Christ in the Sources: A Historical Defense of the Early Christian Proclamation

Among the most significant questions in historical theology is whether the central events of Christianity—the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—can be supported by historical evidence. The following analysis considers several key sources that speak to this issue.

One of the most significant extra-biblical references comes from the Roman historian Tacitus, who served as proconsul of Asia around A.D. 112–113 and likely had access to official Roman records when composing his Annals. Widely regarded by modern scholars as one of the most reliable ancient historians, Tacitus wrote the following, likely around A.D. 116:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero [reigned A.D. 54-68] fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius as the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful form every part of the world find their centre and become popular.¹⁾Tacitus, Annals 15.44.3

This statement by Tacitus corroborates what Tertullian later asserted in Apology 5—that Nero was the first Roman emperor to institute an official persecution of Christians. Tacitus’ account affirms that Jesus Christ was a historical person rather than a mythical or legendary figure whose story developed over time. His reference situates Christ precisely within the same historical context found in the Gospel of Luke 3:1—during the reign of Tiberius and under the governance of Pontius Pilate in Judea. The phrase “suffered the extreme penalty” is widely understood to be a reference to crucifixion.

Furthermore, Tacitus notes that although this “superstition” was momentarily suppressed, it soon spread rapidly—even to Rome. This suggests an implicit acknowledgment of the resurrection claim, as the Christian movement not only survived the execution of its founder but also flourished shortly thereafter. It is reasonable to interpret this remark as an allusion to the efforts by Roman authorities—particularly Pilate—to quell the growing influence of Jesus, which ultimately failed as His followers began to boldly proclaim His resurrection.

In the second century, Tertullian, a Christian author from Carthage—well-educated and trained in Roman law prior to his conversion—wrote the following account:

Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.²⁾ Tertullian, Apology 5.

Elsewhere, Tertullian records:

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesar too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesar had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.³⁾ Tertullian, Apology 21.

This work, written during the reign of Septimius Severus (c. A.D. 197–200), was addressed directly to the emperor. Tertullian again affirms that Christ lived during the reign of Tiberius and claims that Pilate sent a report to the emperor describing Christ’s divine nature. According to Tertullian, Tiberius proposed the deification of Christ, which the Roman Senate rejected, not due to lack of merit but because the proposal had not originated with them. Nevertheless, Tiberius is said to have maintained his favorable opinion and warned against persecuting Christians.

While the historicity of these claims cannot be definitively verified, the fact that Tertullian made such assertions in a public defense addressed to the emperor lends a measure of credibility, at least insofar as the possibility that official records existed. Of particular interest is Tertullian’s suggestion of communication between Pontius Pilate and the imperial court regarding the person of Christ.

At an earlier date, Justin Martyr, writing to Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius (reigned A.D. 138–161) and the Roman Senate,⁴⁾ Justin Martyrs, First Apology, 1 made a similar appeal to official documentation. He stated:

And that these things [details of the crucifixion] did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.⁵⁾ Justin Martyrs, First Apology, 35.9

And that he did those things [heal diseases and raised the dead], you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.⁶⁾ Justin Martyr, First Apology, 48.3

Justin’s reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate suggests the existence of official records or reports that he believed the emperor and Senate could consult to verify the historical events surrounding Jesus’ life and death. Whatever the precise nature of these documents, Justin clearly considered them authoritative enough to support his argument that Jesus was crucified and performed miraculous deeds—events he framed as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy.

Thus, we observe early Christian appeals to Roman archival material as external corroboration of the gospel narrative. Tacitus, writing independently and with likely access to Roman records, affirms key elements of this account: that Christ lived during the reign of Tiberius, was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that following His death, a religious movement arose that rapidly spread from Judea to Rome.

Taken together, these references contribute to the historical grounding of Jesus’ life and crucifixion, aligning with the testimony of the canonical Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. While not exhaustive, this body of evidence lends weight to the claim that the New Testament narrative is historically credible.

This becomes all the more remarkable when one considers the historical context and purpose of crucifixion in the ancient world. Martin Hengel observes:

Even Paul’s Greek audience could hardly have approved of the λογος του σταυρου [“the preaching of the cross,” 1 Cor. 1:18], much less the Jews who could see the Roman crosses erected in Palestine, especially when they could hardly forget the saying about the curse laid upon anyone hanged on a tree (Deut. 21.23). A crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish.⁷⁾ Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the ancient  world and the folly of the message of the cross (trans. John Bowden), Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1977, 1978), p. 10

Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest strata of society—criminals, rebels, and slaves—and was designed to be not only physically excruciating but also socially degrading. The notion of a crucified deity would have been viewed as both abhorrent and absurd within the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultural frameworks. In a world where gods were expected to be exalted, powerful, and triumphant, the proclamation of a crucified God ran counter to every prevailing expectation of divinity.

Such a message would not have been an attractive invention for those seeking to create a new religion. Rather, it would have been inherently repellent and even scandalous to its earliest audiences. Therefore, the claim of Christ crucified only makes sense as a historical reality—something that was not fabricated but proclaimed despite its inherent offensiveness—because it was grounded in eyewitness testimony and substantiated by the experiential power of the early Christian movement, including reported miracles and transformed lives across the Roman Empire.

Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 160–240) references a pagan historian named Thallus, who is believed to have written around A.D. 55. In discussing the darkness that occurred during the crucifixion of Christ, Africanus writes:

This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let that opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye.⁸⁾ Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, Fragment 18

In addition to Thallus, Africanus also quotes another pagan historian, Phlegon, who is believed to have written around A.D. 140. Africanus records:

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth — manifestly that one of which we speak.⁹⁾ Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, Fragment 18

Origen likewise refers to Phlegon on several occasions. He states:

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.¹⁰⁾ Origen, Against Celsus, 2.33

Elsewhere, Origen comments:

Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.¹¹⁾ Origen, Against Celsus, 2.14

These citations from two independent pagan sources lend external support to the synoptic Gospel accounts of the darkness that covered the land during the crucifixion (cf. Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). Moreover, as Julius Africanus argues, the claim that this darkness was a solar eclipse presents a significant astronomical problem, as a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon—the time of the Jewish Passover. This suggests that what was recorded could not have been a natural eclipse, but rather an extraordinary event. While miracles cannot be proven empirically in the historical method, the convergence of early Christian texts and external pagan sources provides compelling evidence that an unusual, seemingly impossible phenomenon occurred, widely enough observed to be noted in historical writings, including one as early as the mid-first century.

E. P. Sanders—by no means a conservative scholar—offers the following assessment of the historical Jesus:

I think it strongly probable that Jesus was regarded as an exorcist…. I continue to regard ’prophet’ as the best category. Jesus was also, however, an exorcist…. I think that we may be fairly certain that initially Jesus’ fame came as the result of healing, especially exorcism. This is an important corrective to the common view, that Jesus was essentially a teacher. He was also, and for some people primarily, a miracle-worker.¹²⁾ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, The Penguin Press (New York, NY: 1993), pp. 153-154

Sanders’ analysis underscores the centrality of miraculous phenomena in the early perception of Jesus’ ministry. Contrary to the modern tendency to reduce Jesus to a moral teacher, the historical record—reflected in both early Christian sources and critical scholarship—indicates that Jesus was widely recognized for acts of healing, exorcism, and prophecy, as was also admitted by Phlegon. These miraculous events formed a crucial basis for His followers’ recognition of His divine identity.

One of the earliest non-Christian attestations of Christian worship is found in a letter dated to A.D. 112 from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, during Trajan’s reign (A.D. 98–117). In this letter, Pliny seeks guidance on how to deal with Christians whom he had interrogated. He describes their practices as follows:

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.¹³⁾ Pliny the Younger, Epistle 96

Pliny’s comment regarding the consumption of “ordinary and innocent kind” of food, responds to widespread pagan accusations of cannibalism among Christians. That Christians firmly rejected such accusations suggests that the early Church did not embrace a literal interpretation of the Eucharist, such as the later Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.¹⁴⁾ Heath Henning, History of the Heresy of Transubstantiation, June 30, 2018; https://truthwatchers.com/history-of-the-heresy-of-transubstantiation/

Robert E. Van Voorst comments on this passage, stating: “Christ here is the divine leader of this religion, worshipped by Christians, so that cursing him is tantamount to rejecting Christianity.”¹⁵⁾ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), p. 28 This observation aligns with the many hymnic passages in the New Testament that reflect early Christian worship of Christ as divine. Philippians 2:6–11 is widely recognized as a Christological hymn, and other texts such as 1 Timothy 3:16 and Colossians 1:15–20 are similarly regarded as liturgical or hymnic formulations embedded within Paul’s epistles.¹⁶⁾ For an elaborate list of passages that have been proposed as hymns, see David Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian literature and Rhetoric, Westminster John Knox Press (Louisville, KY: 2003), pp. 223-224

Together, these sources confirm the presence of a highly developed Christology and communal worship of Christ as God from the earliest stages of the Christian movement. Such early expressions preclude the notion that core gospel claims—particularly the divinity of Christ—were later mythological developments.

Suetonius, another Roman historian with access to imperial archives, wrote around A.D. 120: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.”¹⁷⁾ Suetonius, Claudius 25.4. The unusual spelling of “Chrestus” has sparked debate regarding whether Suetonius was referring to Christ. Craig Keener offers insight into this ambiguity, explaining:

The Greek term Χριστος made for an unusual name in Greek (meaning something like ‘anointed’ in medicine or ‘plastered’ in construction language); Greeks did, however, make good use of the similar-sounding Χρηστος (‘useful’), especially as a slave name. Gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish terminology might then hear ‘Christos’ as ‘Chrestus,’ confusing Suetonius’s source.¹⁸⁾ Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 15:1-23:35, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2014), Vol. 3, p. 2710

Early Christian authors also recognized this confusion in pronunciation. Tertullian observed:

But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, as even when it is wrongly pronounced by you ‘Chrestianus’ (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity.¹⁹⁾ Tertullian, Apology 3

This wordplay is likewise attested in Justin Martyr²⁰⁾First Apology, 4 and Lactantius, ²¹⁾Divine Institutes, 4.7. suggesting that the conflation of Christos and Chrestus was commonly noted in the early Christian centuries.

Suetonius’s reference corroborates the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Emperor Claudius, an event dated to A.D. 49. This is affirmed in Acts 18:2: “And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.” This passage is significant, as it confirms that the Christian message had reached Rome and was already generating controversy among the Jewish population by the late 40s A.D.—barely a decade after the movement originated in Judea. The early spread and the disruptive impact of the Christian proclamation further attest to its historical reality and rapid dissemination.

According to Josephus, Herod Agrippa I reigned for three years under Emperor Claudius, corresponding to A.D. 41–43.²²⁾ Josephus, Antiquity 19.351 During this period, Agrippa executed James the son of Zebedee and imprisoned Peter, who subsequently escaped, as recorded in Acts 12:1–18. Following Peter’s escape, Acts 12:17 notes that he “departed, and went into another place.” Based on this passage, several scholars—including Jack Finegan,²³⁾ Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Revised Edition), Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 1998), p. 374 Andrew Steinman,²⁴⁾ Andrew Steinman, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, Concordia Publishing House (Saint Louis, MO: 2011), p. 329 and Jonathan Bernier,²⁵⁾ Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2022), p. 77  have proposed that Peter traveled to Rome around A.D. 42–43.

Irenaeus, writing in the second century, stated that the Gospel of Matthew was composed “while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome”²⁶⁾ Irenaeus, Against Heresy 3.1.1 While it is unlikely that Paul was active in Rome during the 40s, it is reasonable to infer that Matthew’s Gospel may have been composed before A.D. 43, during Peter’s presumed presence in the city.

The early Church Fathers—Papias ²⁷⁾Fragments, 6, Irenaeus ²⁸⁾Against Heresies, 3.1.1, Origen ²⁹⁾Commentary on John, 1.6 and 6.17, and Eusebius ³⁰⁾Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.3—consistently affirm that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written and that it was originally composed in Hebrew for a Jewish audience. This aligns with Paul’s theological emphasis in Romans 1:16, where he states that the gospel is “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

Manuscript fragments of Matthew, such as the Magdalen Papyrus (P64) and the Barcelona Papyrus (P67), have been paleographically dated to A.D. 62–66. Given that the Magdalen Papyrus was discovered in Egypt, it is plausible that the autograph of Matthew originated in Judea and that early copies circulated widely, one of which eventually reached Egypt. These manuscript dates strongly imply that the original composition of Matthew predates them.

In addition, debated Greek fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls—specifically 7Q5 (identified by some scholars as Mark 6:52–53) and 7Q4 (possibly 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3)—have prompted further scholarly consideration. If these identifications are correct, they would necessitate dating the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, along with 1 Timothy, prior to A.D. 66.

Scholars who reject the historical evidence and manuscript findings often do so as a result of their liberal education, which leads them to be blinded by preconceived opinions. Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, in their discussion of the manuscript evidence for an early date of Matthew and the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, observe:

Many theologians continue to be scandalized by the straightforward suggestion that their ancient sources are earlier and reasonably reliable. They prefer the notion that the Gospels are late community creations, legendary texts which may be freely interpreted by theories in our own time. Posturing as historians, many theologians employ methods that are often very different from those of the open-minded historical researcher.³¹⁾ Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, Doubleday (New York, NY: 1996), p. 160

Matthew was cited by the Church Fathers more frequently than Mark. The Scripture index of the Ante-Nicene Fathers shows 25 1/2 columns for Matthew being quoted by early Christian writers from the first three centuries, compared to only 3 1/2 columns for Mark. While Mark, being the shorter Gospel, might have been easier to memorize and its copies more widely disseminated, ancient rhetoric emphasized the argument from antiquity, which likely explains Matthew’s preeminence in the early Church.

Evidence from internal textual analysis, historical records, archaeology, and manuscript findings all support the conclusion that Matthew was composed early. The claim that Mark was the first written Gospel assumes that, due to its brevity, legends grew over time about Christ and were later adapted into the larger Gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, historical sources such as 2 Maccabees 2:23-32 refute the theory of Mark’s priority. This passage reveals that the purpose of 2 Maccabees was to condense a five-volume work into a single volume for easier memorization, suggesting that the longer version (Matthew) predates the shorter (Mark).

The significance of Matthew as the first written Gospel lies in its portrayal of the life of a historical figure, written within a decade of the events it describes, directed to the Jewish nation where those events took place, and composed within the lifetime of contemporary eyewitnesses—both supportive and antagonistic. Matthew is also notable for its detailed account of the resurrection.

Paul’s earliest epistle, written between A.D. 50 and 52, frequently references the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 5:9-10). Scholars, including Andrew Steinman, have dated Paul’s conversion to A.D. 36.³²⁾ Andrew Steinman, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, Concordia Publishing House (Saint Louis, MO: 2011), p. 322-323 In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Paul employs the terms “received” and “delivered,” which are common Rabbinic idioms for the transmission of oral tradition, often memorized verbatim. Regardless of when one dates the Gospels, this creed is believed to have been formulated within 3 to 8 years after the crucifixion.

Dean Overman stated, “The consensus of scholarship is that Paul received this tradition from the original congregation in Jerusalem at the time of his visit to that city a few years after his conversion.”³³⁾ Dean L. Overman, A Case for the Divinity of Jesus: Examining the Earliest Evidence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (Lanham, MD: 2010), p. 30  Many non-Pauline phrases in this passage, such as “according to the scriptures” (v. 3-4), “third day” (v. 4), and “the twelve” (v. 5), suggest that this was a memorized creed. The use of the Aramaic name “Cephas” rather than “Peter” further points to the creed’s origin in Jerusalem. This attests to the fact that the Gospel message was being preached to contemporaries in Israel immediately following Christ’s death.

The well-known passage from Josephus, commonly referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum, warrants citation and analysis. It appears in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.³⁴⁾ Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 18.63-64

Several disputed phrases within this passage require brief examination. The expression, “if it be lawful to call him a man,” is often taken to imply a reference to Jesus’ divinity. However, Josephus occasionally employed elevated or semi-deified language for notable figures such as prophets³⁵⁾e.g., Ant. 3.180; 10.35; 18.64. Moreover, he recognized the ability of false prophets to offer seemingly accurate predictions³⁶⁾Ant. 18.195–204; cf. 18.236–237. Therefore, such language should not necessarily be understood as an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity or of divine inspiration from the God of Israel.

The phrase “doer of wonderful works” does suggest Jesus was known for performing miracles. This is consistent with both Christian and non-Christian sources. Jewish rabbinic texts, though polemical, acknowledge Jesus and his followers as miracle-workers, albeit attributing such acts to sorcery.³⁷⁾e.g., t. Hullin 2.22–23; Eccl. Rab. 1.8.4; 10.4.1; y. Abodah Zarah 2.2b; b. Sanh. 43a; 107b; b. Sotah 47a; Toledoth Yeshu

The clause “He was [the] Christ” has been regarded as a Christian interpolation. However, it may function here merely as an identifier for a figure named Jesus, a common name at the time. Josephus similarly wrote, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”³⁸⁾ Antiquities 20.200 For a Roman readership unfamiliar with Jewish names, the title “Christ” would have served as a clearer identifier than “of Nazareth” or “son of Joseph.”

It is also claimed that Josephus would not have written that Jesus was crucified “at the suggestion of the principal men among us,” which assigns blame to the Jewish leaders. Nevertheless, other Jewish sources likewise acknowledge that Jewish authorities sought Jesus’ death³⁹⁾e.g., b. Sanh. 43a; Toledoth Yeshu, and Josephus had no hesitation in criticizing Jewish leadership elsewhere.

The statement that Jesus “appeared to them alive again the third day” is frequently dismissed as a Christian addition. However, when this passage is analyzed in the broader rhetorical context of Antiquities 18.65–80—particularly the narrative of a woman deceived into believing she had encountered the god Anubis, with the fraud being revealed “on the third day” and culminating in the crucifixion of the priests of Isis—it becomes plausible that Josephus intended this as a veiled critique. His use of similar temporal markers and narrative structure may imply that he viewed Christianity as a movement born of deception. If so, the passage, even if polemical in tone, confirms the central claims of the early Christian proclamation and their wide recognition in the first century, including by critics.⁴⁰⁾ Heath Henning, “Josephus’ Testimony of Christ: Evidence for Authenticity,” August 10, 2018; https://truthwatchers.com/josephus-testimony-of-christ-is-it-reliable/

In conclusion, whether understood as sincere or satirical, the Testimonium Flavianum preserves a valuable first-century non-Christian witness to the foundational claims of the Christian faith and their early dissemination.

The Jewish scholar Geza Vermes offers an important observation regarding the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus:

It is also noteworthy that in the Testimonium of Josephus Jesus is portrayed as a ‘wise man’ and the performer of ‘marvelous deeds.’ Both epithets, and especially the latter, fit so well into the historical context that their invention or interpolation into the account by a later Christian forger is unlikely. Indeed, even a somewhat critical early rabbinic mention distinguishes not only Jesus himself, but his disciples as well, by their miraculous healing activities.⁴¹⁾ Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1973), p. 79

Among the earliest non-Christian Jewish sources that acknowledge Jesus’ miracles and affirm the Jewish authorities’ role in his death is the Babylonian Talmud. It states:

It was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, `He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.` But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! `Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty].⁴²⁾ Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a

This text suggests that Jesus was publicly accused of sorcery—an admission that he performed extraordinary acts—and of apostasy, namely leading Israel astray. His execution is stated to have occurred on the eve of Passover, aligning with the Gospel narratives. Moreover, the remark that he was “connected with the government” or royalty may imply a recognition of Davidic descent, a theme also found in early Christian writings (Matthew 1:1).

Commenting on this passage, Mark Eastman notes:

This is considered to be one of the very reliable rabbinic references to Jesus (‘Yeshu’). The writer here verifies that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, that he was crucified on the Eve of Passover and that he did miracles, referred to as sorcery….

According to Jewish law it is illegal to perform capital punishment on the Eve of the Passover. However, this record verifies something that we wouldn’t expect to find in a rabbinical source, the fact that the Sanhedrin acted illegally in condemning and crucifying Jesus on Passover. Consequently, this reference is seen more valuable in terms of validating the historicity of Jesus.⁴³⁾ Mark Eastman M.D., Chuck Smith, The Search For the Messiah, The Word For Today (Costa Mesa, CA: 1996), p. 253

In sum, the Talmudic reference, though polemical like Josephus, corroborates key historical claims found in the New Testament: Jesus’ miracles, the involvement of Jewish authorities in his execution, the timing of his death, and his royal lineage. Such details, recorded by opponents of Christianity, provide compelling indirect confirmation of the early Christian proclamation.

All of these sources—along with numerous others not addressed here—strongly affirm the historical foundations of the Christian faith. The early and consistent proclamation of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, the worship of Jesus as God through hymns, the attribution of miracles to Him, and even external attestations such as the miraculous darkness at His crucifixion, all provide compelling evidence. As noted by the former leading atheist philosopher Antony Flew, who eventually adopted a deistic worldview, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.”⁴⁴⁾ A. Flew and G. Habermas. “My pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary R. Habermas,” Philosophia Christi, 6 (2004), p. 209

In light of such abundant early testimony—both Christian and non-Christian—the historicity of the central claims of Christianity stands on firm ground. The convergence of textual, archaeological, and historical data leaves little room for reasonable doubt. Far from being a late-developing legend, the Christian faith is rooted in verifiable events proclaimed and believed by eyewitnesses from the very beginning.