I thought this was a good article overall, and helps to dispel the numerous misconceptions based on a couple of millennia of artistic imaginings in terms of how Jesus dressed and looked: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-did-jesus-wear?utm_source=pocket-newtab The initial reference to a physical likeness based on a skull from the era doesn't accomplish much IMO. (I personally think the various renderings based on the Shroud of Turin are likely to be more accurate and certainly look more like what I would "imagine" Jesus to have looked like). However, the links provided are otherwise very interesting and informative. The long and short of it is that Jesus' attire and overall "look" was, well . . . pretty shabby. He would not have been dressed in the kinds of boldly colored robes we see in various paintings. As the author says: "And so while Jesus wore similar clothes to other Jewish men in many respects, his “look” was scruffy. . . . Wearing a basic tunic that other people wore as an undergarment would fit with Jesus’ detachment regarding material things (Matthew 6:19-21, 28–29; Luke 6:34-35, 12:22-28) and concern for the poor (Luke 6:20-23). This, to me, is the beginning of a different way of seeing Jesus, and one very relevant for our times of massive inequality between rich and poor, as in the Roman Empire. Jesus aligned himself with the poor and this would have been obvious from how he looked. The appearance of Jesus matters because it cuts to the heart of his message. However he is depicted in film and art today, he needs to be shown as one of the have-nots; his teaching can only be truly understood from this perspective." Cordially, S&S PS--There is a nice sketch to give the general idea.