
What did Jesus really look like? (2015) - gpvos
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965
======
thrifter
I've been fascinated with how the countenance of Christ has been a tool for
racial (and racist) propaganda. As a Jew from the Middle East, He certainly
wasn't the fair-skinned, blue eyed, blond hair rock star depicted by some
Christian denominations. I also doubt He was black, although some Rastafarians
believe He was because it says so in Jeremiah 8:21.

I discussed "Black Jesus" and the Rastafari on my podcast :
[https://soundcloud.com/jesusinbooks/black_jesus_rastafarian_...](https://soundcloud.com/jesusinbooks/black_jesus_rastafarian_religion)
and for those who want to deep-dive into the topic, I highly recommend The
Color of Christ by Paul Harvey and Edward J. Blum. It's a knockout book.

~~~
combatentropy
> I also doubt He was black, although some Rastafarians believe He was because
> it says so in Jeremiah 8:21.

That's an odd interpretation. The word in Hebrew stems from qadar, which does
mean dark, but is often used to indicate mourning
([https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6937.htm](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6937.htm)).
And that follows the context of the verse: "Since my people are crushed, I am
crushed; I mourn (qadarti), and horror grips me" (NIV). As far as I recall,
the Bible never uses skin color to indicate race. It always goes by ancestry
("Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, . . . ").
Speaking of which, it spends a great deal of time, across several books, to
tell us that Jesus is Jewish. Most Jews I know of are fair skinned. Skin color
doesn't mean any kind of superiority to me. I'm just talking about the
accuracy of paintings.

> He certainly wasn't the fair-skinned, blue eyed, blond hair rock star
> depicted by some Christian denominations.

I've been a Christian all my life, and visited churches of many denominations.
Most depictions show him with brown hair and brown eyes. I can't remember
seeing any depiction with blond hair. Now blue eyes I have occasionally seen,
but isn't it possible for any race to have any eye color?

~~~
village-idiot
> Most Jews I know of are fair skinned.

It has been a while since Jesus’ time, and chances are most Jews you know work
inside, unlike Jesus.

Sarcasm aside, all of the Jews I know can trace their lineage through Europe
after the diaspora in the early second century. One would expect that a pre-
diaspora Jew in Judea and a modern Jew who’s family had traveled through
Northern Europe for 1800 years would have significantly different skin tones.

~~~
owlmirror
When you look at natives of the Levant they pretty much look like the
depictions of an Mediterranean Jesus you will find most commonly in churches
around the world. Fair skin and light eyes are not a unheard of trait in that
region either. I have a Jordanien friend who has the bluest eyes and blonde
hair. The Levant is not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, these people are well in the
phenotypical spectrum of most Mediterranean people, like Greeks, Italians,
Turks or Lebanese people.

------
johnny313
Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at UNC Chapel Hill wrote a
decent book on the question of whether or not there was a historical Jesus. He
does a good job talking through the arguments on both sides, and covers the
history of the argument. He did an interview about the topic on NPR a few
years ago: [https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-
a-h...](https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-
makes-his-case)

~~~
jaypeg25
I'm currently reading Zealot by Reza Aslan, which doesn't really debate
whether or not there was a historical Jesus, but discusses the differences in
fact vs the bible.

I highly recommend it.

~~~
analog31
I read it, and was disappointed. The book could only get so close to Jesus as
to speculate what a person living during that time period might have been
like, and what some of the prevailing social issues were.

~~~
Synaesthesia
I thought it was a good book, as he says, he's not presenting anything new or
controversial to biblical scholars, but I (as a layperson) learned a lot about
Christianity, and now understand it better - how it went from being a weird
Jewish sect to the imperial religion of Rome.

Just finished The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical
World by Catherine Nixey, which documents the destruction of statues, temples
and artworks by Christians in the years 300-500AD in Europe. Also recommended!

~~~
FranzFerdiNaN
Unfortunately Nixey’s book is terrible. As a classisist she should know better
than to regurgitate ideas from Gibbon, ignoring 200 years of scholarship.
Instead she goes for sensationalism, “evil Christians destroying classical
culture” and links to ISIS and such. Which isn’t needed because the period she
describes is interesting enough on its own.

The book is so terrible a collection of reviews from historians can be found
here: [https://gegrammena.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/reactions-
review...](https://gegrammena.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/reactions-reviews-to-
catherine-nixeys-the-darkening-age-eeuwen-van-duisternis/) .

I especially like this article ([https://www.roger-
pearse.com/weblog/2017/10/21/hunting-the-w...](https://www.roger-
pearse.com/weblog/2017/10/21/hunting-the-wild-misquotation-again-the-perils-
for-the-author-of-not-verifying-your-quotations/)), focusing on how she
misused a quote from Chrysostom by removing all context, which completely
changed the meaning to fit her narrative. Not only that, she clearly didn’t
read the original source but borrowed the interpretation from another author,
who also misread it.

------
barberousse
Isn't it fascinating how _little_ Paul refers to Jesus' own biographical life
though? We know that the gospels are likely younger than Paul's letters and
that Paul is one of the earliest missionaries to the Gentile world. And when
we read Paul's letters, they're far more direct and practical in content than
everything else in the NT. So is it that over time, as early Christian's
earliest leaders died out, a fascination with just _who_ this Christ was
vivified? As well, wouldn't this dating make Paul's letters the most
authoritative liturgical documents?

~~~
gtycomb
> Isn't it fascinating how _little_ Paul refers to Jesus' own biographical
> life though?

This comes to mind. In my early school years, a bunch of us kids were really
close. We did so many things together at school and all summer in our
neighborhood. However it is fascinating to me now that we didn't share
anything about our Moms, Dads or Grandparents, the people in our background we
were closest to. All of that was implicit, there were no need to discuss the
daily lives of ones we knew intimately and loved us so much. So with Paul, I'd
think. After all Paul studied under Gamaliel and he would have known how to
research and share with the world the biographical details of a subject beyond
what people just knew from the Gospels, or word of mouth, at least (they must
have known more as they all lived closer to the events). What I am getting at
is, he just preached what that really mattered for him.

------
Mikeb85
Considering there's plenty of traditional depictions of Jesus from middle
eastern churches that date back to Greco-Roman Palestine, I don't see why we
shouldn't assume those are relatively close to what he would have looked like,
considering that's the culture and region he came from.

Example:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulc...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#/media/File:Jerusalem_Holy_Sepulchre_BW_15.JPG)

Slightly curly hair, dark hair, dark eyes, beard, seems about right for a Jew
living in 1st century Greco-Roman Palestine.

~~~
abrowne
Because not all art is intended to be accurate — it might be symbolic. The
linked example shows blue/purple clothes, which were limited to the elite.
Like the article says, this is used to show a royal status, not that it was
what he actually wore.

~~~
Mikeb85
And the earliest Christian art was almost entirely symbolic - fish, lambs,
wheel cross, chi-rho, etc...

Even if elements of iconography are symbolic, they could have easily made
Jesus look any way they want, yet the standard 'Byzantine' Jesus icon gives
him dark features and slightly curled hair. Seems close enough, and none of
the earliest art (either purely symbolic or very Roman - possibly to hide from
persecution) seems any more accurate.

------
sgt101
Fun google - "jesus magic wand" because... for early Christians Jesus often
had a magic wand!

~~~
zozbot123
"On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution
took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned
because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who
can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.'
But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve
of Passover. Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence
could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says,
Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however
it was different, for he was connected with the government."

~~~
goliatone
Where is that quote from?

~~~
gpvos
A quick web search reveals that it is from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin
43a.

------
mirimir
> That Jesus was a Jew (or Judaean) is certain in that it is found repeated in
> diverse literature, including in the letters of Paul. And, as the Letter to
> the Hebrews states: "It is clear that our Lord was descended from Judah."

True enough, it seems.

But what about Muhammad? From what little I know, he was neither Jewish nor
Christian. Before founding Islam, I mean. But it seems pretty clear that he
worshiped the same god.

In other words, what was the main Arab religion before Islam? I'm guessing
that it was something like Judaism. Indeed, maybe there were many forks.

~~~
ComputerGuru
> In other words, what was the main Arab religion before Islam? I'm guessing
> that it was something like Judaism. Indeed, maybe there were many forks.

Pre-Islamic Arab society was largely polytheistic, with pockets of Jewish
tribes and smatterings of individual Christian and Zoroastrian priests
representing the monotheistic element, the latter largely either as immigrants
to the Arabian peninsula or via the influence of foreign traders, etc.

When the prophet Muhammad emigrated from Makkah to escape economic and
physical persecution at the hands of the Quraish Arabs, he moved with his
followers (or rather, having already his sent his followers ahead of him) to
Madinah (then known as Yathrib) which was home to, among others, two Jewish
tribes.

~~~
mirimir
Ah, this is exactly what I wanted to know!

From Anwar-ul-Quran:[0]

> Quraish was the name of our Holy Prophet’s tribe. Makkah did not possess
> cultivable land. It lay in a valley surrounded by barren hillsides — a land
> that was devoid of food and so its livelihood depended on trade. ...

> As they were the guardians of the Ka‘bah they were treated with great
> respect by all Arabia.

And from Wikipedia:[1]

> Ibn Kathir, the famous commentator on the Quran, mentions two
> interpretations among the Muslims on the origin of the Kaaba. One is that
> the shrine was a place of worship for Angels before the creation of man.
> Later, a house of worship was built on the location by Adam and Eve which
> was lost during the flood in Noah's time and was finally rebuilt by Abraham
> and Ishmael as mentioned later in the Quran. Ibn Kathir regarded this
> tradition as weak and preferred instead the narration by Ali ibn Abi Talib
> that although several other temples might have preceded the Kaaba, it was
> the first "House of God", dedicated solely to Him, built by His instruction
> and sanctified and blessed by Him as stated in Quran 22:26–29. A Hadith in
> Sahih al-Bukhari states that the Kaaba was the First Mosque on Earth, and
> the Second Mosque was the Temple in Jerusalem.

> While Abraham was building the Kaaba, ...

So yes, they and the Hebrews were siblings.

0)
[http://www.muslim.org/islam/anwarqur/ch106.htm](http://www.muslim.org/islam/anwarqur/ch106.htm)

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba)

------
foofoo55
I remember National Geographic Magazine had an article on exactly this, and
reach the same conclusion, a decade or two ago. I'm not a subscriber so I
can't search their archives (anyone?). However, they do have a nice list of
depictions of Jesus:

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/jesus-
portrayals...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/jesus-
portrayals/grid/)

------
dvh
Do we even know he was a real person and not combination of 2 or 3 men with
similar fate?

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
No, although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua
son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious
upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough
description of Jesus was behind it is not. The history of Christianity doesn’t
really start in earnest for hundreds of years after the supposed death of
Christ in any case.

People today can’t even agree on the details of Elvis’ life... now imagine if
Elvis had lived a few hundred years ago, and we’re all working from
quaternary+ sources. Then fast-forward a thousand or so years of very
intentional document editing and re-editing, translations and re-translations,
and all of the incredible wealth and power hinging on it for centuries.

How accurate would accounts from those times be expected to be?

~~~
vivekd
>although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son
of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals
occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of
Jesus was behind it is not

That doesn't seem quite fair because it's almost certain that the guy named
Jesus was not behind the upheavals of that time. That was about the Jewish
revolt against the Romans which Jesus was not involved in at all. Also, while
Christianity didn't start in earnest until about two hundred years after
Jesus' death, stories of his life were written down as early as 60 years after
his death.

It's very difficult in a society like ancient Israel to fake the existence of
a person, people had clan allegiances, they kept track of genealogies and
would be able to tell right away if the writings concerned someone who didn't
exist.

There were translations but that's irrelevant because we have the original
dead sea scrolls with the earliest ones dating to a few decades after his
death. A time when wealth and power did not hinge on this. We're not solely
working with edits and re-translations.

I think there's a bias against religious figures that inform people's
arguments when they say it's all uncertain - when in reality the evidence is
pretty good that he did exist.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
Details of his life may have been written down then, but the sources we have
aren’t those sources, just edited and translated retellings of those supposed
stories with about 1800 years of politically and religiously motivated games
of telephone between us and them. I have to ask, the Dead Sea Scrolls date
from between about a century before Jesus’ purported life, to about a century
after his death and as far as I know make no mention of him. I wasn’t claiming
that the language is somehow untranslatable, but that we don’t have anything
like contemporary sources, only people who hundreds of years later claim to
have access to those sources.

------
cup
Probably looked more like Osama bin Laden than white Jesus.

~~~
dorchadas
I had a white blonde hair, blue eyed student ask me what I thought Jesus
looked like the other day. After first clarifying that Jesus wasn't a
Christian, but a Jew, I proceeded to say he probably looked more like bin
Laden than the student. Needless to say, this student from the backwoods
American South was _not_ happy with that, but I thought it was hilarious.

------
owens99
A more important question is whether or not there is a historical Jesus at
all. Richard Carrier has done some of the best work on questioning this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M)

Did Christianity really begin without a Jesus?

------
bitforger
Is it just me or does that last Jesus look like Shia Labeouf

~~~
coldtea
He (Shia) is half-Jewish as well, and has several middle-eastern traits, so it
makes sense a depiction of what people looked/look like in the region to have
some common elements.

------
sigi45
"What Jesus could have looked like?"

------
sigi45
I never understood why people are so fascinated by some theories and spend so
much time on it.

Bermuda triangle, jesus and loch ness monster don't become more interesting
when we decorate those stories with more theories which can't be proven.

I'm always thinking that this might just be the reason why those stories are
still around. People just don't stop. they continue to extend it small little
piece by piece.

~~~
dvt
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. that Jesus is comparable to the Loch
Ness monster (an urban legend)? No serious historian (secular or otherwise)
doubts the historicity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His divinity is obviously
a matter of faith, but Jesus was certainly a real human being that was born
and eventually was crucified around 30 AD.

~~~
sigi45
Yes he is. There is no proof that the Jesus existed.

We have more effidence on thousand real existing people. Less fames perhaps
but propper people.

~~~
FranzFerdiNaN
There is no reason to assume Jesus was not real. This issue was closed by
historians over a hundred years ago and never has there been thrown any new
light that puts it into doubt. It’s only fringe people with specific agendas,
who always seem to lack the skills and knowledge to work with the sources, who
claim otherwise.

For a good overview of why historians know Jesus existed you should read John
P. Meier - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The
Roots of the Problem and the Person.

------
malvosenior
Anyone interested in this should check out the podcast series Historical Jesus
from Stanford:

[https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-
jesus/id38423...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-
jesus/id384233911?mt=2)

tldr; there probably wasn't a Jesus and there is no evidence to support his
existence.

~~~
antidesitter
That seems to contradict the consensus among historians [1]:

> Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the
> standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of
> Jesus is effectively certain although they differ about the beliefs and
> teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that
> have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus
> scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with
> very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of
> Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

Can you point to where the podcast makes such a claim?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)

~~~
benatkin
This is one of those times trusting Wikipedia is laughable.

Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive,
yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how
wrong it is.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia)

~~~
anjbe
What, then, is the consensus view among New Testament scholars and Near East
historians of the historicity of Jesus?

~~~
hughrlomas
What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of
homeopathic "medicine"?

A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation
doesn't make it credible.

~~~
anjbe
> What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of
> homeopathic "medicine"?

Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of
Christians versus non‐Christians in that field?

Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be
suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some
scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth
listening to. So what’s _their_ consensus on the historicity of Jesus?

~~~
malvosenior
Did you listen to the history podcast in my original comment? He presents a
very strong case for there not being a Jesus. Everyone keeps saying there’s
some sort of consensus on his existence yet I’ve posted a very thorough
argument that argues the opposite. Last I checked, Stanford was pretty
reputable.

~~~
antidesitter
See my top-level comment. There _is_ a historical consensus on Jesus’
existence and some basic facts about his life (with wide disagreement beyond
that).

And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked
to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.

~~~
owens99
This article does a great job of explaining why you should question that
consensus.

[https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553](https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553)

------
moneytide1
Not sure what he looked like, but it doesn't matter to me. I see him as a
philosopher before the Gutenberg press that was not associated with the
Pharisees (established philosophical order). There have been many Jesus
personalities throughout history, every religion has one as a voice to convey
useful advice.

He gave such good advice about how to navigate hardships without the pressure
of tithing that he has since been revered as supernatural.

\--5,000 fed with 5 loaves and 2 fish:

I used to think everyone was fed "magically" with whole portions. Now I
realize it was a communal exercise, and the lesson learned was how to share
and make sure everyone gets an equal piece (even though everyone just got a
small crumb).

\--Water to wine

Once again, as a child I thought he violated laws of physics. Alcohol is a
depressant and excessive use can hinder productivity of the citizenry. Under
the advisement of Jesus, the man without ties to the Church, word spread to
replace wine with water. Water to wine; pez to Xanex.

\--The poor woman and the blind man

I recall one story where there was a poor woman without food, and Jesus was
able to scrounge up enough flour from her own storage containers to produce a
meal. Once again, thought it was magic. But he came into her home and helped
her assess her resources.

Mud on the blind mans eyes? Impossible to cure blindness like that - but he
wasn't literally blind. Unfortunate circumstances likely provoked a depression
that pushed him into pretending to be blind and beg - free money. Not the way
an able bodied citizen should behave. The revered Jesus came to him and
performed a ceremony with the audience consisting of locals that had walked by
the blind beggar every day. Now he is "cured" in front of all and he can end
the act safely using Jesus' supernatural status as a catalyst. Probably got a
job the same day - no more begging. Productivity of the village slightly
improved.

Lazarus "raised from dead" is another example of this - a depressed guy
shutting out the world could be considered dead. Jesus brings him back to the
tribe. Another able-bodied person returning to the economy.

If we assume religion is an early form of software engineering used to instill
practical economic ideals and morals into society through simple parables and
metaphors: Jesus was the software update everyone was ready for, but had to be
killed off because embezzlement-prone-tithing-proceeds were probably being
threatened. This kind of sacrifice effectively locked in his doctrines.

~~~
OldFatCactus
you read those passages and reimagined their intent and delivery? I don't
think any christian I've ever met has come to such conclusions. I think
generally they see the miracles as proof of his divinity

~~~
moneytide1
The intent and delivery of my interpretation is to take a familiar person that
is particularly sought out this time of year and bring up issues I've been
noticing in the region I am currently exploring.

------
scoot_718
Not a historical figure, so good luck.

------
lifeformed
I think depicting Jesus as attractive is a reasonable assumption. A young,
charismatic leader seems more likely than the average person to be attractive,
or at least distinct looking.

But of course, not the blond hair blue eyes thing.

~~~
luord
For what it's worth, I agree. Siddhartha is said to have been attractive,
there's no reason to think his analogues like Muhammad or Jesus weren't.

------
mgamache
Richard Carrier has made a decent case against a historical Jesus, but I'm not
a scholar. On the other side, Bart D. Ehrman is an atheist who backs a
historical Jesus. If he was based on a real person, The Jesus we know is like
a Hollywood biography where the story was 'based on actual events' but was
exaggerated beyond recognition for rhetorical impact. It's allegorical
fiction.

~~~
mgamache
I am not sure why I got downvoted. Mark is the oldest of the Gospels. The
others, especially Matthew and Luke are just derivative works. They are
anonymous embellishments of anonymous writing that was never meant as
historical record. They were meant to convey the basic ideas to a non-
christian populations.

~~~
owens99
People fighting back because the truth hurts.

------
joseph8th
According to John Allegro, of Dead Sea Scrolls fame (among other more recent
scholars), he looked like this:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria)

~~~
freyir
From Wikipedia:

Allegro argued that Jesus in the Gospels was in fact a code for a type of
hallucinogen, the Amanita muscaria, and that Christianity was the product of
an ancient "sex-and-mushroom" cult. Critical reaction was swift and harsh:
fourteen British scholars (including Allegro's mentor at Oxford, Godfrey
Driver) denounced it. Sidnie White Crawford wrote of the publication of Sacred
Mushroom, "Rightly or wrongly, Allegro would never be taken seriously as a
scholar again."

~~~
kmlx
much more probable than what various religions tell us.

------
starbeast
He looked like a mushroom, obviously.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross)

But an actual mushroom, not a human shaped mushroom like Lenin became.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_was_a_mushroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_was_a_mushroom)

