Was Jesus a Jew (and why does it matter)?

It's about unravelling false doctrine and finding the biblical truth

Asking whether Jesus was a Jew offends both Christians and Jews, and I don’t know why. Furthermore, such a question has nothing to do with hatred, anti-Semitism, or anything like that.

It’s simply about finding the truth.

Jews (or ‘Jews’) called for his execution and have rejected his Messianic status for 2,000 years, so they don’t care about him at all. The Talmud, which is the rabbinical foundation to Judaism, has the following to say about Jesus:

Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy... What is the punishment of that man (a euphemism for Jesus) in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement.

—Gittin 57a:3-4

On Passover Eve, they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning... because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray.

—Sanhedrin 43a:20

Jesus... went and stood up a brick and worshipped it as an idol... he caused the masses to sin... Jesus the Nazarene performed sorcery, incited the masses, subverted the masses, and caused the Jewish people to sin.

—Sotah 47a:14

There’s more where that came from.

But it’s very clear that Jews don’t think much of Jesus and it really shouldn’t bother them if Jesus wasn’t one of them.

In fact, Muslims think more of Jesus than Jews do. Turkish-Muslim author and professor Zeki Saritoprak has written extensively—such as Islam's Jesus—on the importance of Jesus in Islam. The Quran views him as a holy prophet worthy of respect.

Meanwhile, Christians aren’t Jews and also shouldn’t care if Jesus, the man on whom Christianity is based, was a Jew.

The short answer is: no, Jesus was not a Jew.

The longer answer (and why it matters) is more complex and requires a bit of research because we need to understand what is meant by the words ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism’.

In the time of Jesus, there was no unified ‘Jewish’ religion as we understand it today. What was considered ‘Judaism’ was a mix of traditions, beliefs, and practices tied to the Roman province of Judea, and it included different races, ethnicities and cultures such as the Pharisees, Idumeans, Scribes, Sadducees, Herodians and so on.

Meaning of ‘Jew’

The word ‘Jew’ is a relatively new term. The letter ‘J’ wasn’t even used in the English language until around the 1600s and wasn’t part of common vernacular until the 1700s, which is more or less when the word ‘Jew’ became commonly used.

In the King James Bible, the word ‘Jew’ doesn’t appear until 2 Kings 16:6 (Old Testament), which was specifically referring to ‘Judahites’—members of the tribe of Judah, who were Israelites through bloodline.

In the New Testament, the word ‘Jew’ doesn’t mean the same thing and refers to a ‘Judean’ or someone living in the Roman province of Judea. (Judaea is just the older spelling.)

How the region might have looked in the time of Jesus

The word 'Jew' wasn’t used in Greek either. The actual Greek word is ioudaios (you-day-os), which doesn’t mean 'Jew' but 'Judean'—someone from the Roman province of Judea.

It’s a geographical term, like 'Californian,' which could refer to anyone—White, Black, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, male, female, or whatever. So an ioudaios, Judaean or Jew in the New Testament refers to anyone living in Judea, including Israelites from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, as well as Edomite Judaeans (Pharisees), Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, and others.

As I have explained, when the word 'Jew' was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was 'Judean.' However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international 'pressure group' created a so-called 'secondary meaning' for the word 'Jew' among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called 'secondary meaning' for the word 'Jew' bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word 'Jew'. It is a misrepresentation.

—Benjamin Freedman, Jewish historian, Facts Are Facts (1954)

Freedman is correct. The ‘secondary meaning’ to which he refers is a modern attempt to link today’s Jews to the biblical groups: Judeans, Judahites, and Israelites.

In short, the word ‘Jew’ is a catch-all term and means different things in the Old and New Testaments, and probably shouldn’t even be in the Bible.

Who were the Judeans?

According to Geography by the Greek geographer, philosopher and historian Strabo (who lived around the time of Jesus):

Beginning from Cilicia and Mount Amanus, we consider the regions of Commagene and the Seleucis of Syria [Seleucid Syria] as parts of Syria, followed by Cœle-Syria, and finally, on the coast, Phœnicia, with Judæa in the interior. Some writers divide the whole of Syria into Cœlo-Syrians, Syrians, and Phœnicians, and mention that four other nations are intermixed with these: the Jews [Judeans], Idumæans, Gazæans, and Azotii. Among these, some are farmers, like the Syrians and Cœlo-Syrians, while others, such as the Phœnicians, are merchants.

What he is saying here is that Judea was made up of many different cultures, ethnicities, races, traditions and so on. Judeans were multiracial and multicultural.

How the region might have looked in the Old Testament

Meanwhile, according to Judean historian Flavius Josephus, in Antiquities of the [Jews], he explains how the Idumeans (Edomites) became Judeans (citizens of Judea):

Hyrcanus also took Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans [Edomites], permitting them to remain in that country if they would circumcise themselves and follow the laws of the Jews [Judeans]. They were so eager to live in the land of their forefathers that they accepted circumcision and the other customs of the Jewish [Judean] way of life. From that time onward, they were considered to be no different than Jews [Judeans].

Then, back to Strabo, because he also mentions how the Idumeans (Edomites) adopted the customs of the Judeans:

The western extremities of Judæa, towards Mount Casius, are occupied by the Idumæans and the lake [Sirbonis]. The Idumæans are Nabatæans. When they were driven from their homeland by internal conflict, they crossed over to the Jews [Judeans] and adopted their customs.

Edomites were from the bloodline of Edom and descendants of Esau.

For further clarity, the Jewish Encyclopedia stated the following about the origins of the Edomites:

DOM (IDUMEA): Country in SE Palestine, also called Mount Seir. Its terrain was mountainous and easily fortified, and its land was fertile. Edom lay south of the Dead Sea and bordered on the Red Sea at Elath and Ezion Geber. The Edomites were of Semitic origin, traditionally descendants of Esau, and lived by hunting. They dispossessed the Horite inhabitants of Seir and organised themselves along tribal lines headed by chieftains (called 'alloophs'), later consolidating into a monarchy. The Edomites were traditional enemies of the Israelites; they fought Saul and were defeated by David, who partly annexed the land.

The Edomites regained their independence during the reign of Jehoram, but the wars between the two states were frequent. In the 8th century BCE, the Edomites became vassals of Assyria. At the time of the destruction of the First Temple, they plundered and looted in association with the Babylonians, and, being driven out from Seir by the Nabateans, occupied southern Judah during or after the period of the Exile. The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus, who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on, they constituted a part of the Jewish people, with Herod being one of their descendants.

From about 130 BC onwards and in spite of the forced conversion to Judaism [Hebrewism] by John Hyrcanus, Judea became a very multiracial and multicultural province (as I said above), home to Judahites (descendants of Judah), Idumeans (descendants of the Edomites), Canaanites, and other people groups.

I know.

It’s complex.

But the Bible considers bloodline (or ‘seed’) fairly important, hence it being mentioned so often.

What about the Edomites?

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, who was Jacob’s twin brother and the son of Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob and Esau became the founders of two completely separate nations, as mentioned in Genesis 25:23.

Jacob (whom God renamed Israel) married women from his own tribe (or race), and his descendants became the Israelites. Esau married Canaanite women, mixing his bloodline with theirs, who became the descendants of Cain (a different, non-Israelite group).

Here’s Genesis 36:1-8 (KJV):

Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom. Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; and Bashemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth. And Adah bare to Esau Eliphaz; and Bashemath bare Reuel; and Aholibamah bare Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah: these are the sons of Esau, which were born unto him in the land of Canaan.

And Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had gotten in the land of Canaan, and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than that they might dwell together, and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle. Thus dwelt Esau in Mount Seir; Esau is Edom. And these are the generations of Esau, the father of the Edomites, in Mount Seir…

Put another way, Jacob and his descendants were loved by God, and Esau and his descendants were hated by God.

Which kinda sucks, but it’s what the Bible literally says:

Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

—Malachi 1:2-3

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

—Romans 9:13

The Idumeans living in Judea around the time of Jesus were Edomites and, around 130 BC, were forcibly converted to Judaism [Hebrewism] and recognised as Judeans by John Hyrcanus, even though they were not Israelites (or descendants of Jacob). I’m not entirely sure why John forced them to convert, but I suspect it has to do with controlling and managing the population. In any event, the forced conversion was not terribly successful because many continued practising their pagan, Talmudic and other beliefs behind closed doors.

So the Edomites (descendants of Esau) were intermixed with the Israelites (descendants of Judah) and others in Judea.

You can now see why the word ‘Jew’ is multilayered and why there was no unified religion called Judaism or a people called Jews at the time of Jesus.

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a Jew or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew."

—The Jewish Almanac (1980)

If modern Jews are neither Israelites nor Hebrews, then they are not God’s chosen people and have a fairly flimsy claim to the geographical region now known as Israel (which was created in 1948 by—mostly—the British Empire and has no link to the Israelites).

Jesus, of course, was both an Israelite and a Hebrew who lambasted the Judeans (‘Jews’) for their non-Hebrew lifestyles and beliefs, part of which was pagan and Talmudic, adopted during the Babylonian exile.

Jesus referred to this as the tradition of the elders.

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

—Matthew 15:1-3 (KJV)

The Pharisees, for example, were mostly Edomites.

What about Eastern Europe?

Around 900 AD

For hundreds of years after Jesus, there was a migration of Edomites, Canaanites, and other Judeans into the Khazaria region (Eastern Europe), where they mixed with the native inhabitants and adopted the Talmudic Judaism of Khazaria (which became the state religion).

This is largely the Judaism we know today, rather than the Judaism forced onto Judea by John Hyrcanus many centuries earlier. It’s also from where most (over 90%) of today’s Jews are descended.

But they don’t want you to know that.

The Jewish Kingdom of Khazaria obviously no longer exists, but it was more or less where Ukraine is.

This part of history is an entire discussion on its own, so I won’t go into it now, but I strongly recommend reading two excellent books:

• The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand

• The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestle

So, why does it matter?

Jesus was a Hebrew and an Israelite—a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—belonging specifically to the tribe of Judah, which made him a Judahite. He was born and lived in Judea.

Now what?

It matters because knowing the truth about things is important. Equally, the truth about vaccines, germ theory, the moon landing, Pearl Harbour, JFK’s assassination, Epstein, or [insert talking point] matters too.

Growing up, I was (falsely) taught that Jesus was a Jew, that Jews are God’s chosen people, that Christians must blindly ‘stand with Israel’ because it’s God’s chosen land, and that Jews are constantly persecuted for being Jews.

Then there is this weird ideology called Zionism.

Around 80 million Christian Americans believe in ‘Israel first’ because of the early 20th-century psychological operation known as the Scofield Bible (a topic for another day).

Christians, not Jews, drive Zionism, which is the blind, unquestioning support for modern Israel.

It’s very strange.

But it all makes more sense when you look into whether Jesus was a Jew.