Jesus wasn’t a Jew cause Jesus was made up by the Roman Catholic Church in 326 at the Council. He was molded after Serapis Christus.
I don’t believe “Jesus the son of God” performed miracles and rose from the dead but that’s a different matter than someone by that name existing and preaching at that time.
There is a lot that predates 326.
Possible evidence of a historical Jesus:
1) Paul (the authentic letters, e.g. 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians — mid-1st century, c. 50s CE)
What it says: Paul talks about Jesus’ death and resurrection, mentions people who knew Jesus (Peter/Cephas, James “the Lord’s brother”), and preserves an early creed (1 Cor. 15).
Why it’s strong: very close in time to the events (a few decades), independent non-Gospel testimony from within early Christianity, and shows an early movement centered on a recently executed leader.
Why it’s limited: Paul knows surprisingly little about the narrative details of Jesus’ earthly life (no birth stories, few sayings), so it’s strong for existence and crucifixion but weak for detailed biography.
2) The canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John — written c. 65–100 CE)
What they say: extended narratives about Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles, trial, death and (for believers) resurrection.
Why they’re useful: preserve traditions (some likely older than the written texts), show multiple independent strands (Synoptics vs John), contain specific sayings and episodes that can be weighed by historians (using criteria like multiple attestation, embarrassment, contextual fit).
Why they’re problematic: written decades later, the authors had theological aims and edited traditions; miraculous and theological claims are not treated as historical facts by historians; some material is probably legendary or shaped for theological reasons.
3) Tacitus (Roman historian, Annals, early 2nd century, c. 115–120 CE)
What it says: in describing Nero’s persecution of Christians, Tacitus writes that “Christus…suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.”
Why it’s strong: a non-Christian, hostile source that independently confirms a crucified founder and links him to Pilate — scholars regard it as good external corroboration of execution.
Why it’s limited: written ~80–90 years after the events and Tacitus likely relied on sources available in Rome (not eyewitnesses); short and not biographical.
4) Josephus (Jewish historian, Antiquities of the Jews, late 1st century, c. 93–100 CE)
What it says: two passages are relevant — a longer passage about Jesus (the
Testimonium Flavianum) and a shorter mention of “James, brother of Jesus called Christ.”
Why it’s useful: Josephus is a near-contemporary Jewish source and the James passage is widely judged authentic or at least to have an authentic core (it names Jesus and James).
Why it’s tricky: the longer Testimonium contains clear Christian interpolations (added or edited by later Christians), so scholars try to recover an original, neutral core. Thus Josephus provides useful but complicated corroboration rather than a clean, independent biography.
5) Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, letter to Emperor Trajan, c. 111 CE)
What it says: Pliny describes Christians in his province worshiping Christ “as if a god” and meeting for hymns and communal meals.
Why it’s useful: shows that by early 2nd century people worshipped a figure called Christ; confirms an organized movement with devotion to Jesus.
Why it’s limited: it doesn’t supply biographical details about Jesus himself (no birth or life narrative), only demonstrates the existence of a worshipping community.
6) Suetonius (Roman biographer, Lives of the Caesars, early 2nd century)
What it says: a short remark that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome “because of Chrestus,” which some read as reference to disturbances about Christ. Another line refers to Christians later under Nero.
Why it’s useful: gives some Roman testimony that unrest in Rome involved people related to a figure called (or confused with) Christ/Chrestus.
Why it’s limited: the reference is ambiguous (Chrestus could be a common name or a garbled report) and is not clearly a biographical witness about Jesus; weaker evidence than Tacitus/Josephus.
Quick overall judgment
- Strongest historical support: the very early Pauline letters (for existence of a recent executed leader and early followers) combined with the Synoptic Gospel traditions (for more specific sayings/episodes that can be tested by historical methods).
- Independent non-Christian corroboration: Tacitus and Josephus (especially the James reference) are important external confirmations that a crucified leader around Pilate’s time was associated with a movement; Pliny and Suetonius add attestation to an early, organized cult.
- Net effect: Taken together these sources make the existence of a first-century Jewish teacher called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate very probable to historians; the sources are sufficient for that core claim but insufficient to establish theological or miraculous details.
| Source (typical date) | Years after 30 CE | Age if eyewitness was 20 in 30 CE | Age if eyewitness was 40 in 30 CE | Likelihood eyewitness alive / usable |
|---|
| Paul — authentic letters (c. 50s, use 55 CE) | 55 − 30 = 25years | 20 + 25 = 45 | 40 + 25 = 65 | Very likely — direct informants/eyewitnesses plausibly alive. |
| Mark (c. 65–75, use 70 CE) | 70 − 30 = 40 | 20 + 40 = 60 | 40 + 40 = 80 | Likely — many adults could survive to these ages. |
| Matthew / Luke (c. 80–90, use 85 CE) | 85 − 30 = 55 | 20 + 55 = 75 | 40 + 55 = 95 | Plausible but thinning — younger eyewitnesses possible; older ones unlikely. |
| John (c. 90–100, use 95 CE) | 95 − 30 = 65 | 20 + 65 = 85 | 40 + 65 = 105 | Borderline/less likely — possible for a few long-lived eyewitnesses but rare. |
| Josephus (Antiquities, c. 93–100, use 93 CE) | 93 − 30 = 63 | 20 + 63 = 83 | 40 + 63 = 103 | Possible that some very long-lived informants existed; his information likely from tradition or local informants rather than many living eyewitnesses. |
