The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Molly Worthen is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her BA and PhD from Yale University. 

Lorian Foote, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor of History at Texas A&M, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma.  

This is a transcript of a talk entitled How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection

Note: This has been slightly edited [ums, ahs, you knows, double words deleted] and links and emphasis added. 

Lorian Foote: So what were kind of the key realizations that you had that that started to to make you think that the resurrection was possible and plausible,

Molly Worthen: The book that was most important for me was N.T. Wright's big book on the resurrection although I had to... it is even for a historian it's really a slog.

So I would constantly have to kind of pause and read a chapter that Tim Keller has in his book Reason for God on the resurrection where he sort of summarizes N.T. Wright's whole argument. So I could remind myself of the forest for the trees. That book is a is a very elaborate kind of layer after layer exploration of the views of the resurrection, and the afterlife, both in the Greco-Roman Pagan context in the first century and the spectrum of Jewish views, and he makes clear that whatever Jesus's disciples were hoping would happen, expecting would happen the end of the gospel story and the resurrection appearances are so far outside the cultural lanes, the sort of range of cultural imaginative options, that one has to really take seriously the possibility that they they did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened.

And part of the power of N.T. Wright's book is that, for me, is that it is such a slog and that there's just this cumulative effect of the depth of detail that he explores that I found really compelling. I guess I had in the past accepted what I now think of as fairly lazy analogies between Jesus and other self-declared messiahs**, other stories of gods, you know, descending and rising again to heaven. And once Wright and other scholars s**ubjected these comparisons for me to more scrupulous analysis I was persuaded that they weren't very good comparisons at all and that, the Jesus case is just incredibly strange.

And this drove me into, I think a new relationship with the gospels. I was reading the gospels over and over, you know, and having a reaction, I'm not, I'm still waiting for the mystical experience that I thought I would get, you know, at some point and nothing like that; the closest I have gotten to that is the experience of seeing for the first time the sheer strangeness of the things Jesus does his interactions with people especially the accounts of healing and the strange details, the way every healing is a little bit different. Jesus meets each person on their own terms and as much as I hate, I think I had a real, sort of allergic reaction to that evangelical theme of, "imagine yourself in the scriptures, put yourself in, in the place of these people", I did start to get tugged into the stories a little bit.

I also, I mean, there's a way in which when you spend a lot of time reading primary sources, you just develop a sort of sixth sense for what a source is, what category it belongs in. And I think this is one change that's happened in the New Testament scholarship.

So, you know following, the famous German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann in the early 20th century there was, I think, a move toward talking about the Gospels really in the category of Mythology. But the consensus has shifted and I think this is fair to say even of non-believing historians. That the appropriate genre for them is really more, Greco-Roman biography, but even then if you go and you read Plutarch’s Parallel Lives or you read, say Philistratus's biography of Apollonius of Tiana who was a traveling, Greek sort of magician, healer, who's in the first century sometimes compared to Jesus, the character of those texts, is so different.

So, the character of those texts is they're very polished. They're deeply embroidered, that the authors have a real commitment to careful theme setting. There is a brutal roughness to the Gospels. Especially Mark. Mark, I'd always kind of dismissed Mark because, like, the short one was sort of boring, least theological, Mark was the one that wrestled me to the ground and it is the grittiness, the sense that this is not, honestly, it is not a great work of literature, it is a desperate author, just trying to get on paper this bananas stuff, that this author was much closer to, than I had realized. And I became persuaded by the work of people ike Richard Bauckham was another one of these Anglicans, who can kind of speak to secular American snobs, that it's not that we need to distinguish between some sort of vague idea of oral tradition passing from community, to community and getting garbled along the way and oral history. And that there are, there are clues in the text that create a, not an airtight, but an awfully interesting and persuasive case that the Gospel authors were quite close to the events they were describing and, and possibly should be dated earlier than I had kind of come to believe. And so all of that, I mean, this was so imoprtant, I did not have to treat the Gospels as inerrant. All I had to start to do was to treat them with the same methods and the same kind of respect and questions as I would treat other historical sources. But for that to be possible, for me, they had to be sort of de-familiarized.

Lorian Foote: Interesting. Yeah, you know it's as a professional historian what you described is, how I feel about the Gospels. Because when I bring the techniques that we have in our profession to them, you know, I was telling Molly earlier, it drives me crazy. When I just hear somebody casually say, "well there's so many things that don't exactly match across the four Gospels. And so that's why it shows that that didn't really happen" and I'm like, okay. So then clearly we don't know that anything in history happened because as historians we know, when there's accounts of events....

So like I'm a civil war historian, there is not a single newspaper article and a single eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg that agree on the details of what happened at the battle. None of us questioned the battle we have to piece together a rough estimation of what we think happened based on accounts that don't add up.

And so to me I think as a historian I came to some things on my own that scholars, who are much better than me at the New Testament, come to do as part of their apologetics. But it was just striking to me that, in one gospel that there's two thieves are both making both making fun of Jesus and another gospel, one of them eventually turns to him, and that's what I witnessed. They both have on either side of Jesus, different witnesses are remembering different things that they saw that to me, made it more plausible and made it read as you said more like a true attempt to write a biography than a formalized document and and little things like the gospels record that women were first there.

And that women are there and women are the key eyewitnesses in a culture that discounts the testimony of women. As a historian when I would read a document like that, I would say, okay now, wait a minute, why are they having, if they're wanting to convince people of something that isn't true, would they put these witnesses, as their first class. Look, these women were the witnesses, so just lots of questions, the way that I methodologically go through and ask questions of the source. If I do the same thing to the gospels, I've always found them to be very compelling as historical documents

Molly Worthen: And the women, their role is one part of the broader absolute humiliating scandal of the whole end of the gospels. And this is what N.T. Wright's picture of Jewish theology and culture, really drove home to me in a way that I just had not assimilated before that no other movement that had believed in a self-declared Messiah had then seen that Messiah killed and declared him God. I mean, you could run away, right? Because the whole idea of the role of the Messiah in Jewish thought, was that this would be the individual who would lead Israel to worldly victory, and then Resurrection would kind of follow in the in for everybody, in the context of that victory.

And so I think this helped me see how I thought as a historian, it always been really an important part of my self-understanding that I approached people in the past with respect and a sense of humility.

But I think that there was a way in which that first task, that we're called to as historians to just really respect the chasm between them and me. It can easily slide into a kind of condescension. Because you you forget, you in your quest to distance yourself from your subjects, you can dehumanize them a little bit and maybe reduce the complexity of their worldviews.

So worldviews in the first century were, of course, very different from ours, but no less complicated. And so there were clear ideas for these people about what was and was not possible. And they were not, they were not fools. Who would just sort of believe any crazy thing, They were clear on on dead people, remaining dead, right?

And I think I had just not fully grappled with the radicalism of the Gospel claims in the first century, forget about now for me, the big hurdle and I think this is true of many scholars who spend their careers on this subject. If you don't already allow for the possibility of an open universe. If you are committed to an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality than any possible explanation of the empty tomb and Jesus's appearances to his followers is preferable to the Christian explanation, no matter how Baroque and elaborate and I had to come to grips with my own deep anti-super-naturalist bias, I could always sort of thought of myself as open to the claims of Christianity.

But I had just, mean, my whole existence was in this one epistemological groove and this one kind of lane of approach and there are good reasons why in the modern research university in a secular university certain questions are just ones we set aside and we focus on other questions. But there's a way in which in doing that one can just get so used to setting aside those questions that you forget about the presuppositions that are involved in ruling those questions out and you can begin to think in the subconscious way that those questions are just foolish questions. Because your tools that you use in your teaching and research are not aimed directly at them.

I think also, I had a kind of "all or nothing" view of the historical method. If we define the historical method as drawing our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past.

And we Define a miracle as Divine intervention Interruption In the normal order, normal relationship between cause and effect. Then yes, it's true that at the sort of Singularity of the miracle, the historical, method fails. So you can't prove as you couldn't a lab or or even you know, to the extent that that historians can prove things, you can't prove the resurrection.

However, there's all sorts of context. And you can bring the historical method to bear and all kinds of really fruitful ways to the textual record, the archaeological record. You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And if you're willing to suspend your disbelief in the Supernatural, then then you can be, you can begin to investigate the historical context of Christians claims about the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ that then get you to the point where you are, you're still faced with a leap of faith, but it's no longer a wild leap in the dark; it's a well-researched, reasonable leap. And then you start to realize that you were always making a bit of a leap and you just weren't acknowledging it. This was from true for me, anyway, that I had paid, I think lip service to the idea that, yes, as a secular agnostic person I had unproofable presuppositions because we all do, no view from nowhere blah, blah, blah.

But I had never. I'd never truly like looked that in the face and and and wrestled with it.

[End of Talk]

Key take aways:

1) If we treat the Gospels as we do other ancient documents they are clearly historical and reliable.

2) Accounts that "don't add up" are common in historical documents

3) In the first century people were not fools and knew that dead people stayed dead. so to conclude, even from the evidence, that Jesus rose was radical.

4) It's only a bias for an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality that is the stumbling block for accepting the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historocal fact.

Two agreed upon historical facts

1) We know that Jesus died a torturous death by crucifixion; this is attested to in every gospel, but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. - Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

2) The empty tomb. Something happened to the body. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body, bring it to downtown Jerusalem and dump it on the street. Especially after His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is ezpecially true since the Jewish authorities asked the Romans to guard the tomb. 

The alternative explanations...

The Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. A nearly dead man, in need of serious medical attention, could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, and that he was a conqueror of death and the grave.

Second, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and knew everything about the torture and crucifixion of people, making this theory highly improbable.

Third, are we to think that the Jewish and Roman authorities sealed and guarded the tomb without verifying the Jesus was dead in it? Another highly improbable assumption.

The disciples stole the body - this was the charge by Jewish authorities; Jesus’ followers stole the body unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances.

First, this theory does not explain why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb - the were not considered to be reliable witnesses. This is not the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain how the disciples actually stole the body that was 1) sealed by a heavy stone, and 2) guarded by Romans.

Third, there was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.” [Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, p372.]

Fourth, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul, a devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. source  This gave the disciple little time to come up with a "steal the body" plot, especially given their emotional state. 

The disciples experienced hallucinations.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances. In fact, this is the unanimous agreement of the Gospels.

Second, hallucinations are private experiences as opposed to group experiences. Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, why the Roman and Jewish authorities didn't produce the body, and the conversions of skeptics like Paul

The only real obstacle to resurrection as a plausible explanation is an anti-supernatural bias. But as I've argued the belief that nature is all that exists is logically self-refuting and thus cannot be true if reason, critical thinking, and knowledge are part of our reality

Objection A - Right in that last bit she says that "you can't prove the resurrection"!

Reply: That is in the context of the historical method which, like the scientific method, assumes an unproofable presupposition, i.e. an anti-super-naturalist bias. So please provide your proof or argument that "physical only view of the reality" is correct.

We have good reasons to think that "physical only view of the reality" is logically incoherent

I have had many atheists and critics say that they do not ascribe to a "physical only view of the reality"; so what then given the above is the issue with the conclusion that the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact?

Objection B - If we treat the Gospels as we treat every other historical document, then we could never conclude that an actual resurrection occurred as a historical event.

This is the thing that Christian apologists are never honest about: historians, scholars, and us skeptics and atheists don't accept the resurrection story not because we aren't giving it a fair chance; it's because WE are the ones treating the Gospels the exact same as every other historical text that exists.

Reply: Yes, you are using the same anti-supernatural bias that you look at everything. But that lens is faulty. Thus, I am under no obligation to view reality through your faulty lens especially when this unsupported assumption that has been pointed out time and again, with no defense ever offered for it.  This is even touched on in the OP

Objection C - Why is the "best explanation" here something that we know to be impossible and not "people lied?"

Reply: First it’s only "impossible" if one assumes PN, but we have good reasons to think that is a false idea. Secondly, it's not part of the historical method to assume that the writer of a document lied or the poeple quoted in the text lied; that would have to be proven.

Objection D They got the wrong tomb. Josephus said he buried the body and didn't.

Reply: Are we to believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities, the latter posting a gaurd at behest of the former, wouldn't have checked to see that the body was there prior?

Objection E - You need to reproduce your proof

Reply: We do not prove historical events by reprodcuing them. Do we prove World War 2 by "reproducing" the proof? No. 

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Given 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, a critical thinker has good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First you cite "reality"; so what is reality and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and Reason is the basis for all knowledge.  

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Jesus according to non-Christian accounts and archaeological evidence within 150 years of his life

 

The evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible confirm that the Jesus story in the NT is rooted in history. This is because the core outline of most of the Jesus story is attested by sources who had access to independent information outside of the Bible. The pieces of evidence listed display here claim or imply the following about Jesus:

1. Jesus existed.
2. Jesus was an important distinguished person (possibly The James Ossurary,Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata). Josephus calls Jesus a "sophos aner," which implies that Josephus thought of Jesus was an extremely important person. As Ulrich Victor points out (2010), this phrase commonly referred to men of very high importance in both Josephus' writings and outside of his writings in ancient Greek literature. People who are called σοφὸς ἀνήρ outside of Josephus' writings include people like Socrates (Plato, Apol. 18b:7), Plato (Chion. Ep. 5.1), along with Aesop, Solon, Thales, Xenocrates, Aristotle, Themistocles, Pindar, etc. If the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man" is authentic, as I think, then not only does this imply that Josephus saw Jesus as an important man, but also an extraordinary one. However, as Victor argues, the phrase "wise man" (which is typically taken as authentic by scholars) was more exclusive than the phrase "if indeed it is right to call him a man." In short, I don't see any reason to take the less exclusive phrase as inauthentic than the more exclusive phrase ("wise man"), which is nevertheless taken as authentic by most (see Bart Ehrman's blog cited below for this claim). Mara-bar-Serapion also compares Jesus to Socrates and Pythagoras, both famous and important people in the ancient world. Lucian explicitly calls Jesus a "distinguished personage."
3. Jesus was born in a village in Judaea (Celsus).
4. Jesus had a father named Joseph (James Ossuary), or a Roman soldier named Pantera (Celsus). The latter is clearly reflective of Jewish polemic.
5. Jesus had a brother named James (James Ossuary, Josephus).
6. Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin (Celsus).
7. Jesus was poor (Celsus).
8. Jesus went to Egypt out of poverty (Celsus).
9. Jesus was wise (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus).
10. Jesus was law observant (Celsus).
11. Jesus did miracles (Josephus, Celsus). The early Mishnaic Sanhedrin 43a also attests to this. The words "παραδόξων έργων" (startling deeds), which are used in the TF, often refers to activity of divine/supernatural elements in Josephus' books (e.g., Ant. 2:223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3:1, 14, 30, 38; 5:28, 125; 6:171; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10:28, 235; 13:282; 15:379; Ag. Ap. 2:114). In addition, every person in Josephus' works that are called a "wise man" are also described as having supernatural powers.
12. Jesus was a teacher and a lawgiver (Mara bar-Serapion, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata).
13. Jesus taught that all of his followers are "brothers" (Lucian of Samosata).
14. Jesus claimed to be "a god" (Celsus).
15. Jesus founded various rites (Lucian of Samosata).
16. Jesus gained many followers that did not cease after the crucifixion (Josephus, Tacitus).
17. Jesus was known as the Christ (Josephus).
18. The Jewish authorities accused Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate (Josephus). Mara bar-Serapion also attests to Jewish involvement.
19. Jesus was crucified by Pilate in Judaea during the reign of Tiberius (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata).
20. Jesus was resurrected from the dead and appeared to many (Josephus, see below).

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.  [Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 -Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.]

This sentence from the Testimonium Flavianum [TF] though, if original, has interesting implications for the appearance to the 500 as reported by Paul and his pre-Pauline apostolic informants, because Josephus says that Jesus appeared to "them," with the "them" referring to the followers who did not yield after Jesus' death, which in turn refers back to the "many" Jewish and "many" Greek followers that Jesus gained during his life. 500 is "many."

(A) The James Ossuary (62/63 C.E.) "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." There has been huge controversy over the inscription on this ossuary. The ossuary itself is not a forgery, but many question the latter half of the inscription on the ossuary which references Jesus. The inscription says: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Another large group of scholars think that this is authentic (or at least plausibly so) and refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The reader may be interested in a scholarly piece here by Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 2014) which I think offers very valid critiques against the biased and unprofessional decision of many of the members of the IAA, who ruled the inscription on the ossuary as forged or redacted.

Some also doubt whether the reference to James being the father of Joseph and the brother of Jesus is specific enough to conclude that the ossuary is James the Just's, since Jesus, James, and Joseph were all common names at the time. According to a calculation by Tel Aviv University statistician Camil Fuchs, it is 95 percent likely that only four people of first century Jerusalem named James would have a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. However, the fact that the inscription specifies that James was the brother of Jesus indicates that this Jesus was an important figure. Only one other ossuary from the ancient world ever studied mentions the brother of the deceased. Further reading: Is the “Brother of Jesus” Inscription a Forgery? · A to this ossuary being authentic is the testimony of Hegesippus (170 CE). Jodi Magness says: "Hegesippus’s testimony suggests that James was buried in a pit grave or trench grave marked by a headstone (stele)" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 176.

"The evidence that James was buried in a grave dug into the ground and not in a rock-cut tomb renders the controversy over the “James ossuary” moot" - Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit, p. 179.

However, while Hegesippus may have some useful kernels of information of James' death to supplement Josephus (especially since he was raised in Palestine [though he wrote later in Rome]), he is largely unreliable and legendary in his account. 

First, clear legend can be detected in the depiction of James as a Nazirite high priest. He even mentions James going into the Temple alone, just like the high priest on the day of atonement. This is probably legend or embellishment and seems implausible. 

Second, he seems to try and parallel the death of James with the story of Stephen's death in Acts. 

Third, the account of Hegesippus claims that James was buried "on the spot" of his death, and that his burial was "by the Temple."

However, as Yaron Z. Elia points out (HTR, 2004), "scholars felt uneasy with such a positioning because it appears to contradict Jewish law. Strict halakhic rules forbid any sort of impurity in the temple area, making a grave at the site of the temple highly unlikely; indeed, a human corpse is considered the most potent source of impurity. Yet proposals that would resolve these difficulties by relocating the tomb elsewhere—for instance, to the ravine east of the city known as the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see fig. 2.3)—are totally at odds with the picture drawn by the tradition. Hegesippus repeatedly underscores the close proximity of James’s tomb to the temple. Not only does he formulate the site’s name as the “pterygion of the temple,” he also locates the burial site and monument, which according to him survived to his day, in the immediate vicinity of the temple’s shrine" (p. 42). Finally, if Hegesippus is right, it seems strange that James' grave site would be identifiable after the Jewish war, where the Temple was razed to the ground,

(B) Mara bar-Serapion (~73 C.E.) "What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews by killing their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down."

Mara Bar-Serapion, a non-Christian Syriac philosopher, probably had knowledge of Jesus, who, if so, is labeled as the "wise king." Cicero doesn't mention Spartacus by name either, and he is our earliest source for Spartacus. Do historians reject that as a source for Spartacus? No! Arguing that Mara bar-Serapion is referring to another unattested person is ad hoc. No other person in ancient history that was claimed to be the king of the Jews was killed by "the Jews" except Jesus, as Serapion says. Indeed, the whole range of the features of the wise king doesn't fit anyone else except Jesus: the people who caused his death, his new law, the connection of the wise king's death with the Jewish war, etcetera.

Serapion also compares this wise king to Socrates and Pythagoras, so no bloke, that's for sure. Mara Bar-Serapion says that the wise king was killed unjustly by "the Jews," and that the 'wise king' lived on because of his new teachings. Serapion also links the 'wise kings' death with the Jewish war. Thus, he is likely partially or fully dependent on Christian thought. In my opinion, Serapion would likely date in the 70s C.E., though there is disagreement in scholarship, with some scholars dating it later. Most scholars support the early dating in the 70s C.E., however (e.g., Ilaria Ramelli; Michael Blomer; David Rensberger; Annette Merz; Teun L. Tieleman; Ephrem-Isa yousif; Gerd Theissen; Fergus Millar; Craig A. Evans). The fact that the author of this letter was not Christian (he speaks openly about "our gods," for example) is significant, since he gives his non-believing opinion that Jesus was an important figure. He is also independent of the Gospel stories if he dates in the 70s C.E.

(C) Josephus (93 C.E.) About this time there comes Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds and was a teacher of such people that receive the true things with pleasure. He won over many Jews, but also many of the Greek element. He was ["called" or "known as"?] the Christ. When Pilate, at the accusation of the principal men among us, had condemned him to a cross, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease doing so. For he appeared to them having a third day living again, for the divine prophets had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after this fellow, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18:63-64)

“Ananus . . . assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20:200).

"Much of the past impetus for labeling the textus receptus Testimonium a forgery has been based on earlier scholars’ anachronistic assumptions that, as a Jew, Josephus could not have written anything favorable about Jesus. Contemporary scholars of primitive Christianity are less inclined than past scholars to assume that most first-century Jews necessarily held hostile opinions of Jesus, and they are more aware that the line between Christians and non-Christian Jews in Josephus’ day was not as firm as it would later become. The implication of this is that supposedly Christian-sounding elements . . . cannot be ruled inauthentic a priori" - Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic," NTS, 2008, pp. 575.

"In recent times, with gradually more balanced discussions of the text, the authenticity of the passage, or at least an authentic core, seems to be increasingly accepted, except perhaps that many scholars will agree that Jerome (Vir. ill. 13) may well have been right in translating credebatur esse Christus, instead of the Greek text's ὁ χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν, 'he was the Christ,' his translation being supported by the Syriac version." - Jan N. Bremmer, "Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways," in Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE?, Walter De Gruytur 2021, pp. 69-70.

(i) Arguments Against the Whole-Sale Invention of the TF.

First, the episode of John the Baptist has no obvious connection with the TF. John appears to be an independent person in Josephus, unlike in early Christian theology. The John episode also awkwardly appears after the TF in Ant. 18., whereas John's ministry is before Jesus' in early Christian theology (such as in Eusebius' quotation of Josephus). This all points to an original Jesus and John passage.

Second, the Testimonium is much shorter than many other preachers Josephus speaks of. If a Christian editor was as audacious as to forge an entire paragraph, it would be much longer and elaborate. And compared with any Christian text of the second to fifth centuries, it is for the most part very bland. Nothing about son of God, coming from God, pre-existence, Trinitarianism, Holy Spirit, atonement, being in Christ, shed blood, gone to heaven, about to return in the clouds, reluctance of Pilate, etc. etc. The only real puzzles are the Christ clause and the resurrection sentence. J.C. Paget points out: "Where we can be certain of the existence of Christian additions to Josephus as well as glosses, they strike a more aggressively Christian note" (Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 600).

Third, the language used in most of the TF is very specific to Josephus, and at times uses language that was considered negative by Christians. For the former point, the Greek construction πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δὲ also seems Josephan in style (e.g., J.W. 1:146, 322, 383, 2:49, 177, 341, 4:643, 5:562; Ant. 7:194; 15:296; 20:98). For example, Ant. 15:296 says: "many [πολλοὺς μὲν] of his allies in the war as well as many [πολλοὺς δὲ] of the neighboring populations." Another way that this passage appears typical of Josephus is the plural noun ("Jews") followed by the singular adjective ("of the Greek [element]"), which Eusebius changes to "many Jews and many Greeks." Josephus making a noun from an adjective (as he does here), or a noun from a participle plus an adjective is a technique Josephus used commonly (especially in Ant. 17-19!).

This seems far too specific for a Christian editor to replicate centuries later author technology. For two examples of the latter, first, it's difficult to see how a Christian interpolator would have chosen the word ἡδονῇ to include in his passage if it were not originally from the pen of Josephus, because it has strongly negative connotations in all uses in the NT: Luke 8:14; James 4:1, 3; Titus 3:3; 2 Peter 2:13 (ἡδονὴν). Eusebius changes the text to "those who revere the truth." Tibor Grull (2020, pp. 19), Bermejo-Rubio (2014, pp. 354, n. 130), and Graham Twelftree (1999, pp. 305) rule out a whole-sale interpolation of the TF from this alone. Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here.

Second, the word ἐπηγάγετο occurs twice in the NT, it is used negatively both times (Acts 5:28; 2 Peter 2:1), which points against a later Christian addition. Eusebius omits this word and replaces it with "σεβομένων." Ken Olson however has recently tried to reignite the hypothesis that Eusebius forged the entire TF, since he is the first to quote it, and adopts much of Josephus' language. But Sabrina Inowlocki writes that "this has not found support among scholars" - Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature,” in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell 2016, p. 359.

Alice Whealey likewise says that "the overall thesis of fabrication by Eusebius has not been generally accepted in the scholarship" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, p. 352. See Alice Whealey's essay in the book called Josephus und das Neue Testament (Mohr Siebeck, 2007) for convincing arguments against Eusebius inventing the TF. Eusebius never even explicitly pointed out/highlighted important parts of Josephus' passage on Jesus which he quotes in his works. For example, Josephus mentions how Jesus did miracles. Except Eusebius never stresses this detail. This in spite the fact that the reference to Jesus' miracles in Josephus would have been useful in his rebuttal to those who denied that Jesus did miracles (see Whealey 2007: 80), and in spite of the fact that Eusebius explicitly highlights more mundane portions of the TF (such as the mention of Jesus gathering many followers). Eusebius also highlights other details in other Josephan works, such as the Jewish War in his anti-Jewish rhetoric to prove that the Jews suffered for killing Jesus, in contrast to the more "Christian" sounding parts of the TF. Eusebius also doesn't ever highlight Josephus' hesitation in calling Jesus a man, his mention of Jesus being the Christ, or the resurrection sentence. This fits with how Eusebius used Josephus to back up Christian doctrine as a non-believing Jewish person. For Eusebius, Josephus being a non-believer was extremely important, and so inventing and/or touching up the TF passage would have gone against his interests.

Fourth, Steve Mason argues:

"The order of his identifiers suggests that he chooses James as representative of the condemned group because he is ‘the brother of the one called [or known as] Christos’, already known to the audience. James’ name comes as an afterthought. This formulation suggests, therefore, that Josephus has mentioned someone ‘known as Christos’, recently enough for his audience might remember. The only plausible candidate is Jesus in Book 18." (Mason, "Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers," Jesus-Handbuch (ish), 2017, p. 12)

Some try and relate Ant. 20:200 to Jesus ben Damneus, but the Greek in 20:203 is constructed in such a way as to introduce this figure to his audience. In addition, as TimO'Neill points out here, this view entails that Josephus employs appellations to both Jesus' in a way he does nowhere else. Alice Whealey writes that the authenticity of the Jesus reference in Ant. 20.200 is "accepted by most contemporary scholars" - Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in A Companion to Josephus, 2016, p. 353.

(ii) Josephus' Source of Information.

If anyone has the greatest chance at having heard of Christians and Jesus from outside Christian sources, surely it is Josephus of Jerusalem. Josephus was born around 37 C.E., shortly after Jesus' death. Gary J. Goldberg points out (2021, pp. 32) that Josephus notes in Vita, 9 how he grew up in Jerusalem with "principal men" which Josephus mentions in the Testimonium, who would have chiefly been 30-60 years old (some younger, some older).

These men Josephus grew up with are who Josephus got his information regarding pre-70 Judaism from and are thus a possible source of information for Jesus and indeed for the other first century Jewish preachers. Supporting this is the mention the principal men that Josephus says handed Jesus over to Pilate is said to come from "among us," since Goldberg points out in his 2021 article (pp. 19) that: "in historical narrative, Josephus takes care to write in the third person." But here he doesn't. He combines "principal men" with "among us," which he does nowhere else. 

If Josephus just wanted to say the "principal men among us" to mean that these principal men came among us in the sense of being Jewish people of his own class, Josephus could have used his more typical phrase seen in e.g., Ant. 14.165 ("the principal ones of the Judaeans"). This all may imply that Josephus knew at least some of these people who are said to hand Jesus over to Pilate. It is also possible that he heard about Jesus from Ananus II or the Jewish leaders related to James’ death in the early 60s when Josephus himself was in Jerusalem. Ananus II was the son of Ananus, who interrogated Jesus (John 18:13-14).

(iii) A Note on the Scholarship of the Tone of the TF.

Bermejo-Rubio has to admit: "the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral" (Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text?," JSJ, 2014, pp. 327). See Tibor Grull's 2020 article for critiques of negative tone like that argued by Rubio. 

Josephus was often not someone who held back on negative language on people he disliked, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be the case. Instead, we have to glean and speculate what Josephus thought about Jesus through statistics on certain words and phrases, which is inconclusive when taken together as will be shown here. One shouldn't be too worried about Josephus' tone. 

In addition to what was pointed out above vis-à-vis tone, Josephus was a complex writer, who had no single agenda. He often changed his appraisals of individuals between his Jewish War and Antiquities, because of the works’ different issues (Herod and family, Ananus II, Simon son of Gamaliel). AND even when discussing the same person (e.g., Saul, Gaius Caligula, Nero) he can say ‘positive’ things while being generally critical. Josephus was not a robot who held onto simple views of things. 

No reason to think that Josephus would have been so negative personally about Jesus. Consider Josephus' mention of the fate of Jesus’ brother James: he and others were executed by the rather savage Sadducee Ananus II, in a brief moment when there was no Procurator. Josephus points out that all the fair-minded people thought that Ananus had behaved illegally and immorally in executing James, and he also seems to personally have thought the same. So why would Josephus be overly critical, whom he describes chiefly as a Judaean teacher of virtue (not as crucified son of God, etc.).

(iv) ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων ("For he appeared to them having a third day living again, the holy prophets having foretold these things and many other marvels about him"). 

In support of authenticity here, first of all, are the words "having a third day...," which does not match the Christian story since it implies that three days already passed, as opposed to "on the third day" (which Eusebius changes it to) in the inclusive way of counting days. 

Second, the phrase "having a third day" is rare in not only the NT, but other Greco-Roman writers in general. However, the phrase "having X days" (with "days" as the object of ἔχω) is very at home with Josephus, appearing in e.g., Ant. 2:72; 3.290; 5:327; 7:1; 9:223; 14:96. 

Third, the phrase ἄλλα μυρία is Josephan (see e.g., Ant. 8:382; J.W. 2:361). 

Fourth, the words "divine prophets" has an almost exact parallel in e.g., Ant. 10, where Isaiah is called a divine prophet. Other places where the words "divine" and "prophet" occur close to together include Ant. 6:222; 8:243; 9:60; 10:180. For a similar phrase (τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης), see Ant. 8:402; 9:33, 211; 10:92. 

Fifth, some sort of mention of the resurrection to Jesus' followers in some way "provides a better explanation for the fact that, as the text asserts, the Christians continued to remain attached to Jesus" (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, pp. 354, n. 90). 

Sixth, Josephus avoids the typical resurrection verbs such as egeiro, used especially in the New Testament, in keeping with Josephus elsewhere. Seventh, there is little evidence for an interpolation in the manuscript tradition or the versions. While the text seems to imply that the author actually believed Jesus rose from the dead and the prophecy connection, there are many places where Josephus appears to agree with things that elsewhere he rejects, most obviously giving plausible speeches to characters he doesn’t like. Most importantly though, much of what Josephus writes in the Antiquities is from someone else’s report, and so having an oratio obliqua (e.g., "they reported...") would have gone without saying. Alice Whealey also says the construction of the Greek doesn't necessarily imply a claim of belief for Josephus.


(4) Tacitus (~115 C.E.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero 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 at 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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." (Annals 15:44)

Tacitus was a Roman historian and is typically considered one of the most reliable and careful ancient historians of the period by modern historians. He is probably reliable in what he writes, especially if he is independent from Christians. Tacitus reports that Jesus (a) was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, (b) was the founder of the Christian sect in Judaea, and (3) had followers who spread Christianity even further after Jesus' death.

Tacitus: Independent Information?

For one, Tacitus thought of Christians as “a most mischievous superstition ... evil ... hideous and shameful." This does not seem like words one would expect from someone willing to accept information from Christians, whether directly or indirectly. This is especially since Tacitus disliked hearsay stemming from street gossip and the "popular report" (see Annals 4:11), which Tacitus would have considered Christians surely. 

Moreover, nothing in Tacitus' passage suggests as Christian source, since he makes no mention of anything that indicates a purely Christian origin. Pliny, on the other hand, in reporting what Christians said, mentions hymns sung to Jesus "as to a god." There is actually a more likely source of information that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from: the aristocratic Jewish exiles who were in Flavian court as he was. This included Princess Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa. 

One has to keep in mind that the Jesus Sect began in Galilee, and Tacitus was at court with the daughter of the Herod Agrippa of Galilee who was a contemporary of Jesus and tetrarch of Galilee shortly after Jesus' death. Someone like her would have been more keenly accepted by Tacitus, since she was much closer to his class, was not despised (unlike Christians), and would have had relevant information on Jesus from reliable sources.

(5) Lucian of Samosata (~165 C.E.)

"... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 11)

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." (Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus, 13)

Lucian of Samosata was a Syrian satirist who references Jesus. It is possible that Lucian of Samosata provides us with an independent tradition regarding Jesus's crucifixion, too, since he uses a word to describe the crucifixion with a Greek word that ancient Christians are never documented as using ("stauroun" = "impaled") for the crucifixion of Jesus. 

Plus, Lucian detested Christians, and so probably would have been less keen on accepting their information. 

Finally, Lucian isn't entirely accurate in his representation of Christian practices, which may suggest that he didn't interact much with Christians. Scholars like Craig Evans and Paul Eddy support Lucian of Samosata relaying a tradition of Jesus' crucifixion independent to that of Christians.

Nevertheless, writers like Tacitus and Lucian show that Jesus' crucifixion was an accepted fact by Romans in the second century. Lucian also records Jesus being the originator of many of the Christian rites, as well as being a teacher or lawgiver. Lucian also seems to imply that the "crucified sage" was considered important ("distinguished personage").

(6) Celsus (~175 C.E.)

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery with a soldier named Pantera. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28)

Celsus was a second century Roman philosopher and critic of Christianity. The books criticizing Christianity from Celsus are lost but quoted by Origen, who wishes to try and debate Celsus. While Celsus knows much about the Christian story from Christian literature, the evidence suggests that he is also relying on ancient Jewish tradition. Origen even explicitly says that Celsus is relying on Jewish polemic. 

Second, what Celsus says parallels ancient second century (or earlier) Jewish polemic in reflected in Tosefta 2:22-23, where people in Galilee are scolded for healing in the name of "Jesus son of Pantera" (Tosefta 2:22-23). As in Celsus, there is a tradition that Jesus was born of a person named Pantera. Adolf Deissmann showed in 1906 that "Pantera" was a surname for Roman soldiers in particular, and later Talmudic sources from the early fourth century CE show that ancient Jewish people were claiming that Jesus was born from a Roman soldier named Pantera explicitly. 

As for historical datums of Jesus, he attests to a lot. Outside of this quotation, Celsus also says that Jesus claimed to be born of a virgin and was law observant. The major question is whether the earlier Jewish polemical source reflected by Celsus is wholly reliant upon Christian information, which is ambiguous. 

That seems unlikely, however. Indeed, Markus Bockmuehl for instance cites Ernst Bammel who claims that there may have been independent tradition concerning Jesus in Jewish circles until the year 500 CE (This Jesus, p. 184). One also cannot accept on face value many of the points made in this account of Jesus, since it is polemic. However, Celsus seems to be working off of core facts here which could have been relayed to him by his earlier Jewish source. Plus, he can't be totally inaccurate in his account, since no one would have taken his arguments seriously if he was.


Honorable Mentions and Possible Sources

Thallus (49-52 C.E). Dale C. Allison Jr. writes: "Thallus was a pagan or Samaritan historian who wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world from before the Trojan War to his own day, which was the middle or latter part of the first century C.E. His work, composed in Greek, has perished and is known only through mention in later writers. Among these is the ninth-century Byzantine historian George Syncellus who, in a quotation from another lost history, that of the early third century Christian Julius Africanus, refers to Thallus' words about the darkness that accompanied the death of Jesus (cf. Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44) . . . Yet the fact that the latter states his disagreement with Thallus' interpretation—"This, it seems to me, is contrary to reason"—strongly implies that Thallus was offering a mundane explanation for what had happened when Jesus died" - Dale C. Allison Jr., "Thallus on the Crucifixion," in The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 405-406. 

In short, I think the way Julius Africanus/George Syncellus responds negatively tips the scales in my direction. Benjamin Garstad puts it this way: "There has been unwarranted doubt as to whether or not Thallos actually wrote about the Crucifixion or merely an eclipse . . . If Thallos had not connected the darkness at the Crucifixion to an eclipse, he would not have been censured by Synkellos for explaining a miraculous sign as a natural event" - Benjamin Garstad, ‘Thallos’ in Brill’s New Jacoby, Ed. Ian Worthington et al., Brill Academic Publishers, 2007.

Pliny the Younger (111 C.E.). Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan. Pliny is relying upon Christian information here (but not the Gospels), and he confirms that early Christians worshipped "Christ" as "a god." Pliny also gives us information as to how these ancient Christians he encountered in Bithynia worshipped before the writing of this letter. He does not give any information about the historical Jesus though aside from his existence, and so is not included.

Suetonius (119-122 C.E.). See John Granger Cook, "Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: a Second Century Anachronism?," Vigiliae Christianae, 2020, p. 253 for a recent defense of Suetonius having mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Chrestus was a common misspelling of ‘Christus’ as the substitution for ‘e’ for ‘i’ was a common itacistic error. For example, the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus has the spelling (Chrestianos) in the three NT of the term ‘Christian’ (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). 

However, Suetonius may imply that 'Chrestus' was in Rome in the late 40s CE, which wouldn't fit. Then again, if Irenaeus could claim that Christ was crucified during Claudius’s imperium, maybe this mistake is forgivable. If Suetonius attests to Jesus' existence, he also attests to the presence of a Christian populace influential enough to cause the Jewish people to cause instigations and be kicked out in the city of Rome in the 40s C.E. Things are not certain though. While many NT scholars think Suetonius does have Jesus of Nazareth in mind, some classical historians disagree with this view. Since he doesn't provide any evidence of the historical Jesus aside from his existence, and since this can be disputed to be a reference to Jesus after all, Suetonius is not included in the main list.

"Contemporary or shut up!" That these documents were not contemporary and therefore are not reliable is a non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow. The "it must be contemporary" rule is not used by any contemporary credentialed historian of today. Of course, such sources are preferable, but most documents in the ancient world were not contemporary to the events recorded in them. Such people or events were the exceptions, not the rule. For example, the first written source attesting to the existence of king Archelaus of Cappadocia is Josephus in his book Jewish War, around 60 years after his death. 

Another example: only six sources attest to Spartacus within 150 years of his life, the earliest of which doesn't explicitly name Spartacus by name (Cicero), and another of which is lost (Varro), with the rest being short passages written decades or a century after the events. None of the sources to Spartacus were witnesses nor were they written during Spartacus' life. 

If we want to dismiss the later references to Jesus at the end of the century and in the next, do we do this with all ancient sources that are not contemporary? Markus Bockmuehl argues in his book Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study that the date of a source doesn't necessarily become a serious problem for the core of the story until we are 150+ years out from the events. Indeed, the 100–150-year timeframe after an event is when 'living memory' ends (e.g., when people who knew eyewitnesses typically all die out). Hence the time frame used here.