Although it is very humorous and shows just how ridiculous they can be when determining what is important, I find it odd that they point to a Watchtower from 1901, that is suggesting that an apocryphal text is a legitimate source to utilize when trying to siphon out truth regarding his appearnace:
However, there are some indications of Paul’s appearance. For example, Zion’s Watch Tower of March 1, 1902, mentioned one, saying: “As to Paul’s personal appearance: . . . In the ‘Acts of Paul and Thecla,’ . . . written about A. D. 150, there is a description of Paul which is probably the best, and a true tradition. In this he is described as ‘small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well built, with eyebrows meeting; rather long nosed.’”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1997 edition) says about that ancient writing: “It is not impossible that the ‘Acts’ contain some elements of historical truth.” The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like.