I was raised by a pastor, and it was pointed out to me early in life that Jesus (if he indeed existed) was most likely a he-man. Scholars have taken cues from his culture, his family, his vocation, his race, ethnicity, and religion, and came up with a much better approximation of what he would have looked like than the effeminate version we usually see.

As a Middle Eastern carpenter who worked long hours in the sun, he would have had rough, leathery-looking, olive-colored skin with dark hair and eyes. He most likely would have been shorter than the average man of today, and almost certainly would have had facial hair that was often unkempt. I think he would have looked much more like the picture above than he would the paintings we're used to seeing.

@Piratefish If he existed at all, the man known as Jesus was assuredly more like the image here, than any painting, fresco or mosaic we've ever seen.

I doubt anyone knows exactly what he looked like. But I'll wager the above illustration is a lot closer to actuality than the paintings of him we are used to seeing. All the artist did was make a generalization from the input of historians and anthropologists. Things like race, ethnicity, culture, vocation, family life, diet, the era and area in which he lived, his religion, etc. I don't think they meant to claim the illustration was a dead ringer for him; just a more accurate portrayal than the one we have been used to.