All historians know that Jews didn't have power of capital offenses, which is why the thieves were in Roman custody rather than Jewish custody.

Jesus's adoptive father was sufficiently well-known due to his connections to the Levite caste via Elizabeth and so there was not doubt that Joseph claimed to confer Jesus's legal status as a Jewish son, only about the legitimacy of the claim (as shown by the hostile witnesses saying they were not bastards and hinting that Jesus was).

Jesus's followers were all Jews up to over 30,000 Torah-observant followers in Jerusalem alone (Acts 21:20).

This poorly scanned copy of some unindicated document shows only that whoever argued it believed in a Jesus wholly different from the one worshipped in Christianity, not that there is any religious or historical validity to the view.