I mean, was He one of the Hasidem?
Or was He by and large just one of the “regular”…relatively secular…jews?
The modern Chasidic movement started in 17th Century Poland, so he wasn’t a Chasid. Even the term “Orthodox Jew” is a fairly modern term. The Orthodox didn’t really start calling themselves “Orthodox” until the beginning of the Reform movement. Even with that caveat, even the Talmud wasn’t around in written form yet. You can’t really say anybody was “Orthodox” back then. However, the predecessors of the Orthodox, the Pharasee movement, was around back then, but Jesus wasn’t a Pharasee (even putting aside the whole “I am God” thing). He said ritual cleanliness laws shouldn’t be applied, he condoned work on the Sabbath, and he denied the validity of divorce, among other things.
Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher and faith healer, who said that the world was about to end and that people should give up their possessions and reform their lives and love one another.
And Jews in 1st century Palestine weren’t particularly secular. Secular law was Roman law, which only really applied in urban areas, and which wasn’t liked by the Jews anyway. People governed themselves by religious law and traditional customs, and the Romans were generally willing to let them do that as long as it didn’t cause trouble.
Jesus didn’t keep the Sabbath as strictly as the Pharisees thought He should. So he probably was not considered as observant as they would have liked.
I can dig up the Scripture verses if you like.
Regards,
Shodan
“Orthodox Judaism” as we know it today did not exist at that time. Rabbinical Judaism did not exist until after the destruction of the Temple.
Depends on what you mean by “Jewish.”
He could not have been a Chasid or an Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Judaism arose as a protest to Reform Judaism, and so is a relatively recent phenomenon. Chasidut (or Chasidism) is also modern.
Now, there was a group of Jews known as the Chasidim during the Second Temple Period. These were Jews who thought the Macabees had gone too far when they usurped the position of king and high priest of Israel. According to the Tanakh, the king must be of Davidic descent while the high priest must be of Aaronic descent (or, more specifically, a Zadokite). Considering many of Jesus’ statements, it is doubtful that he was a Chasid.
And Jesus was not an Essene. No, never.
Jesus was probably unaffiliated, a rabbi in his own right, more sympathetic to Pharisaic Judaism (which evolved to become Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple) than Saducee Judaism. Jesus probably had a thing against hypocritical Pharisees rather than the rank and file Pharisee. Who knows.
From the New Testament we do know he wore a tallit - the fringe the woman with a discharge touched was the tzitzit of his tallit. But no mention was made of tefillin. Don’t know if this has an impact.
In my opinion, and I may be wrong, as far as a historical perspective is concerned, Jesus was probably a Pharisee-leaning Jew without formal affiliation who believed in a very certain interpretation of the Law that emphasized the inner portions of it rather than the ritualic or legalistic aspects. And Jesus would not have been alone or unique, for the record. But his movement became unique because of his execution and subsequent supposed resurrection, and because of the direction the new movement took, becoming more Gentile-friendly and changing the Law dramatically until it evolved into a religion in its own right.
WRS
WeRSauron:
The label “Orthodox” came about in response to Reform Judaism. However, the institution - the Jewish religion as followers of the Torah and its associated oral traditions - was around long beforehand. Orthodox = Rabbinic = Pharasaic. The labels only changed when some new form of Judaism was created; in between those times, it was known simply as Judaism and no one felt any need to add a qualifying adjective.
As for JC, I imagine he was probably a Pharisee who turned away from certain Pharasaic practices and/or beliefs due to what he perceived as either corruption or heartless legalizing amongst the Rabbis. Given the emphasis on the afterlife in sayings attributed to him, he was certainly not a Sadduccee…they rejected belief in an afterlife.
Jesus’ theological thought was clearly of the Pharisaical variety. However, he was out of step with the Pharisees of his day, and so they saw him as an apostate —even more of one than the much farther afield Sadducees or Essenes. The person who proceeds from your position but to a different conclusion is always seen as more dangerous than those with whom you have no common foundation —look at the Democrats and the Greens or the Communists and the Socialists.