In a letter to Mrs Neylan in 1940, C.S. Lewis pondered: “Have you noticed that you can hardly free your imagination to picture Him [Christ] as shorter than yourself?”1
The Oxford don apparently found it hard to imagine a Jesus who was smaller than him. But one much earlier follower of Jesus, the author of Luke, may not have shared Lewis’ judgement - at least according to one recent scholarly assessment.
In an intriguing article, “The Little Messiah” (JBL, 2023), Dr Isaac Soon has revived an exegetical possibility which has been long overlooked by Gospels scholars: the idea that Luke 19:3 presents Jesus, not Zacchaeus, as ‘short in stature.’2
You may be familiar with the Sunday-school telling of Luke 19: a short-statured Zacchaeus climbs a Sycamore tree so he can see Jesus amidst the crowds. He is spotted by Jesus, hosts him for supper, and repents of his tax-collecting ways. The reason for his tree-climbing exploit is simple: ‘he was short in stature’ (19:3).
But who is he? Does this phrase refer to Zacchaeus as short, or might it equally refer to Jesus? Scholars have long noted that the Greek syntax is ambiguous.3 And the context is equally so: if Jesus was the one who was short, this would explain why Zacchaeus would have to climb the trees, since Jesus was surrounded by a crowd.
It may seem like we are at an exegetical stalemate. So are there any reasons to tip the phrase in favour of either character?
One reason for thinking that Zacchaeus is short is the negative moral connotations of short height in antiquity. Some have argued that to be small was to be small-minded (Ps-Aristotle, Physiognomika, 808a. II.30-32); and to be small-minded was to be greedy (John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 18.7).4
This would seem to fit Zacchaeus’ character much better than Jesus’. While Jesus is the innocent Messiah, Zacchaeus’ profession was known for its exploitation. As Luke introduces him in the previous verse, Zacchaeus is a ‘chief tax collector’ and ‘very rich.’ To find out that he is also ‘small’ would have been no surprise.
As Soon deftly points out, however, we should not be so quick to move from a particular physical trait to a specific moral one.5 For one thing, the physiognomic handbooks, on which scholars have relied to make such judgements, are technical works; they don’t reflect the judgement of the common-reader.6 Moreover, there is more than one ancient handbook, and they often contradict each other.7
In addition to rebuffing the positive case for seeing ‘greedy’ Zacchaeus as small, Soon offers a positive reason for thinking Jesus to be small: his characterisation throughout the Gospel as Luke as a Socrates or Aesop-type figure.
Parallels between Jesus, Socrates and Aesop have become particularly well known in the last three decades of research: all three characters were subversive teachers, who disrupted the status quo and were put to death by the state.
Yet Soon notes that these parallels are particularly pronounced in Luke’s special material.8 For instance, the townspeople of Nazareth attempt to throw Jesus of a cliff, mirroring Aesop’s end (Lk. 4:29; Vit. Aes. 132),9 and after his death he is declared innocent like Socrates (Lk. 23:47; Plato, Phaedo 118a).10
And here’s the rub: if Luke paints Jesus as an Aesopic fabulist or a Socratic type-philosopher, it is no surprise that he also describes Jesus as short. For both Aesop and Socrates were considered small as well (see Life of Aesop 1.1; Plato Phaedo, 102e).11
For Luke, Jesus’ short-height complements his overall portrait of Jesus.
Some Thoughts
It is not possible here to engage Dr Soon’s fascinating argument in the detail it deserves. Yet I will issue three soundings in favour of the traditional reading.
First, the parallel between Jesus, Socrates and Aesop in regards to their height are overly subtle.
Short stature is a universal physical trait. One would therefore want more in the way of physical information to confirm a physical connection between these figures. Notably, Aesop and Socrates were not known only for their short height but their apparent ugliness. Yet in the Gospels, we have nothing else on Jesus’ looks.
The connection between Jesus and Aesop is particularly weak. As Soon points out, Aesop was not only short but was a dwarf (Vita. Aesop. 1.1). Yet Jesus is nowhere described using the more precise terms for dwarfs - a nanos or pygmaios.
Second, the physiognomic connection between Zacchaeus and short stature remains a strong one.
Soon demonstrates in detail that the physiognomic handbooks cannot be used as a reliable guide for understanding Luke’s assumptions. Yet it was not only these handbooks which informed what Elizabeth Evans calls antiquity’s "physiognomic consciousness.”12 There are other indications that ‘short height’ had negative connotations - and on a popular level which Luke’s audience may have imbibed.
In the ancient world, short stature was often considered a departure from the ‘ideal’ form. This is ubiquitous, from Nepos’ description of Agesilaus’ short height (17.8), which he felt the need to explain, the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was ‘smaller than a handbreath’ (Gen. Rab. 16.4), or the ‘short jokes’ we often find.13
At least in my view, then, it does make sense that Zacchaeus would be ‘small.’ We may not be able to equate his height with ‘greediness’ - as Parsons once proposed - but we can nevertheless say that his character fits an ancient characterisation of short height.
In defence of Zacchaeus’ character, Soon points to more favourable interpretations of Zacchaeus’ character. He notes that Zakchaios (Ζακχαῖος; זכי) is a diminutive of זּכריה (Zachariah), meaning ‘pure’; that his generosity mimics Abraham, and that his pledge of restitution to those he wronged may be a defence of his upright way of life.14
Yet this reading faces serious difficulties, at both a linguistic and contextual level.15 That this is a narrative of redemption is demonstrated by Jesus’ saying: ‘Today salvation has come to this house…’ (19:9). And while Soon is right to point out that Luke is more favourable to tax collectors than is sometimes acknowledged,16 he is favourable to them in the context of their redemption - as here (cf. Lk. 18:9-14).
Third, an ableist explanation of the reception history of Luke 19:3 is uncompelling.
Until the modern period, nearly all interpreters construed Zacchaeus, not Jesus, as the subject of the verb. This may have been for purely linguistic reasons: Zacchaeus is the subject of most of the verbs in the sentence, including the verb prior to the phrase in question (‘he was not able [to see Jesus] because he was short in stature.)
While there were some other early suggestions that Jesus may have been small, these are difficult to tie to Luke 19:3. For instance, the second century Celsus derides Jesus as ‘small.’ Yet the Christians who were apparently claiming that Jesus was small may have caught this idea from Isaiah 53:2, which was already in view (LXX).17
Soon hints that ableist bias may have played a role in the interpretation of this passage.18 Perhaps, even at the level of C.S. Lewis’ feeling, ancient readers - like modern ones - found it difficult to imagine a Christ who was smaller than them.
Yet there are two difficulties with this explanation. First, early Christian writers often found ways to integrate Jesus’ ugly appearance into their writings.19 If they had read Luke 19:3 in reference to Jesus, there was much they could make of it.
Second, it is a double-edged sword. If we assume an ableist bias on the part of Luke’s readers, why not attribute such a bias to Luke himself? Luke had no trouble playing on appearance and character - he casts Paul the persecutor as blind. It does not seem that he had any trouble in casting a tax-collector as ‘small’ either.
The True Stature of Jesus
In this post, I have offered some remarks in defence of the traditional reading. But what then of Jesus’ height? How tall - or small - might he have been?
The indication that he ‘grew in stature’ (Lk. 2:58) does not, as Soon points out, offer us a great deal of help.20 It is unspecific and appears in Luke’s infancy narrative as a trope.
Perhaps we might look to comparable figures of the time. Flavius Joseph, for example, describes one faux-messiah, Anthonges and brothers, as ‘tall’ (Ant. 17.10.7). This would seem to fit the profile of many leaders across time.21 Yet Josephus may simply be casting Athronges as another Saul, rather than reflecting historical reality.22
It is equally possible, as Professor Joan Taylor has suggested, that Jesus was merely average looking.23 This would place him around 5 foot 5 inches.24 And there is nothing surprising about this account. Spiritual leaders in recent times have not always been physically exceptional - think Gandhi or Theresa - and Jesus may not have been so either.25
Yet perhaps to ask the question of height is misguided. As Christ himself says in Matthew 6:27: ‘Which one of you by worrying can add a cubit to your stature?’ Maybe - as I argued at length in my own study - a fascination with Christ’s appearance is something the evangelists deliberately avoided.
Apparently, for them, the important point about the Messiah was not his height - or indeed his physical appearance at all - but his mission, purpose and character.
Is this not for us, too, the true stature of Christ today?
See C.S. Lewis, Collected Letters, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 2 (San Fransisco: Harper, 2007), 375.
Isaac T. Soon, “The Little Messiah: Jesus as τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρός in Luke 19:3,” JBL 142 n.1 (2023): 151-170. I am grateful to Dr Soon for letting me work with a draft copy of his article for my doctoral dissertation.
See J. Rendel Harris, “On the Stature of Our Lord,” BJRL 10 (1926):112–126. More recently, see Brittany E. Wilson, Unmanly Men: Refigurations of Masculinity in Luke-Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 197–198.
See, for example, Mikeal C. Parsons, ‘“Short in Stature: Luke’s Physical Description of Zachaeus,” NTS 47 (2001): 53-54.
See Soon, “Little Messiah,” 161-165.
See David Rohrbacher, “Physiognomics in Imperial Latin Biography,” CA 29 n.1 (2010): 92-116.
On their contradictions with reference to smallness, see Soon, “Little Messiah,” 163-165.
Soon, “Little Messiah,” 165-168.
Margaret Froelich, Thomas E. Philipps, “Throw the Blasphemer off a Cliff: Luke 4:16-30 in Light of the Life of Aesop,” NTS 65 (2019): 21-32
Greg Sterling, “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke,” HTR 94 n.4 (2001): 398; Steve Reece, “Echoes of Apology of Socrates in Luke-Acts,” NovT 63 (2021): 187.
Soon, “Little Messiah,” 165-166.
See the foundational studies of Elizabeth C. Evans, Physiognomics in The Ancient World. TAPS 59 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1969); idem. “Descriptions of Personal Appearance in Roman History and Biography,” HSCPh 46 (1935): 43-84; idem. “The Study of Physiognomy in the Second Century A.D.” TAPA 72 (1941): 96–108.
See Parsons, “Short in Stature,” 54.
Soon, “Little Messiah,” 162-163.
For a thorough refutation of positive assessments of Zaccheus’ moral character, see Ladislav Tichý, “Was hat Zachäus geantwortet? (Lk 19, 8),” Biblica 92 (2011): 21–38.
Soon, “Little Messiah,” 158.
See Joan E. Taylor, What did Jesus Look Like (London: Bloomsbury, 2018), 142.
Soon, “Little Messiah,” 156.
See the excellent survey Callie Callon, Reading Bodies: Physiognomy as a Strategy of Persuasion in Early Christian Discourse. LNTS 597 (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 131-155.
See Soon, “Little Messiah,” 159.
See Gregg R. Murray, J. David Schmitz, “Caveman Politics: Evolutionary Leadership Preferences and Physical Stature,” SSQ 92 n.5 (2011): 1215-1235.
See Soon, “Little Messiah,” 170.
See Taylor, Jesus, 1-14.
Ibid., 158.
Ibid., 194-195.
Interesting to read about this!
What a fascinating and revealing thought, I wonder how much each persons conception of Jesus' physical stature affects the way they follow his teachings?