In fact, it’s possible that they are correct.

To be sure, Jesus came out of the Jewish community of the eastern Mediterranean, and so it’s most likely that he had the dark complexion of the region.

But this isn’t entirely certain. The key thing to note is that Jesus came from Galilee rather than from Judea, and the population of Galilee had a tremendous mix of ethnic backgrounds.

I came to this issue while working on a book, The Single Gospel, which is a consolidated version of four canonical gospels, editing them together into a single narrative in chronological order. My goal was to create a text that will be easily accessible to the ordinary reader, whether reading it as a work of faith or a work of literature. Clarity was the key. I was therefore troubled by how to translate the non-intuitive phrase “Galilee of the gentiles,” or “Galilee where so many foreigners live.”

It turns out that Galilee was a place quite distinct from Judea. It is about eighty miles north of Jerusalem, with hilly country. Over the years it had been settled by many different people, including veterans of the army of Alexander the Great. In the years 104-03 B.C., Galilee had been reconquered by the Jewish ruler Aristobulus, and its inhabitants, many of whom were gentiles, were forced to convert to Judaism. Others no doubt converted voluntarily.

This complex history means that we know nothing for sure about the physical appearance of Jesus. While he unquestionably grew up in a family that was religiously and culturally Jewish, many parts of his family tree (apart from the particular lines of descent recorded in the gospels) could have been with any of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin.

Of course, as everyone will agree, physical appearance is a secondary issue, and the most important thing about Jesus is his mission and teaching.

But it’s interesting to speculate about nonetheless . . .

Neil Averitt