The Truth About Jesus' Physical Appearance in The Gospels | John Nelson

Why don't the Gospels describe what Jesus looked like?

In this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, Daniel Mikkelsen sits down with John Nelson, New Testament scholar and author of Jesus' Physical Appearance, to explore one of the Bible's intriguing mysteries.

Ancient biographies were obsessed with physical appearance—using it to reveal character through physiognomy. Yet the Gospel writers, who clearly knew Greco-Roman biographical conventions, deliberately omit any description of what Jesus physically looked like. Why?

John walks through the Greek text, ancient biographical conventions, and Jewish Scripture to show this wasn't accidental—it was intentional. He explores what the Greek word τέκτων (tektōn) reveals about Jesus' occupation (hint: probably not just a carpenter), the hidden wordplay in John's Gospel that's invisible in English, and what we can actually know about Jesus' historical appearance.

This matters beyond academics. If the Gospels challenge our image-obsessed world by refusing to describe Jesus' looks, what does that teach us about character, incarnation, and how we see Christ in one another?

📖 John's Book: Jesus' Physical Appearance: Biography, Christology and Physiology 👉 https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/jesus-physical-appearance-9780567723208/

📘 Free Greek Guide — 'Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward' Discover common pitfalls in learning biblical Greek and Daniel's three-step framework to read with confidence. 👉 https://ntgreektutoring.com/why-struggle-with-greek

Don't Miss the Next Episode: 

Daniel welcomes Danillo Augustus Santos to discuss the overlooked topic of  the priesthood of believers in Paul's letters?

Chapters

00:00 Coming Up...

01:03 Meet John Nelson: The Scholar Who Studies What Jesus Looked Like

04:06 From Pastor's Kid to Greek Scholar: John's Journey

08:40 How Greek Unlocks Hidden Depths in Scripture

12:04 The "Butterfly Fallacy": Why Greek Isn't a Secret Code

14:48 Was Jesus Actually a Carpenter? What the Greek Really Says

19:58 The Genius Wordplay Hidden in John's Gospel

25:11 The Mystery: Why No One Describes What Jesus Looked Like

30:38 Ancient Biographies Were Obsessed With Looks—But Not the Gospels

34:59 What the Gospel Writers Intentionally Left Out

41:24 What We Actually Know About Jesus' Appearance

47:43 Isaiah 53: Did It Really Predict an Ugly Messiah?

51:41 The Transfiguration: Almost Describing Jesus—But Not Quite

55:26 Why Jesus' Resurrected Body Remains Mysterious

01:01:20 Zacchaeus: Who Was Actually Short in This Story?

01:07:37 Why Jesus' Character Matters More Than His Looks

Music Credits:

Music from #

If you enjoyed this episode of Exploring the Language of Scripture, please consider becoming an Explorer! Your support helps keep the podcast ad-free, allows us to bring in more guests, and enhances the content we create. By joining our Explorer community, you’ll receive exclusive benefits, including Q&As, priority for Greek tutoring applications, and discounts on tutoring. Explore more and join the Explorer programme here: Become an Explorer. 

Podcast Keywords:
biblical languages, New Testament, Old Testament, Christ, bible study,  Relationship with God, learn biblical languages, Biblical Theology, Christianity, Covenants, New covenant, old covenant, language acquisition, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew.

Transcript

0:00

It's very weird that we don't have a description of Jesus in the gospels. And I just kind of wanted to explore why is that? The ancient world was physiognomically saturated. What is physiognomy? It's this art of discerning someone's nature from their outward appearance. Loads of people in antiquity believed that you could do this. The evangelists are the only biographers that I've come across in antiquity who don't describe their subject's appearance at all. Jesus is described in the Greek as a tectone, which has been translated carphenter, but tectones are people who are working with hard materials. Was Jesus maybe a builder? When the gospel writers depart from the conventions, they're often following biblical narrative ones instead. And I think this is how you can explain many of the differences. I think that the gospels present a challenge. to our kind of image obsessed world. I think that they could have so easily leaned in and they don't do that. Welcome back to another episode of Exploring a Language of Scripture, brought to you by NT Greek Tutoring, the place for personalized Greek learning in your spare time. I'm your host, Daniel Mikkelsen, the founder of NT Greek Tutoring and a PhD candidate in New Testament at the University of Edinburgh. And this podcast exists to make gems from biblical studies accessible to everyday Christians and show how the biblical languages opens up scripture. Our aim is to increase your love for God and his word so that you become more joyful witnesses for his mission. And today I'm delighted and honored to have to be joined by John Nelson on the podcast. John holds a PhD in New Testament and Christian origins from the University of Edinburgh. Before that, John completed an MSt in New Testament from University of Oxford, and he has an undergrad from the University of Nottingham. John also runs the blog Behind the Gospel, aiming to make academic scholarship accessible to a wider audience, and he is the producer of the podcast. Biblical Time Machine. And his doctoral research explored a unique and often overlooked question, Jesus' physical appearance. This research has recently been published in the prestigious Liberty of New Testament Studies series by T&T Clark under the title Jesus' Physical Appearance, Biography, Christology and Philosophy. And in today's conversation we will be exploring this fascinating and often neglected question some people might find it little bit odd, but I think it will be fascinating discussion. What does the Bible, what does the Gospel say and not say about Jesus' physical appearance? We will look at how the Gospel writers handle this theme and compare them with other ancient biographies and consider what that means for our understanding of Jesus and for our faith. And if you're curious about this and the biblical evidence, how that biblical evidence fits together, then stay tuned for that. And on a more personal note, I had the privilege to get to know John here in Edinburgh em as our PhD research overlap for about two years at New College. And John was one of the first people to actually welcome me into the community. And I'm deeply appreciate that. And I also appreciate our many conversations since then. So it's a great pleasure to have you on the podcast today, John. Welcome here. thank you so much, Daniel. I've actually, you can't see in the shot, but I've actually got my milkman Edinburgh mug. And I remember one of our first conversations was in the milkman, I think. So a great, a great coffee shop in a great coffee shop city. So, um yeah, it's just great to be here and lovely to see you again. Yeah, wonderful. Yeah. If you ever had Edinburgh, you want a decent cup of coffee, the milkman would be... Well, you need to take the top shop, not the bottom one. Yes, definitely. Yeah, Anyways, anything else you want to add before we jump into some questions? No, no, let's get right into it. Yeah. Sure. em As biblical languages are foundational for this podcast, let's start with your personal journey. How did you get into the study of biblical languages? Yeah, I, I think you know this about me. I'm a pastor's kid at PK. Um, and I, I just, you know, I had something of a, I'm not sure if I would call it a conversion experience, but it was something of that sort. I was raised in a sort of evangelical context and I was baptized when I was 13 and, I just fell in love with the Bible, um, after that experience and, And I was, I was always just so excited to, to listen to a sermon in which someone would say the original Greek says X, Y, Z. because it just felt like you were peeling back the layers and getting closer to, the meaning of the text. And so that really inspired me. I, I didn't want to do a traditional theology program. I wanted to study the Bible. But I also wanted to do it critically as well. So I went to the University of Nottingham where they just brought out this new program called biblical studies and theology. So that was kind of my introduction to the biblical languages. And I had a great, great tutor there, Dr. Peter Watts. yeah, and that I sort of fell in love probably more with Greek than with Hebrew. I have always struggled with my Hebrew and... Mmm. think especially working on New Testament, obviously you need the languages, but uh I'm definitely more rusty with the Hebrew than with the Greek. yeah, yeah, to be honest, my Hebrew is also not as good as I wanted it to be. so I feel with you in that. Yeah. Yeah, so as you've been reading the biblical languages, em how have you have knowing them opened up scripture for you? Hmm. I think, I think in a few ways, I think, especially in the context of, studying the Bible, I think what biblical languages do is they kind of give you an autonomy. think what sometimes frustrated me growing up was just maybe, what, what, what frustrated me when I started studying the Bible was the feeling like I'd only been taught maybe one side of something. Um, and I really, I mean, this was part of my sort of theological motivation to study the Bible at university was, know, is any of this true? You know, you know, I want to sort of widen my horizons. And I think the biblical languages are just a fantastic way of doing that. think, um, it's not necessarily that we're all going to become linguists because I definitely wouldn't consider myself to be a linguist, but I think, um, learning, you know, learning from a grammar, you know, learning your basics, even I know a little Greek is a dangerous thing, but even learning the basics gives you a kind of autonomy to approach the text. And I think that's, think that was what was really exciting because suddenly you, you see the complexity of ancient languages. You see how much we don't know or how much is just a little bit confusing and I think what's been really lovely is the way that it's opened me up to different perspectives. know, every translation of the Bible is an interpretation of the Bible. You know, every translation has made interpretive moves. And if you don't sort of take autonomy for yourself, you are always going to be beholden to the interpretive moves of other people. Um, so I think that was what was really, really powerful for me is. Just gaining this sense that scripture is so much more exciting than I ever imagined it to be because there's so much debate about its interpretation. And what learning the Bible does is just really as what learning the biblical languages does is allow you to wade into that debate as an individual. So I think that was probably the really exciting thing for me about learning Greek. Yeah, yeah, I can definitely resonate with that. And yeah, I think it's important that you mentioned that every interpretation is, oh sorry, every translation is an interpretation. So I think it's also important sometimes to say an interpretation can be accurate or not accurate. em So yes, exactly. But at least in English, you're blessed with many different interpretations which means more translations which means that that even if you don't have the biblical languages you can you can see that the perspective or the different things and sometimes get a little bit closer than then you would be able to from my mother tongue danish where we only have a couple em so that's where it becomes more difficult to to assert because if there is only two maybe three translations, then what perspective is left out or what nuances are left out, I can still get the message and for learning and understanding on who Jesus is, the translations are perfectly accurate. But as you mentioned, think that you just can get that wider perspective, that deepness and reality by by actually knowing the biblical languages and knowing, this is why people have these, why this word is translated five different ways. Why is that? And why is it that sometimes the Bible translation smoothing something out that is actually not necessarily clear? em I came to think of, yeah, think of Kendall Davis, we both know Kendall, and he mentions that that there is actually sometimes intentional ambiguity, for example, with Jesus's when he is in the temple and he's gone, he disappeared and he says this to his mother, I can't remember the exact translation in English, that I am in my father's house. I'm supposed to be in my father's house. And I think in the actual Greek, is a little bit more ambiguous, there's more ambiguity than there is in the English translation actually. Interesting. you wanted to say something as well. no, I just going to say that I also think it gives us, it gives us an appreciation for, you know, unity amongst diversity as well in the church, because obviously we're not all reading the text in same way. We are sometimes genuinely just going to disagree about what these texts mean. It's a very complex task. I think, so I think rather than confusing our singular interpretations for, you know, this timeless meaning. we actually just, we wrestle with the text. I think that's one of the great things about the Jewish tradition. Obviously Israel, you know, is translated to mean, you know, he who wrestles with God. And I think I love sort of seeing scripture as this fertile place from which there are many wrestlings in many different contexts. And I think learning the biblical languages helps to give us an appreciation of that. I think learning the biblical languages can also be pretty annoying as well because you will also see people doing things with the biblical languages, which are not always very fun. oh I think a classic example is when you might hear someone say something like, you know, the church is the ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia). So an ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia) is from two words, know, ἐκ that preposition, 'out of' and καλέω'to call'. So the church are the called out one. You know, and you kind of think no one does this with this is not how language works Okay, the meaning of the word is not determined by by its sort of compound etymology I mean if you think about a butterfly, okay, if I told you what is a butterfly? I don't think you would be able to reconstruct the meaning of the word butterfly from its constituent parts and so I think sometimes we fall into traps and I think just like recognizing that Greek is not this magical talisman, you know, that you can kind of decode. It's not the Bible code. It's actually, it's actually, it's a language and it works as other languages work. So, although in its own distinctive ways. So that's, that's, that's maybe the flip side of this is, okay, it opens us up to all these new interpretations, but there's also, it will also show us how, how other interpretations of words just simply are not. are not correct. Yeah. yeah, and this is a classic fallacy, etymological fallacy this one you brings up here. em But, and I think that that is correct, when you actually, we need to understand that Greek is not a specially divine language or something like that, that we can do things with, we don't, whatever do to other language. Yeah. Yeah. will not criticize the Portuguese translation of the Bible because I don't know Portuguese. I can't do that. I would never do that. for some reason that seems like if people have an interlinear, which is the worst tool on earth, but in my opinion, em I know Tim Murray learned Greek from it. So they can be used for good things. eh And they will go and they will say, this word means this. And then they will look it up and then they will make all sorts of fallacies because they don't think of it as a normal language, which I think you perfectly pointed out. So we don't have to tread that mill more, but maybe you can get a little bit more specific and you might have to have an actual example where you've seen something in the original that you didn't see in translation. Yeah, I think maybe we'll talk about this later, but I think for me, a lot of it is about vocabulary and the choices we make in translation. A classic example, and maybe we can talk about this later as well, is in reference to Jesus's occupation. Jesus is described in the Greek as a τέκτων (tektōn), which classically has been translated carpenter. There's all these books about Jesus as a carpenter and all this speculation about what exactly he might've been doing. But I mean, that's an example where we've narrowed the meaning of a word and to the point where it's probably overly specific. And I think most historians of Jesus would say that actually, tectones are people who are working with hard materials. So they are maybe working with wood, yes, which is where we get the carpentry thing from, but also maybe working from stone as well. It's interesting that in Nazareth there is a stone quarry just outside of the town. I mean, gives us, know, say if we think about the language as it's actually used, then it gives us just imaginative possibilities for what Jesus might have been doing in his everyday life, you know, as we think about the incarnation. And I think it just, yeah, it opens that up in some quite sort of intriguing ways. mean, in the in protean of James, which admittedly is a second century text, but it imagines Joseph as a builder, I think a builder of buildings, you know. So was was Jesus maybe a builder? Is that why when his disciples go, look, master, look at all these wonderful stones, you know, are they going to the kind of are they going to the person who works with these materials? I don't know. It sort of adds just a richness and a humanity to the text. which we might, and also which we might overlook, but also it allows us to sort of look at the whole Christian tradition, which is accrued over it, and to look at that tradition more critically. Obviously with something as, you know, trivial as Jesus's occupation, maybe that doesn't sort of affect the sort of theology of the church or anything, but it's still just an example of the way in which learning a language might. might change your interpretation of something. Yeah, I think that's very helpful. I remember, think it is Tzipori, which is a village or a city, I guess it was, I don't know how big it was at the time of Jesus, which is not too far from Nazareth. And I was there when I was there in 2016. Our guide was sort of like suggesting that maybe Jesus was a stone worker because that's how they build houses. Mmm, yeah. they actually was because this city was built around that time. Yeah, a lot of people have said that Jesus might have worked in Sepphoris, you know, which is kind of four kilometers north. And that, you know, there's a sort of Greek style theater there and maybe he was involved in the construction of that. Some people go so far to say that, this term that keeps popping up in the gospels, you know, ὑποκριτής (hupokritēs), I mean, there's another interesting Greek word because it can be used to mean actor. So a hypocrite is an actor. At the same time, I think we've got to be very careful because obviously, I think Jesus was probably, his primary language was Aramaic and I'm not sure how much Greek he would have had. But it does open up these possibilities and it's interesting. Yeah, it's fascinating to think about it. Yeah, ὑποκριτής (hupokritēs) or... It's interesting because at least with that word, we can kind of understand why a hypocrite would be someone acting. You can understand the connection is that you see someone on the screen... And you think that that person is, we've all done that. It was like, this guy is this, but then they're actually just an actor. And they're not really like that. And that's exactly the point with a hypocrite is that they are trying to be someone that they're not. Or they are saying something that they don't actually believe. So in that sense, I think that gives depth to the meaning, knowing that reality. Yeah it does, definitely. Learning New Testament Greek can be a real challenge. If that's been your experience, I've put together a free PDF guide called Why Learning Greek Could Be a Struggle and How to Move Forward. Inside you'll find the most common pitfalls and my simple three step framework to help you start reading Greek with more confidence. Get your free copy today by clicking the link in the description below or the pinned comment. Now back to the episode. Yeah, perhaps we, I would just say you've spent a lot of time paving through the Greek of the Gospels in particular, without giving too much away with what we'll be talking about just in a moment. Maybe you could say something about, what you've seen something about Jesus' ministry in the Greek that enhanced your understanding that you did not pick up in translation. Yeah, um I think something is, I was just thinking then of John's Gospel where Jesus talks about being born ἄνωθεν (anōthen), you know, sort of being born again or born from above, you know, and that wordplay takes place only in the Greek. it kind of like Nicodemus goes on to misunderstand Jesus. Yeah. because he's kind of like, you know, how can you be sort of, you know, born again? It doesn't really make sense, but there's already this kind of double entendre going on in the Greek, which is really interesting. And then that term appears in a couple of other places where it always has this kind of split meaning that like there uh is a literal meaning, which is a mistaken meaning. And then there is the sort of symbolic meaning, which is the kind of the true meaning. So I think in Jesus relating to Jesus' physical appearance in the crucifixion scene in John, it says that he's got this garment which is woven from above. immediately we're like, oh, I've heard this phrase, ἄνωθεν (anōthen), a couple of times before in the narrative, and there it's always got this dual meaning. So I'm going to look for a dual meaning here. And if you look for a dual meaning here, Okay, you've got this, the physical meaning is just like, this is a garment that's been woven from above. But then if you look for a kind of spiritual or theological meaning, okay, what, what, what is that? And there are lots of proposals, you know, is it that this is the kind of, this is the way that high priestly tunics were constructed in which Augustine is right that Jesus is both the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world when he dives them across, but he's also the priest who offers himself as sacrificial victim. So that's one possibility. Another possibility is that people have seen the seamless tunic because there are all these symbols of unity within it as a kind of symbol of the unity of the church. Because John has already said that when Jesus is lifted up, he's going to call all to himself. Then you have the four soldiers who take his garments, being this symbol of universality. You you think of the four corners, the four ends of the earth. And so is it that in this moment of crucifixion, the unity of the church is woven from above? is God creating this unity through the death of Jesus. So, I mean, these interpretations are all debated, but I think it's just one of these things where I think you could easily miss that if you were reading this in translation, because obviously those translations just do many different things. And I mean, a similar thing happens in John with the term μένω (meno), you know, because μένω (meno) is like abide. um It's about abiding in God, abiding in Christ. But it's translated all these different words in in uh John, you know, it's also translated remain. And so if you you don't get that sort of rhythmic resonance that you would get if you were reading it in a Greek text. um And I mean, John, for example, is someone who doesn't actually have a, it doesn't seem like the text uses a very wide vocabulary. So you're going to get like refrains coming up again and again and again, and you're going to miss those. If some translator has gone, no, I need to make this a little bit more exciting and mix it up a bit, um, by translating the same Greek word with multiple English words. And so that's a kind of, I think that takes away from the rhythm. Maybe, you know, you were telling me earlier that you've started listening to the text. If you were listening to the text, these texts would be primarily listened to, not read. Most people are, you know, almost completely illiterate in the ancient world. So you're going to be, you're going to be hearing these texts. I think, yeah, that's one of the things that you're going to, you're going to notice is the rhythm of the text of certain, the same Greek word appearing where we would translate different English words. Yeah, I think that that's helpful. It's good reason why we should learn the languages. To see some of these stylistic things and sometimes these stylistic things carry more meaning, m which maybe ἄνωθεν (anōthen) does at several points and John, which is, I think that's a very helpful example. Yeah. But maybe you should have into your book. Maybe you should show your book so people can see it. got it here. So here it is. It's the blue and white and red LNTS. Yes. But why did you choose to study Jesus' physical appearance rather than something else in the Gospels? Hmm. Well, I didn't really want to study the physical appearance of Jesus. I thought I was going to do a PhD on Mark as a parody of ancient biographies because I was really interested in this whole question of ancient biography. Just fascinated by it. My first essay at Nottingham was Are the Gospels Greco-Roman Biographies? And then I wrote another essay at Oxford on this question of like Mark as parodying ancient biographies. just like... fascinating the idea that, you know, the gospels did not literally fall from heaven. They are, they use the literary forms of their own time. And um this gospel, there is no such thing as a gospel genre. You know, they are writing narratives of an individual, which is something that lots of people start doing in the first century. It has its origins way back in the fourth century, fifth century Greek literature. But It's just fascinating to me that these are Greco-Roman biographies. So, but I was also always a little bit uncomfortable with that because when you go to Greco-Roman biographies, you find all of these things that you don't find in the gospels and you find things in the gospels that you don't find in Greco-Roman biographies. And so it's like, but this is a fluid genre. So the question is how are the gospels adapting biography and why don't they do some of the things that other biographies do? So my supervisor, Bond, to me, why don't you write an essay on the ways in which Mark is unconventional as an ancient biography? And the first 2000 words of that essay were on the omission of physical appearance. And Helen said to me, that is your PhD thesis. So I just, and then I sort of blew that up into the thesis. yeah, so that's how I came to it. Like in my first term at Edinburgh, I just struck on this thing about physical appearance and just realized that there was a lot to talk about. Because it's something that a lot of people do find it striking that the gospels don't describe Jesus' physical traits at least, um or give a kind of general or more detailed physiognomic description. So, you know, the ancient world was physionomically saturated. There's a fun word actually that probably does relate to its etymology, know, phusis, nature, and nomon, know, the discerning, the judging. So what is physiognomy? It's this art, this kind of pseudoscience of discerning someone's nature from their outward appearance. Loads of people in antiquity believed that you could do this. You could do this with a lot of precision. You know, if I, I don't know, if I saw that you had a sort of lion like beard, I might associate lions with courage and I might say, Daniel, you are so courageous. So, you know, you can see how it kind of works. You know, it's this sort of deductive project, but there's also a kind of common sense physiognomy as well, which is just like, you know, beautiful is good. You know, talk about, you know, Kalos, Kagathia, you know, the beautiful and the good. So that which is that very Greek ideal. So those were the ideals of the ancient world. It's very weird that we don't have a description of Jesus in the Gospels. And I just kind of wanted to explore why is that? And that's basically the book. It's less about what Jesus actually looked like, although it may have implications for that. And it's more about It's more about why we don't get a description in the first place. Yeah, which is fascinating in many ways. em Maybe you already answered this question, but just want to flesh it out. What is the most striking thing in the Gospels that actually the Gospel actually says about just the physical appearance, and why is it so striking? Yeah, I mean, the striking thing is that we don't get a description, but I think there are other striking things as well. mean, the transfiguration scene is obviously extremely interesting and almost teases us, I feel, because it comes so close to describing Jesus. And it gives us a scene that I think if you're a Roman reader, you would think this is similar to like an epiphany. You know, the divine form of the sun is now going to be disclosed. But then we don't get the form. We're just told that his face changed in Luke. We have the shining face, which is kind of harkening back to Moses and that sort of typology and maybe a messianic typology as well. But yeah, there's no description. So there are things that happen. I think also another thing, it's not a physical description per se, but it is related to the body. I think the wounds or the marks on Jesus' body in John. are in the post-resurrection seeds are a fascinating site of reflection as well. Maybe we can talk about that in a bit as well. we'll definitely talk about that later. So maybe we want to circle back to like the Greek biographies and why they are so focused on physical appearance of that the person that is biographed. I think that's how you say it in English. yeah. I think it's because biographies are focused on the ethos, the character of their subject. And how do you give a good snapshot in, you know, a few, maybe a few words or maybe even, you know, a couple of paragraphs about a person? Well, if you've already got this physiognomic mindset, I can just describe your character by looking at you. I mean, it's amazing. Like there's this trial of Cicero. it's an actor has been put on trial. I think maybe he's in, he has been refusing to act, which is like a crime. And he says, no, this guy is actually, um, this guy could not have possibly been willingly refusing to act because he's so beautiful. Just look at him. And this is like a genuine art, like philosophical argument in defense of this actor that Cicero is making. It's like, he is handsome. It's so foreign to our mindset. physical descriptions really, really mattered for ancient people because they gave us this window into the soul and biographies are all about this window into the soul. And that's why I think there's such a natural connection between the two. Hmm, that's that's fascinating. Yeah. It's a bit of a fine question, because Jesus in the parable, no, the Sermon on the Mount, he talks about the eye being the, the window into the human. I don't know if he uses ψυχή, the soul, or he just says the person I can't remember. What if if that is a comment on this, this stuff? Or is it something else? Yeah, I didn't look at that passage in any detail in my thesis. I think that overall, I see Jesus's approach to appearance as quite negative. He thinks that appearances can be easily deceiving. And he teaches us, don't care about what you wear, do not be concerned with your body. Um, don't think that you can add a qubit to your stature. Just don't worry about it kind of thing. Um, and when people, um, are using clothing as a sort of expression of status, their religious piety within the community, he has some quite negative things to say. Um, you know, broadening, don't broaden your phylacteries, your, your, your, and, your Tephillin and your, your Tzitzits uh, your, these violet tassels that people would wear. You know, were using these for show and there is a criticism of that by Jesus. So overall, I think, and it comes back to that sort of, you know, the actor thing that we were talking about earlier, you know, he sees the Pharisees as actors in that regard. And so, yeah, so he has, he doesn't, I think he feels at least on the level of clothing, like clothing is not a reliable indicator of who you actually are as a person. So you've probably not worry about it too much. Obviously, some of us do worry about it more than we should, but yeah. yes. It is definitely a similar issue we have in the modern world in many ways. Yeah, that how we look is who I am, which according to the Gospels and to Christian doctrine is not true at all. Yeah, clothes do not maketh the man. You know, I mean, look at me, I'm dressed a bit like an academic today, but I have no, I have no tenure. So there we go. There we go. Yeah. don't and and I'd usually wear t-shirts but when I do podcast I don't yeah, yeah It's true. So that's why I'm annoyed from from November to February March, maybe April depending on the weather I have to wear long trousers, but anyway, that's another thing em It's probably like if we've just been talking about the ancient biographers are very focused on appearance of those biographed persons, why are the gospel not, the gospel is not saying more? Yeah, I think that, um I think I look at this from a number of different angles and I try to think about like, why does some biographers not include their subjects appearance? Because the evangelists are the only biographers that I've come across in antiquity who don't describe their subjects appearance at all. So we do have other lives which don't describe their subjects appearance, but all biographers apart from the evangelists do describe their subjects appearance at least sometimes. So, um so we, so the evangelist is quite exceptional in this regard. um And some people are kind of philosophically opposed to appearance. Like, for example, Plutarch will describe the appearances of kings in his narrative, if only to show that, if only as a literary tool to show that they didn't actually live up to their kingship. um But he doesn't describe other figures so much. And you think, well, why is that? Well, he tells us, he says, I don't place as much importance on looks as other people. So he's clearly not bought into that physiognomic project. So one question there is, the gospels bought into a physiognomic project? You know, what can we hear the evangelists say about physiognomy more broadly? Another avenue is to think about Jesus' characterization. You know, would it make sense for the gospels to describe Jesus as beautiful, like an elite Roman man would be expected to look? Well, you if we think about the construction of Jesus's masculinity in the gospels, it doesn't always look like elite being an elite Roman man. Or if we think about the suffering servant, you know, would there be reasons not to describe Jesus as the suffering servant in this regard? But I think that one of the the big ways that I try to explain this is by looking at how are they adapting biography? Because I think When the gospel writers depart from the conventions of Greco-Roman biography, they're often following biblical narrative ones instead. And I think this is how you can explain many of the differences between the gospels and other Greco-Roman lives. It's through their use of scripture. So uh I kind of tried to think about what are the ways in which Jewish writers could engage Greek genres? OK, so the Greeks have all these genres and they're the dominant literary culture. And Jewish writers will adopt those um genres, but they do so in a couple of ways. Some writers do what I call indigenize. So they share a genre with the Greeks, but they prefer to draw on their own narrative prototypes for that genre. And then there are some that what I call assimilate the Greek genre. So one and two Maccabees represent two different ways of... writing history about the same period, know, one will um indigenize and the other will sort of assimilate a more Greek style of history. And I think the same thing could be going on with biography. So take Philo of Alexandria. Philo, he's this elite Jew um and in the Greek speaking world. And he knows the conventions of Greco-Roma biography and he follows them. When he writes his Life of Moses, he says, I'm beginning where it is necessary to begin. You he knows what these conventions are and he will start with the birth and the genealogy and or rather the sort of background of the noble background of Moses, which I think he kind of concocts a little bit. Or he has some sort of spurious sources for and then he goes on to and he describes the virtues of his subject and he describes the appearance of his subject and how sort of Moses is kind of photoshopped into becoming this perfect Greek gentleman. And it's quite fun to see that physiognomic transformation. Because the biblical text only describes Moses as tove, as good, which is not the word for beautiful. But he becomes beautiful in the Greek uh that Philo is using. So yeah, it's interesting. I think that Philo is doing this assimilating project. I think the gospels are what I'm calling indigenizing. And I'm not like inventing a subtype of biography or anything like that. I'm just saying that there are different ways of blending Greco-Roman biography with other texts. And clearly like the Septuagint is just like, the gospels are shot through with the Septuagint. Or rather I should say the Jewish scriptures, because some people think that the Septuagint just refers to. the Torah, but the Jewish scriptures in translation, you know, they are clearly influencing not only the content, but this is where I think my argument is more distinctive, but actually introducing the literary form, you know, a lot of the conventions of how the Gospels are doing things, their authorial voice, their opening incipits, which I believe functioned as their kind of original titles um and their modes of characterisation. And the reason why this is so significant is because when you go to the Jewish scriptures, you do find physical descriptions, but only when they're necessary for the construction of the plot. So you're not just going to get kind of any description you like just because it's art for art's sake or something like that. You're going to get descriptions when they're crucial to the narrative. And I think that's a good way of explaining why there's no description of Jesus in the gospels. it was not crucial to the narrative. Now, I'm not saying that this is the only reason. I don't think we can recover the author's minds. I think we can talk about an implied author, the author that's given to us by the narrative of the text. But um those are some of the explanations I explore. Hmm, that's fascinating. And it's, yeah, it's also, I think it's intriguing in a way that they are, that they're saying this is not necessary. But maybe we can ask a different question. Is that what can we say about Jesus's appearances from the data we have available in the Gospels? Yeah. Well, we know that he was a Jewish, you know, Galilean man. you know, we could fill in, mean, Joan Taylor's written this brilliant book called What Did Jesus Look Like? which kind of inspired my own research. And she, you know, she kind of paints the picture of an average looking figure. You know, what would an average looking figure look like? Well, he might be five foot five or five foot six. You know, he might have a kind of Middle Eastern complexion. maybe like a honey coloured complexion or a dark honey coloured complexion. He would not like Zephyreli's Jesus of Nazareth have blue eyes. He would have darker eyes, darker hair. There's no long beard going on. You would have a long beard if you were, if you'd taken a Nazarite vow as I think John the Baptist has. But we know that Jesus did not take that vow because he is seen drinking in the gospels. So, um which was another requirement. he is, those are sort of the main, the main features, I think, of his appearance. He's probably got shorter hair and short, shorter facial hair if he has any at all. Yeah. Yeah, interesting. Yeah, well, why would you say that the hair is short? Because that's usually not how we think of it. Yeah, think because in some early Christian depictions, the hair is short. But what happens is that in the fourth century, with this sort of like Byzantine explosion of art, well, Constantine takes power and you get this kind of iconographic motif of like Jesus as the Cosmocrator, the sort of ruler over the cosmos. And there he is depicted much more in terms of... almost like Zeus-like or Asclepius-like, these older Roman deities. And I think he sort of takes on those hues and resonances, which he didn't really have before. But I think certainly the fashion of the first century was to have shorter hair. Hmm, that's that's interesting. Yeah, that's fascinating Yeah, we can definitely know for certain that he didn't have blue eyes because that's something that only appears in Scandinavian em It's I think I read about it that it is Apparently like it does a gene modification some a gene that is missing in Among Scandinavians that makes the eyes blue. Yeah, it's just That's just, think that's correct. Don't hang me out, hang like crucify me for that. eh But we had talked already a little bit about the τέκτων (tektōn), but does that give us any, that Jesus being a τέκτων (tektōn), a builder, carpenter, does that give us any insight? yeah, I think it might do. I mean, some people have said that Jesus is, you know, if you are working with materials, hard materials, and it could be hard work, then maybe Jesus was, you know, and he was itinerant, at least at some point. So maybe he was like pretty lean. Maybe he was quite, quite a lean person, quite a strong person. On the other hand, I want to sort of not I want to caution against thinking that Jesus had this kind of like divine masculine physique as we often find in classical art or he's rugged and you know absolutely ripped when he's like on the cross. He's in classical art, he's often very strong. And I think that we've got to remember that labour is dangerous. know, this is a world without healthcare. You know, really like healthcare as we would know it today, know, magic and healthcare is much more sort of like, you know, into closely intertwined. so some scholars have talked about how positions of labor were full of people with impairments. And if you didn't have an impairment going into your labor, you might get one along the way. So, um, this is, I think this is the reality, you know, I mean, you think of someone like the apostle Paul who had impairments. and they were not resolved. I mean, there he talks about, he says, I pleaded or I prayed with God three times to take it away. There is the aorist tense. This seems to be a completed action. He prayed, but then he accepted the fact that this was a gift in some way. So I think that Jesus could have be more like the people he was healing than we often think. I'm not saying that Jesus was necessarily non-able-bodied, I don't think we can know that, but I think it's historically possible, if not plausible. Yeah, yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, and I think that we can't know for certain, but it would be very weird that if he had like this, like Roman athlete kind of look, because that's not what you would expect. this... No. Not that there is a gymnasium in Nazareth to go to. No, exactly. em But also the like hard labor usually you might be strong, but it doesn't necessarily give you that physical look of being very strong that be familiar with. yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, because it depends on how you use your muscles, how the muscles appear on your body, but that's a completely different discussion. uh yeah. Very interesting. Yeah. But maybe we should look, we've already mentioned the suffering servant. So, Isaiah 53. How, does that give us any clues for what Jesus looked like? I don't think it does. mean, obviously, if you take this as a, think, I think what is happening there is that, so there are sort of allusions to the suffering servant in the gospels. But a lot of people would say that those allusions are quite traditional, that they're not actually part of the redacted process of the evangelists themselves. So that's one thing to bear in mind. But also, um you know, this is I think the way that this is fulfilled is a more typological fulfillment. So these things have happened to Jesus and then they've looked back to Isaiah 53. I don't think Isaiah 53 in the intention of the writer was looking forward. think it's probably, you know, people have debated what it means, but it could be a collective thing. It could be about Judah and Israel and their relationship and so on. But also, I mean, let's just assume for a moment. that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. Let's just like take that for granted in a kind of prognosticating predictive way. What would that tell us about Jesus' appearance? I mean, it says that it implies heavily that this person is marred, that they are actually, the words that are used there are often used for disease in Hebrew. So this is a kind of diseased figure who's been ostracized from his community. And so, I don't know. I think that this probably doesn't really tell us a great deal. could also... I mean, people in church history have looked at this and said, oh, this describes Jesus on the cross. I mean, does it necessarily... I mean, if it was about Jesus, would it necessarily describe Jesus throughout his earthly ministry? It's difficult to know. But what Isaiah 53 is describing is a person who is, I want to clarify... you know, very unattractive. There is no word in uh Hebrew for ugliness. Okay. So to say that, you know, he had no beauty that we should desire him is about as close as the text can come to saying this guy, we don't like the way he looks. And that is part of the disease and so on. But there's also a social ostracization going on. So Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical that you hear it all the time, you know, if you tell him what did Jesus look like it was a Isaiah describes Jesus as you know as looking like this it's like well, you know, even if this was a prognostication I Don't think I don't know What it would refer to would it refer to his earthly ministry or his appearance when he's on the cross and so on So I don't think we can make too much too much from it other people will also say it's an average, Jesus is just an average looking guy because it says he's got no beauty that we should desire him. he's just average looking. I don't agree with that either. think that this is, this text is describing a figure who is, um you know, positively repugnant um to his society around him. Hmm. Yeah, I think that's that's fair assessment. it most advice I have 53 is about the suffering on the cross. So it would make better sense maybe if you were to like saying that it is what happens in that scene that he is ostracized, he's beaten and so on, which makes better sense. I think if we were to like say anything about Jesus's appearance from that text, it makes better sense to talk about the passion, like the whole narrative of like when Jesus is given over and goes to the cross for us. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. But we already mentioned the transfiguration scenes and the synoptics. And what insights do you think that that gives? Yeah, think, I mean, I don't think it tells us really anything about Jesus' physical traits. I mean, some people would say, well, his clothes are bleached white. You know, I think Mark says something like whiter than anyone could bleach them or something. And some people have said that, OK, this is proof that Jesus probably wasn't wearing white clothing, like the Essenes, you know, as J.C. just describes them, wear white. Yeah, I don't even know if we could say that. I mean, I think it's probably likely that Jesus just wore like undyed wool or linen. But in terms of the face, the face is really interesting because you've got that Moses typology, like Moses's face shines. You've got a text describing the face of the Messiah will shine on the earth. I think that's the Testament of Levi text. So maybe there are messianic things going on here. But also I think the fact that he is transformed and there is light and so on. And there's shining, I think for a Roman reader would very much signal the divinity of this person. You know, I think that, you know, it's clear that Jesus is being presented as greater than Matthew, greater, sorry, greater than Moses, greater than Elijah. This is my beloved son. So I think those are some of the things that are going on in the transfiguration. But as to what it can tell us about his physical traits, it is sadly elusive. Yeah, yeah, I think I agree. It's it also there is like tabernacle like illusions as well with the cloud coming and covering. I think it's like Seth Postell in his devotional talks about it that if I remember correctly, it's that in the tapernacle, the cloud in the tapernacle that happens in it, is actually to shield Moses from seeing God's glory. And in this case, the cloud covers the disciples. So there is an allusion there. I definitely think that it's pointing towards Jesus's divinity that this is God in the flesh, which is what John says. And also, I think that this could explain why we don't get a description, at least in that moment where we would expect one, at least from a kind of Greek expectation of epiphanies will disclose the beauty of the God, the goddess. Because if Jesus is a manifestation of God's glory, well, you can't really, you can't describe the glory of the God, at least in direct detail. So when they do describe God in the Old Testament, It's almost always um very heavy with simile and analogy. His feet were like burnished bronze, his hair was white like wool and so on. There's this kind of reticence to actually really directly describe the form of the person. So I think that's also going on here. If the Lord is the manifestation of the glory of God, then we don't describe his physical appearance directly. Yeah, I think that that's fair in any that sense that you already answered the question about the relevance of glory for this question. rather ask actually, maybe we should go to the post-resurrection appearances. So you already talked about that and we promised the listeners and viewers that we will talk a little bit about this. although everyone, everyone, no, not everyone, I'm exaggerating, but most people who have read my thesis, which oh admittedly is only a few people, but they've said, I wish there was more on the post resurrection appearances. But I mean, the post resurrection appearances, they also tell us nothing, which is really, really wild because Jesus's form takes on, it takes on a kind of different appearance and yet we're not told, you know, what are the contrasts in appearance. It's kind of really, really annoying because if you go to like apocryphal text, like the Acts of John, for example, has Jesus appearing in these different forms. But we know that what those different forms are, you know, now he's small like a child, now he's tall and beautiful and he appears to different people in different ways. Whereas here there is maybe an element of polymorphism. There's an element to which Jesus' body is not constrained by normal constraints of appearance. But what that appearance is, is just unclear and it's all very mysterious. but yeah, what I do find interesting is that John retains the wounds or the marks um of the crucifixion, because I think that destabilizes our understanding of um ability or bodily ability. Why is Jesus, when he is risen from the dead, Why does he still have those wounds? You know, we think, oh, all imperfections will just be removed. So I think that's an interesting site of kind of theological reflection, but loads of people have done work on that and I still need to dip into it. Yeah, there's some interesting stuff on that, which I have not looked into either. So that will maybe be for another conversation. But I think it's fascinating that there is actually very little also in the appearances. Obviously there are sometimes where they're a little bit confused about whether it's Jesus, but you can probably just as much explain that from psychological things. Hehehe. even not expecting to meet Jesus after he's been crucified. oh I think, for example, that they didn't see that it was Jesus, the two on the road to Emmaus. Is that how you say Emmaus? Yeah, it's maybe because they didn't expect it that they might not have noticed. m Hmm. Yeah, yeah, there is a psychological element to that, isn't there? Yeah. least that's possible. I'm not saying that that is the reason. I may be inclined to think that that is the reason, but... And then the Gospels does not portray Jesus in His glory in the same way as the apocalypse does. which is very clearly and actually maybe that's the most vivid description of who Jesus looks like in the entire New Testament. Mm. Yeah, yeah. And yet it's not, and yet it's theophanic. So in terms of sort of reconstructing the appearance of the historical Jesus from it, it just, it still, you know, doesn't give us what we want, which is annoying. Yeah. exactly. Yeah, maybe we might want to ask a question about this. The Gospel says very little about Jesus' physical appearance. Do the descriptions of him as King and Lord help us in our understanding? Yeah, think thinking about Jesus' kingship is interesting because in explaining why we don't get a physical description, because, you know, Jesus is a king, but he's not a king in a conventional sense. You know, when Jesus is described in kingly array, it's ironic. It's a parody. em And so he's with a crown, but it's a crown of thorns. He's in a purple robe and so on. it's a robe that is placed upon him. And so Yeah, I think that Jesus is subverting our expectations of kingship and therefore it's not so surprising that we don't find Jesus sort of adopting the kingly body as well that would be so expected. I think the Lord aspect is kind of what we've been talking about. If Jesus is a manifestation of God's glory, then we might have a better grasp, at least in those moments where Jesus is theophanically described, of why the evangelists are very hesitant to go there in terms of a direct physical description. Yeah, and it seems like it's always around that they decide like the epistle of John is saying that we touch the glory kind of that's almost like how you should understand that he's talking about. We saw and touched the glory of God in some ways. That's not the exact wording, but that's almost like what we would expect to understand it that that is actually and that also seems to be what the prologue of John is saying is that Like this is the Gloria God walking in flesh. Yeah. So, but that doesn't actually give us anything in terms of like what we would expect for appearance. Yeah, I know. It's very curious. so we don't want you to give away everything from your new book. So I will put a link in the description to the book, so if people are interested in see what insights John might have left out, then they can do that. But I want to ask a question about this. What would you say is the most insightful thing that you discovered about Jesus' physical appearance? I think one of the most I'm not sure if it's the most insightful because it's kind of just a reaffirmation of the traditional reading but I think one of the most interesting things was looking at the story of Zacchaeus because Luke 19 3 says that Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus who he was but he was not able because he was short in stature the question is who is he who is this you know who is the subject of this verb And I ended up saying that, know, Zacchaeus is the subject of most of the verbs in that sentence. I think that probably what would happen is you would want to reintroduce uh Jesus as a subject if he was going to be the subject of, you know, μικρὸς ἡλικίᾳ. But I think, yeah, it's, it's, it's, it was a really interesting discussion. So if anyone does pick up the book or you can download my thesis as well online, there's, there's quite a, yeah, there's an interesting article by Isaac Soon on this which I discuss and I look at all of the arguments for and against thinking that Jesus could have been the one who was short in stature. So that was really interesting, though I do come down on the traditional view that this is actually Zacchaeus. Hmm. Yeah, that's that's fascinating. Yeah. Yeah. if you want to know that the know know what John has discussed in his book, then you can you can find it in the description. em But we come to this place and eh a favorite maybe traditional part of this podcast is that we asked the question, what how can each of the listeners or viewers of our conversation today apply this to the everyday every day walk with Christ. I think that the gospels present a challenge to our kind of image obsessed world. I think that they could have so easily leaned in to the kind of physiognomic expectations of their time and they don't do that. I think when I was writing this thesis and editing the book, I thought about a line from Les Miserables, the play. I don't think it's in the book actually, by Victor Hugo. And it's the final line of the play, it's that to love another person is to see the face of God. Or we might say to love another person is to see the face of Christ. And I think what I'm trying to get there is the character of Jesus is displayed not through his appearance, but through his character. what he is like. And in an ancient biographical context, are expected to, the reader is expected to imitate that character. And so I feel like there's a sort of twin aspect to this, which is that in not describing the physical appearance of Jesus, we are allowed more easily, I think, to picture Jesus as one like ourselves. So I went to Nazareth a few years ago with some friends and I saw in the peristyle of the courtyard of the Church of the Annunciation, all of these images of Jesus sent in from different Catholic churches across the world. And so you see Jesus looking like a Hindu deity and Jesus in his Camino and all these things. And I think that's beautiful because I think in not focusing on the externals of Jesus' appearance, we're unable to imagine each other in our own context, in our own settings. and Christ identifying with us in those settings, which I think is part of this truth of the incarnation, that God enters into our humanity. And so I think there are, I probably need to develop the theological implications of this, but I think it's a matter of seeing, you know, it's about seeing Christ in everyone rather than seeing, you know, only seeing Christ in a sort of particular um in a particular individual. And I think the fact that the Gospels don't describe his physical appearance allow us more easily perhaps to do that and to allow us to, you know, allow Christ to identify with us. um There's this other thing though, which is I think the Gospel silence is very destabilizing because we have all of these ideas of who God is. We have these ideas that, and they are partially influenced by art. You know, and media. And I think about a um book by Tinnie McDonald called God is not a white man. And she was saying that when she read the book, The Shack, which was, actually portrays God the father as a black woman. She was, she felt for the first time that God was presented in a way that kind of respected her, her race and her ethnicity. And that's a very profound, that's a very sort of profound thing for her. Because I think so often if we present Jesus just as, know, this white European guy who is like beautiful and completely able bodied and so on, which is just not true. But if we do that, then we divinize that conception of who God is. And whereas actually, you know, God did not come as a white European man. He came as, you know, part of a, you know, uh a small province in the Roman Empire, you know, under, was born under the Jewish law and so on. So he came as someone who was in relative terms was powerless. And so I just think there's a lot, mean, I haven't sort of centered on one thing, but I think there's a lot there to reflect on um in terms of, we need to sort of think about our images of Jesus and be conscious of them and be conscious of how we are creating them so that we can actually destabilize those images. and be able to see God in the lives of other people in a broader sense that is truer to the kind of egalitarian sense of early Christian literature as well. Mm-hmm. Yeah. what I'm hearing you saying is that the reason why the gospels are not necessarily saying anything about this is that it helps us to both understand who Jesus is from our own perspective, but also to see who he is um in other believers or in... Yes, but I wouldn't say that this is the reason why the evangelists omitted the description, but I would say that it's an implication of them not having done so. um So it's something like that. I will just say one thing, which is that one argument I make is we have lots of ancient writers, well, at least a couple explicitly, who say, um I'm not going to describe or I don't value appearances because they don't, they can't be imitated. You know, I can't imitate your appearance, you can't imitate mine. And so the words and the deeds are much more important. So that's a kind of, that could be a clue as to why the evangelists don't include it, because they've got this biographical purpose of imitation. So really the imitation will lie in not looking in a particular way, but in modeling oneself on the character of Christ, which is his virtues as opposed to his appearance. So yeah, there's a lot there to reflect on. The epilogue of my thesis is where I go into this kind of thing in a bit more detail. Yeah, that's fascinating and I think the idea of following after Christ seems to come out stronger maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think so. Definitely in biography, because we often think about like what Christ has done for the church. But I think there is just as strongly in adopting that ancient biographical mode, this thing of we're presented here with a beautiful life, the beautiful shepherd who is beautiful, though not his καλός, he's beautiful, but not in his appearance necessarily, but in his character, in the way that he lives and the reader. is therefore invited into sharing in that life themselves. I think that's very helpful and a very good way to end. Thank you for joining me on the podcast, John. Of course, it was a great pleasure. And to you guys out there, I'll see you in the next one. But before you go, if you enjoyed this podcast and you want more people to see it, please subscribe and leave a like. It really helps us create more episodes like this one. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day and I'll see you in the next one.