I’m going to be blunt: The idea that Jesus may not have been Jewish isn’t a serious position in modern scholarship. It relies on misreading sources, flattening obvious distinctions, and recycling arguments that have already been dismantled.
So I’m trying to understand what you think you’re overturning here.
On what basis are you claiming that Galilean identity made someone non-Jewish in the first century? Galilee had been thoroughly integrated into Jewish life for generations by this point. Archaeology and historical sources are not ambiguous on that.
You also lean heavily on the Gospel of John to frame Jesus as an outsider to “the Jews.” But John is the most theologically stylized of the four gospels and shares only a small fraction of material with the Synoptics (often estimated at around 8–10% overlap.)
Its language is doing something very different.Its use of “the Jews” is widely understood as rhetorical and tied to internal conflict.
So why privilege John’s language in that way while ignoring the broader context of Second Temple Judaism?
If disagreements over Sabbath observance or ritual practice make someone “non-Jewish,” how are you accounting for the well-documented diversity within Judaism at the time? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and other groups disagreed constantly.
When Jesus is called a Samaritan, why treat that as evidence of identity rather than what it clearly is….an insult?
And more broadly, why collapse Jewish identity into vague monotheism? Judaism in this period isn’t defined by belief in “one God” in the abstract. It’s covenant, law, lineage, and shared practice. By your definition, you end up erasing the very distinctions you’re trying to analyze.
I’ll also ask directly: what is the justification for relying on figures like Evola, Wagner, and Chamberlain here? These aren’t neutral voices. They’re part of a long tradition that tried to detach Jesus from Judaism for ideological reasons, not historical ones.
So what primary sources or modern historians are you actually relying on that support your claim?
Because as it stands, this doesn’t read like a serious reexamination. It reads like a selective argument built on misunderstandings the field moved past a long time ago.
He openly states that many modern scholars maintain a different position than him on this matter. Yet, the point is that modern scholarship is not the end all be all of what the truth is on this matter. Furthermore, there was not one type of Judaism in the 1st century. I don't read this as the author saying that Christ was not part of some group that was connected to the religion of the Old Testament. I read him as rightfully showing how the relatively more unified Rabbinic Judaism of today is not representative of Judaism in the 1st century and that Christ likely was not part of the sect of Judaism that would later come to dominate after the Church is started.
No, he makes an important point. We do have to distinguish between Rabbinic Jews of the present day from those who resided in Galilee or even Judea in the 1st Century.
The reverend father isn’t talking about current day Jews but as I say we all know the point of his stupid argument. The point is to disassociate current day Jews from Jesus. Which is what you said. Thanks for making my point for me. The problem that you both have is that you want to be obsessive trad Cath zealots AND hate Jews. And these days that’s not that easy to do since all those Germans made us aware of the historical background of Jesus. Keep trying dopey.
There wasn't a logical argument in your entire screed, merely an anger driven condemnation of anyone who would dare disagree with you.
It is also hilarious that you think I am some kind of "trad Cath" or that I have some ulterior motive for simply providing some evidence which shows the author's claims to not be totally unfounded. I have no problem if Our Lord was an ethnic Jew. I simply don't think the evidence proves that He was indeed the equivalent of a present day ethnic Jew. History is a lot more nuanced than you seem to understand.
As an outsider İ found this a very challenging article. From my limited reading (Vermes) I'd always thought the synoptics portrayed Jesus (pbuh) as Jewish (or at least more Jewish than John does).
Matthew 23:23 , for example.
And weren't the first followers Jews? Whence the tension with Paul and James (the Jerusalem Church) with regard the law?
Idk seems like higher than average IQ nonsense to me....low IQ people wouldn't challenge any of assumptions the author tries to.
If the article was simply saying that dynamics of identity and tradition of the 1st century Roman Levant was extremely complex and very different from modern conceptions and that first century Galileans were in a fuzzy space between in-group and out-group (although more in than out) ..... would have acceptable
(Why he was citing Evola etc as an authority is bizarre)
As you said though, 1st century Galileans were definitely a part of the second temple cultural-religous system.
Maybe, Megan. İt's always important to at least try and speak the truth, granted. But with strangers online? I'm not so sure. Or maybe I'm just too old (er..or lazy!) to respond to every provocation. İf Nina (the person who posted it and who I vaguely know) had written it I probably would have discussed it with her.
İn any case, it’s such a bizarre claim I’m not sure why anyone would even want to go down that road.
From a Muslim perspective being a Jewish prophet (Messiah) makes a lot of sense.
I’m going to be blunt: The idea that Jesus may not have been Jewish isn’t a serious position in modern scholarship. It relies on misreading sources, flattening obvious distinctions, and recycling arguments that have already been dismantled.
So I’m trying to understand what you think you’re overturning here.
On what basis are you claiming that Galilean identity made someone non-Jewish in the first century? Galilee had been thoroughly integrated into Jewish life for generations by this point. Archaeology and historical sources are not ambiguous on that.
You also lean heavily on the Gospel of John to frame Jesus as an outsider to “the Jews.” But John is the most theologically stylized of the four gospels and shares only a small fraction of material with the Synoptics (often estimated at around 8–10% overlap.)
Its language is doing something very different.Its use of “the Jews” is widely understood as rhetorical and tied to internal conflict.
So why privilege John’s language in that way while ignoring the broader context of Second Temple Judaism?
If disagreements over Sabbath observance or ritual practice make someone “non-Jewish,” how are you accounting for the well-documented diversity within Judaism at the time? Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and other groups disagreed constantly.
When Jesus is called a Samaritan, why treat that as evidence of identity rather than what it clearly is….an insult?
And more broadly, why collapse Jewish identity into vague monotheism? Judaism in this period isn’t defined by belief in “one God” in the abstract. It’s covenant, law, lineage, and shared practice. By your definition, you end up erasing the very distinctions you’re trying to analyze.
I’ll also ask directly: what is the justification for relying on figures like Evola, Wagner, and Chamberlain here? These aren’t neutral voices. They’re part of a long tradition that tried to detach Jesus from Judaism for ideological reasons, not historical ones.
So what primary sources or modern historians are you actually relying on that support your claim?
Because as it stands, this doesn’t read like a serious reexamination. It reads like a selective argument built on misunderstandings the field moved past a long time ago.
He openly states that many modern scholars maintain a different position than him on this matter. Yet, the point is that modern scholarship is not the end all be all of what the truth is on this matter. Furthermore, there was not one type of Judaism in the 1st century. I don't read this as the author saying that Christ was not part of some group that was connected to the religion of the Old Testament. I read him as rightfully showing how the relatively more unified Rabbinic Judaism of today is not representative of Judaism in the 1st century and that Christ likely was not part of the sect of Judaism that would later come to dominate after the Church is started.
I think the reverend father might have been spending a bit too much time on twitter. We all know where he’s trying to get to with this garbage.
No, he makes an important point. We do have to distinguish between Rabbinic Jews of the present day from those who resided in Galilee or even Judea in the 1st Century.
The reverend father isn’t talking about current day Jews but as I say we all know the point of his stupid argument. The point is to disassociate current day Jews from Jesus. Which is what you said. Thanks for making my point for me. The problem that you both have is that you want to be obsessive trad Cath zealots AND hate Jews. And these days that’s not that easy to do since all those Germans made us aware of the historical background of Jesus. Keep trying dopey.
There wasn't a logical argument in your entire screed, merely an anger driven condemnation of anyone who would dare disagree with you.
It is also hilarious that you think I am some kind of "trad Cath" or that I have some ulterior motive for simply providing some evidence which shows the author's claims to not be totally unfounded. I have no problem if Our Lord was an ethnic Jew. I simply don't think the evidence proves that He was indeed the equivalent of a present day ethnic Jew. History is a lot more nuanced than you seem to understand.
It’s funny how in one breath Modern people define ethnicity only through DNA, but when it comes to Jesus, it suddenly includes culture. 🤔
Jesus is a 1st Century Jew.
As an outsider İ found this a very challenging article. From my limited reading (Vermes) I'd always thought the synoptics portrayed Jesus (pbuh) as Jewish (or at least more Jewish than John does).
Matthew 23:23 , for example.
And weren't the first followers Jews? Whence the tension with Paul and James (the Jerusalem Church) with regard the law?
Yes it’s challenging because it’s low IQ nonsense 😜
Idk seems like higher than average IQ nonsense to me....low IQ people wouldn't challenge any of assumptions the author tries to.
If the article was simply saying that dynamics of identity and tradition of the 1st century Roman Levant was extremely complex and very different from modern conceptions and that first century Galileans were in a fuzzy space between in-group and out-group (although more in than out) ..... would have acceptable
(Why he was citing Evola etc as an authority is bizarre)
As you said though, 1st century Galileans were definitely a part of the second temple cultural-religous system.
I didn't want to say that because it's pointless. There's already enough anger online, so why add to it?!
😂 because we live in a “yes man” society and this sort of nonsense needs it be called for what it is? 🤷🏻♀️
Maybe, Megan. İt's always important to at least try and speak the truth, granted. But with strangers online? I'm not so sure. Or maybe I'm just too old (er..or lazy!) to respond to every provocation. İf Nina (the person who posted it and who I vaguely know) had written it I probably would have discussed it with her.
İn any case, it’s such a bizarre claim I’m not sure why anyone would even want to go down that road.
From a Muslim perspective being a Jewish prophet (Messiah) makes a lot of sense.
Did Jews historically enforce the sabbath against the Goyim? It would seem to be silly to use this as an example if they didn't.