aa5874

But, the OP clearly ask if there are reasons to believe Jesus was not a Jew, the OP did not say acting or behaving like a Jew.

And you reminded me that the NT was to be assumed as historical for the purpose of the OP.

Now, even if Mary was considered a cousin of Elisabeth, not all cousins have the same nationality. It is still not certain that Mary was a Jew.

If the NT is assumed as historical, as you firmly suggested, then there are NO reasons to believe Jesus was a Jew.

The nationalities of his father and mother are actually unknown.

Doug Shaver

Right. Reasons to believe that he was not Jewish.

And there are none, aside from question-begging racist assumptions of the sort referenced earlier in this thread.

Speculations about hypothetical possibilities based on what the gospels do not say about him or his parents are worthless as evidence. What the gospels do say makes it very clear that if the man really existed, then he certainly was a Jew. There is no other reasonable way to construe the narratives, assuming that they have any basis at all in historical fact.

aa5874

But, for the purpose of the OP as suggested by the moderator, it is assumed that the NT is historical, that is, whatever it states with respect to Jesus is historical.

So, Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 are historical or any other event in the NT.

Clearly Joseph, then, is not the father of Jesus, the genealogies of Joseph are irrelevant.

There are no genealogies for Mary, clearly it is not known if Mary is a Jew.

And, further if the NT is assumed historical, Jesus of the NT was not a chief priest, a member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, a Saducee, an Essene or a member of any traditional group regarded as fundamentally Jewish.

If the NT is assumed historical, the nationality of Jesus is unknown.

mountainman

He is portrayed as a Galilaean in very bad greek for a Greek speaking audience that had no other choice than to be satisfied with bad greek stories. We know that the Logos referred to within the text of the new testament was greek. We also know that the military-minded government and taxation at that time (lets say the first 4 centuries of the CE) was Roman, and that Clerk Jesus Kent rendered unto Caesar before he rendered unto whatever god was being promoted in the gospels. To be specific Jesus was portrayed as a Galilaean for the Greeks (probably by the Romans). See Gibbon on the two absolutely diametrically opposed meanings associated with the term Galilaean. And I would remind all readers not to forget that the Emperor Julian actually legislated that the term "Galilaeans" be the legal name for christianity in the fourth century, and for a small period of time, it was legal to call christians by the name of "galilaeans".



Best wishes,


Pete

Amaleq13

Did you not understand the phrase "at least in part" or are you just ignoring it?

aa5874

And what part is historical?

spamandham

If you start with a story that is so fantastic as to be obviously legend/myth/symbolism/fiction, to simply discard the implausible parts and declare the rest history, is not a valid form of analysis. The plausible and implausible parts are intertwined in the same story. If there was a historical core to Jesus, we just don't know anything about it.

From the perspective of literary analysis, the Jesus character depicted in the Gospels is clearly Jewish. He participates in the Jewish festivals, he refers endlessly to the Hebrew scriptures (so much so, that he appears to be constructed from them in large part), his name is a Jewish name, he is from a Jewish region, he participates in Jewish rituals, he is referred to as Rabbi, he is depicted in the company of Moses and Elijah, is depicted as Baptized by the Jewish John the Baptist, and his teachings sound Essene...to name a few.

No Robots

Jeffrey:

Of course, Paul is directing his comments toward Gentile converts to his brand of Judaism, and he does preach to Gentiles whom he hopes to convert. But he clearly understands himself to be preaching Judaism, a new universalist Judaism, Judaism for non-Jews.

aa5874

If the NT is assumed to be historical, Jesus was circumcised, he preached in the synagogue on the Sabbath day, but a child orphaned to Jews can grow up doing the same things as Jesus of the NT.

In effect, what tribe was Jesus from? Does the NT directly link Jesus to one of the twelve tribes?

An author called "Paul" claimed he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

However, if assumed historical, this is Jesus in Matthew 21.42-46 It is unknown or uncertain from which tribe Jesus belongs, no-one could answer him.

The nationality of Jesus is not really known if the NT is assumed historical.

spamandham

I'm referring to Judaism in the religious sense, which is what I believe the OP refers to. I am unaware of any ancient tradition that forbade non-racial Jews from being religious Jews, so the point about who his parents were, or his blood heritage, is irrelevant.