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.

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

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.

Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing. 

Surah Al-Ma’idah; 5:46

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

✝️ So, the short answer is: no, Jesus was not a Jew.

The longer answer (and why it matters) is more complex because we need to understand historical context and the language of the time.

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.

The return from Babylon [following the Captivity, about 538 BC], and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism.

— Stephen Wise, American rabbi and Zionist leader

Meaning of ‘Jew’

The word ‘Jew’ is a relatively new term in the English language.

The letter ‘J’ wasn’t even used 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 Version, the word ‘Jew’ (or 'Jews') doesn’t appear for the first time until 2 Kings 16:6:

At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

However, using an interlinear translation (TS2009) that is closer to the Hebrew and, therefore, more accurate, we don't see the word 'Jews'.

At that time Retsin sovereign of Aram recovered Ěylath for Aram, and drove the men of Yehuḏah from Ěylath. And the Eḏomites went to Ěylath, and have dwelt there to this day.

Firstly, why is this the first time the word ‘Jew(s)’ is used? There is neither a lead-up nor an explanation; it just randomly appears, and no reason is given.

Secondly, the word ‘Yehuḏah’ does not mean ‘Jew’; it means ‘Judah’ (one of the sons of Jacob). So, the Ts2009 phrase is ‘men of Judah’ (or 'Judahites'), whilst the KJV phrase is ‘the Jews’, the latter implying that ‘the Jews’ and ‘men of Judah’ mean the same thing, which is false.

It gets more confusing.

In the New Testament, the word 'Jew' almost always doesn’t mean 'Edomites', but rather refers to a 'Judean' or someone living in the Roman province of Judea. (Judaea is just a different spelling.)

Take a look at the following three translations of John 11:54:

Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

— NIV (New International Version)

Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

— KJV (King James Version)

Yeshua therefore no longer walked openly among the Yehuḏim, but went from there to a country near the wilderness, to a city called Ephrayim, and remained there with His taught ones.

— TS2009 (The Scriptures 2009, interlinear)

The word 'Yehuḏim' is used, which means 'Judeans'.

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'.