Jesus died in 33 AD.

Citations from earliest to latest (the dates below correspond to the time of writing):

* Bar-Serapion (70s AD): [Letter to My Son](https://tertullian.org/fathers/spicilegium_9_mara.htm#:~:text=For%20what%20else,which%20he%20promulgated). Most scholars date the letter shortly after the conquest of Commagene in 72/73 AD. For evidence of this date, see A. Merz and T. Tieleman, "The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion: Some Comments on its Philosophical and Historical Context," in *Empsychoi Logoi* (Brill, 2008): 122-127.
* Flavius Josephus (93 AD): [Antiquities of the Jews, 18:63-64](https://lexundria.com/j_aj/18.63-64/wst). (The translation in the link is a bit outdated.) Josephus is the most important source here. He was a first century Jewish historian who knew some of the authorities at Jesus' trial and the trials of some of the apostles (for this, and the authenticity of the Testimonium in general, see T.C. Schmidt's [Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ](https://josephusandjesus.com/purchase-page/)). Some examples include Ananus II, Herod Agrippa I and Herod Agrippa II. Ananus II in particular, a good friend of Josephus before the Jewish war, was probably at Jesus' trial (see Schmidt); certainly, his father was (John 18). One may dispute that Josephus merely says that the followers of Jesus reported resurrection, for in common internet English translations, the sentence is translated in a way that makes Josephus affirm the resurrection. But Schmidt argues that it should be translated in a way that places the claim into the minds of Jesus's followers. He translates it like this: "For he seemed to them to be alive again on the third day, given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him." None of the ancient or early medieval Christians who quote or paraphrase the text (like Eusebius) take note of the sentence, suggesting that it wasn't interpreted as an affirmation from Josephus. Another disputed phrase is "if indeed one ought to call him a man." As Schmidt notes, this phrase cannot be a mainstream Christian invention, for that Jesus wasn't human went contrary to mainstream ancient Christian theology (e.g., the incarnation). Moreover, the phrase may raise the possibility that Jesus was *less* than a man (like how the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Beelzebub), rather than more than a man. Lastly, even if Josephus raised the possibility that Jesus was more than a man, that wouldn't be implausible, since Josephus in Antiquities calls some other men divine in some sense, and since the critic Porphyry reports pagan oracles with the gods declaring that Jesus was a very pious man whose soul was immortalized and exalted to live among them. All in all, Schmidt makes the case that the Testimonium is authentic (except a textual variant in the Christ clause), and he has already convinced many critical scholars. On another note, Josephus in [Antiquities 20:200](https://lexundria.com/go?q=J.+AJ+20.200&v=wst) mentions that Jesus was called Christ and that he had a (step-)brother named James.
* Pliny the Younger (111 AD): [Epistle to Trajan](https://vroma.org/vromans/hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html) (Letters, 10:96-97). Pliny the Younger relays Christians traditions from former Christians, some of whom had left Christianity 25 years before the writing of this letter. Thus, this letter provides invaluable insight into the beliefs of Christians as far back as the 80s AD.
* Cornelius Tacitus (\~115 AD): [Annals, 15:44](https://sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm#:~:text=Consequently%2C%20to%20get,and%20become%20popular). Modern historians consider Tacitus to be one of the most reliable ancient historians whose works have survived. Tacitus probably knew Herod Agrippa II and Queen Berenice, both of whom were involved in the trial of St. Paul and probably themselves knew authorities involved in Jesus' trial. There is no evidence that Tacitus relies on Christian information; in fact, there is good reason to think that Tacitus relied on non-Christian information, whether directly or indirectly (like through Pliny's interrogations of Christians). One obvious reason is that Tacitus despised Christians.
* Phlegon (\~138 AD). On the darkness, see the quotation in Eusebius' Chronicon; also, see Contra Celsum, 2.33 and other writers who quote, paraphrase, or refer to Phlegon's comment on the darkness. In Contra Celsum 2.14, Origen says that Phlegon mentioned Jesus' predictions in book 13 or 14 of Chronicles. And we know from Eusebius and other writers that Phlegon mentions the darkness in book 13. Thus, Phlegon's testimony of Jesus' predictive abilities seems to have been in the same section as his testimony on the darkness. This suggests that Phlegon linked the darkness to Christ. Origen also says that Phlegon misread a prophecy from Jesus about Peter as about Jesus. This likely refers to Jesus's prophecy that Peter will be crucified like Him (John 21:19; cp. 12:33; 18:32). See John G. Cook's comment in *Talking God in Society*, p. 734. If true, this would imply Phlegon's knowledge of Jesus's crucifixion and would raise the chance that Phlegon linked the darkness to Christ's crucifixion. Eusebius quotes Phlegon verbatim on the darkness; Phlegon places it to the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, which is 32/33 AD, when Jesus most likely died. Phlegon also says that the darkness began at the sixth hour, viz. noon (unlike the eclipse in Nov. 29 AD, the totality of which passed to the east of Jerusalem just before the *fifth* hour \[11 AM\]), and that it was unprecedented (an awkward description of an eclipse). All these details match the darkness in the gospels strikingly. But it is still likely that the darkness Phlegon speaks about is a garbled reference to the eclipse in Nov. 29 AD, because he speaks of an earthquake occurring in Bithynia, which is exactly where the path of totality crossed in Nov. 29 AD. If true, Phlegon probably conflated this eclipse in 29 AD with the darkness during Jesus' death in 33 AD. This conflation is all the more plausible given the ancient tendency to connect *eclipses* to the death of important people like kings (cp. "wise king," Bar-Serapion). Julius Africanus noted that Thallos explained the darkness naturally, namely that it was just an eclipse. Perhaps Phlegon (and Thallos) used the eclipse in 29 AD as the naturalistic explanation to the darkness during Jesus' death.
* Marcus Cornelius Fronto (140-165 AD), quoted by Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9. Fronto is addressing repeating Christian beliefs, and so isn't a very weighty source. At the least, he further shows that Jesus' crucifixion was taken for granted as historical by some of the most educated Romans by in second century.
* Lucian of Samosata (160s AD): [The Passing of Peregrinus, 11-13](https://tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm#:~:text=%22It%20was%20then,upon%20simple%20folk). Lucian mentions Jesus's crucifixion and some of his teachings. Whether is relying *solely* on Christian information cannot be known, but there are reasons to think that he may have known non-Christian sources. One reason is that Lucian does not seem to be very knowledgeable in Christian beliefs and claims.
* Jew of Celsus (140-175 AD), quoted in Celsus, The True Doctrine (178 AD), quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, book 1-2 (especially 1.28). Celsus was an ancient Greco-Roman philosopher and critic of Christianity. He wrote in 178 AD but relies on an earlier Jewish polemical work against Christianity. The Jew of Celsus at one-point explicitly claims to know information of Jesus not preserved in the New Testament (Contra Celsum, 2.13), and in general a good case can be made that the Jewish author Celsus had access to some independent traditions about Jesus.
* Rabbinic Baraitot (135-200 AD): e.g., Sanhedrin 43a:22: "*baraita: On the Eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged. Forty days previously a herald went out crying: ‘Jesus the Nazarene will be stoned for sorcery and misleading and enticing Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his defense should come and declare it.’ But no one came to his defense, and so they hung him on the Eve of Passover*." While the Babylonian Talmud was finished in 500-600 AD, it relies on earlier sources. Some of these earlier sources are baraitot -- rabbinic teachings made during the time of the Mishnah's composition (mid-late second century), without being included in the Mishnah. In Sanh. 43a, there's a second century baraita about Jesus' execution. And it relies on even earlier tradition. For example, around 150 AD, St. Justin Martyr’s Jewish interlocutor Trypho independently follows (a) the same charges levied against Jesus in Sanh. 43a and (b) the order they are presented: "sorcery and misleading ... Israel" (Sanh. 43a); "a magician and a deceiver of the people" (Dial., 69:7). This shows that these Jesus’ legal charges come from stock Jewish tradition before 150 AD. As for "hanged," it was often a euphemism for crucifixion. The text also only says that Jesus *will* be stoned. A change of plans is implied. While Jewish authorities had no authority to execute people during Roman hegemony, they sometimes did anyway when the Roman prefect wasn't around (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 20:200). But they couldn't do so around Passover, when the prefect camped in Jerusalem to prevent revolts.

Non-Christians on Jesus Before 200 AD