3 ms·

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

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_Sepulchre#/media/File:Jerusalem_Holy_Sepulchre_BW_15.JPG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulc... Slightly curly hair, dark hair, dark eyes, beard, seems about right for a Jew living in 1st century Greco-Roman Palestine.

abrowne 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.