Excerpt from The Ego and Its Own:
The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator...."
You should read The Jewish War by Josephus. It's free on Gutenburg given that he fought in the Jewish revolt 2000 years ago and wrote a book about it. He never mentions Jesus, who according to the bible should have been around there or at least mentioned, because it was a time of internal strife. There were many "messiahs" as prophesised in the Jewish bible and they each had their followers. Because the political situation was so tumultuous, the far right jewish extremists versus the Roman aligned moderates, it was very easy for someone of that kind of mind to declare themselves to be the messiah spoken of in the texts and that anyone seeking stability and hope in a time where people were being stabbed to death in the streets daily should run to their banner and support/worship them. There was no description of Jesus outside of the bible like the following example [... "I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude." ... - Daniel 10:5-6]. Because there is no mention of Christ anywhere from that time it is more than likely that the figure discussed in the bible was a kind of amalgamation of different messiahs from the chaotic time of mass unrest in Judea or was a anecdotal centerpiece for whom to branch off parables and lessons. It's unlikely that the people of that time would have taken the stories as literally as later audiences because the stories were meant to be familiar. The names and places changed but the overall stories would be recognizable to the contemporary audience because that's how writing was back then. People were expected to draw allusions to other people and events and this subtext was crucial for communicating a message via the heavy use of metaphors; it was a big part of a classical education to be able to do this and so people would actively seek out these connections woven into the story by the author.
So in that, who Jesus was or what he was supposed to look like would not have been very important to the audience it was written for because the message was more important and jewish or roman readers would have understood that.