples picture Jesus in a way that is familiar to them.
