Metzer vs Erhman

I know a lot of critics like to cite Erhman when trying to show that the NT is somehow faulty but....

“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” (From Bart Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus, p. 252)

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

 This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit;  This is an outline of the argument presented:

Two claims

1. That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 
2. The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(These are reiterated in the conclusion)

Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:

• Numerous 
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• Impartial
• consistent with other sources

Christian sources have the following issues

A - Are of a late date

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

C - are anonymous

D - akin to the telephone 

E - Use only one source 

F - Are contradictory 

G - are biased 

Further points

I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout 

J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

The rebuttal

A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?

First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn.  I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman:  I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.

So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct. 

Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be  This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus 

 As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short  the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen. 

A question

Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?

Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to: 

Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE  [350 yrs later]

Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]

Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]

Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]

This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard. 

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus 

C - are anonymous

Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text. 

If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it,  in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk,  A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it. 

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here 

If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents?  Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?  

Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53

D - akin to the telephone game

The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers. 

Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.

The telephone game:

a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,

b) there are no controls over the message,

c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:

a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),

b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,

c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.

The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.

E - Use only one source

The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event. 

Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.

So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading  fallacy

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are. 

Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events. 

F - Are contradictory

For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.

Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.

What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!

Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?

Both carried the cross.  John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross,  it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction. 

Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)? 

While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus.  Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..

Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart. 

What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)? 

First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was  addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.

Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?

Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.

But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three  days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?

We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). 

We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.

(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.

(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.

It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.

 Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).

G – are biased

This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.  

I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God 

 Anything "supernatural" must be in that context. 

J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout

This was  “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”

This study is mis-applied]

On one hand we have someone who was 

1) unknown to the witnesses, 

2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and 

3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film 

Versus Jesus who 

1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then 

2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and 

3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily] 

So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy. 

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.

Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws? 

Conclusion:

The two claims revisited:

1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 

First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?

Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data. 

Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical. 

2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:

• Numerous 

• contemporary [to the time question]

• independent

• consistent with other sources

I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.

I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation  for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).

Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws? 

Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead. 

Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - I guess you didn't read the  “floodgate” problem above

Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.

Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker. 

Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.

How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here 

Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate

For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate.  For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc.  Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end.  If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it. 

Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."

It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it

The Gospels Not Anonymous Accounts

The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous. At one level, that’s true. The names of the authors are not embedded in the text of the Gospels. And since we don't really know who wrote them, how can we trust that what they say about Jesus is true?

Anonymity doesn't matter

Historian C. Fasolt argues that Paul’s letter to the Roman church is helpful as a historical source “only on the assumption that it was written by Saint Paul.” Mike Licona, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, notes historian M. S. Cladis’s response to Fasolt:

This is going to be news to countless social historians of the religions of the ancient Mediterranean basin who investigate archaeological and textual work without always knowing the specifics of the exact agents involved. Indeed, these historians are investigating the society that shaped the agents, even if they do not know most of the agents’ names (and all that this means).

They collect, analyze, and interpret evidence from a variety of sources—monuments and tombs, literary texts and shopping lists—in order to learn something important about the socio-historical circumstances in which people, like Paul, lived, moved, and had their being. The historian of antiquity, then, can learn much about the past from the ‘Letter to the Romans’ whether or not that text was actually written by Paul.

Here is the takeaway point: even if we grant that the books and letters of the New Testament are anonymous, we can still gather important historical information from those texts. Anonymity of the sources is not a death knell for historical studies, and should not be used as some kind of sweeping indictment of texts. We can know what happened to Jesus and his disciples two thousand years ago, using the New Testament documents as our sources.

We know who wrote the Gospels 

Martin Hengel makes the argument that titles like “According to Mark” were used much earlier than previously suspected (Studies in the Gospel of Mark 64–84). These titles were added sometime before the end of the first century, prompted most likely by the presence of two or more gospels that needed to be distinguished.

Part of Hengel’s argument is that the authorship of the four gospels was unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the middle of the second century, and the only way for this to have happened was for the church to have known for quite some time who wrote the Gospels. If the authors’ names were truly not attached to their writings, multiple names would have been attached (as is the case with Hebrews).

To state it simply: if nobody knew for six decades who wrote the Gospels, the second-century witness wouldn’t have been unanimous. Rather, it would have been highly contested, and we’d have records of that. Instead, we find the traditional names as the only names.

This is especially significant when we realize that the Gospels spread throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity exploded onto the scene, and yet everywhere we look, the same four names are attached to the same four gospels. The ancient world was obviously not as well-connected as we are today. If people in one area arbitrarily attached the name “Matthew” to the first gospel, it would be an astoundingly rare coincidence for ALL people in ALL other countries to do the same. And yet in different countries throughout the ancient world, “Matthew” was always attached to the first gospel.

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” In papyrus 75, a papyrus from the middle of the third century, we read “on leaf 47 (recto), where Luke ends (at Luke 24:53), the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν [“Gospel according to Luke”]. Below these words is a blank space, the equivalent of two to three lines. Below this space follow the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάνην [Gospel according to John and then the opening verses of the Gospel of John.”

Evans summarizes, “There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions" (Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts  page 53).

It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is ample. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.

Objection A - Widely attributing a text to a specific author still doesn't mean that the named person actually wrote it.

Other posts of interest 

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

Eyewitnesses of The Risen Jesus

The writers state emphatically that they saw and heard Jesus, and they recorded their testimony so that people all over the world would know the truth about Jesus: “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe” (John 19:35).

And we know that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was written early

The writers document that Jesus told these men repeatedly that He called them for the purpose of being “His witnesses,” and to distribute a record of all He had said and done; “everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Eyewitnesses Who Saw The Risen Jesus:

1. Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-17
2. Mary/Salome: Matthew 28:9-10
3. Peter: Luke 24:34
4. Two Disciples: Luke 24:13-32
5. 10 Apostles: Luke 24:33-49
6. 11 Apostles: John 20:26-30
7. 7 Apostles: John 21:1-14
8. 12 Apostles: Matthew 28:16-20
9. 500 at one time: 1 Corinthians 15:6
10. James: 1 Corinthians 15:7
11. 11 Apostles: Acts 1:4-9
12. Paul: 1 Corinthians 9:1, Acts 9:3-6, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 18:9-10, Acts 22:12-21, Acts 23:11, Acts 26:12-18

The New Testament Records The Writers Stating They Saw Jesus

Contrary to critics who seek to impugn the reliability of the authors for the New Testament, the writers themselves state repeatedly that what they are recording, they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, and they are telling the truth.

There are 387 uses of the Greek word, ὁράω (“We saw, we have seen,” In the New Testament. Clearly the writers of the New Testament are stating emphatically, they saw Jesus and they are eyewitnesses. 

The Koine-Greek text is very specific in this regard, the writers using the precise word, ὁράω, to define what they saw:

Paul said: Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen (ὁράω) Jesus our Lord with my own eyes? ~1 Corinthians 9:1

There are eight places in the New Testament where Paul states that he saw (ὁράω) Jesus; two additional places where Ananias and Barnabas state that Jesus appeared to Paul:

1. Paul’s statement: 1 Corinthians 9:1
2. On the road to Damascus: Acts 9:3-6
3. Ananias said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:17
4. Barnabas said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:27
5. At Corinth: 1 Corinthians 15:8
6. At Corinth: Acts 18:9-10
7. At Jerusalem: Acts 22:6-10
8. While praying at the Temple: Acts 22:12-21
9. At the Roman barracks: Acts 23:11
10. Before King Agrippa: Acts 26:12-18

The last meeting Paul had with Jesus, in Acts 26:12-18 (above), Jesus said the following to Paul:

Jesus told Paul: “But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.” ~Acts 26:16

Peter said: that he had seen the risen Jesus with his own eyes.

“For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes. ~2 Peter 1:16

This is a reference by Peter to the Transfiguration of Jesus that Peter, James, and John also saw, as recorded in Matthew 17:1-6, Mark 13:26, and Luke 9:28-32. On that day Jesus showed these three men what He will look like when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth. Moses and Elijah were also with Jesus during this transfiguration.

In Mark’s Gospel, we find this text that Mark recorded as Peter recounted to him, what took place on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is this event that Peter recorded first through Mark his scribe, that Peter later cites again as the moment when he saw Jesus with His eyes and truly believed.

The Evidence Mark Was The Scribe Of Peter

Peter later wrote in 1 Peter 1:19 that this experience of seeing Jesus, as He appears after His resurrection, forever convinced him that all the prophets had written about the Messiah was penned only for Jesus.

“Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place.” ~1 Peter 1:19

John Said: “We saw  him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands…We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard…” ~1 John 1:1-4

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning (Jesus) the Word of life…” ~1 John 1:1

James saw the risen Jesus, as recorded by Paul, who said that James also saw Jesus with his eyes after His resurrection, and finally all 12 of the Apostles saw Jesus alive, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:

“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures had said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures had said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-7

Mary saw Jesus crucified: “Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene.” ~John 19:25

Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus: “Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance.”…Mary was standing outside the tomb crying…She turned to leave and saw someone standing there. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. …“Mary!” Jesus said. She turned to him and cried out, “Rabboni!”.~John 20:1-16

Two Disciples, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, saw Him alive with their own eyes as they were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus.

“13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” ~Luke 24:13-34

Matthew records eleven of the original Apostles who saw Jesus alive on the third day after He was crucified. Paul is added later in the book of Acts. In order to be a true Apostle of Jesus, they had to see the risen Jesus:

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ~Acts 1:21-22

The Apostles who were eyewitness to Jesus post resurrection

1. Simon, called Peter
2. Andrew (Peter’s brother)
3. James (son of Zebedee)
4. John (James’ brother)
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew (the tax collector)
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon (the zealot)
12. Paul of Tarsus, later.

As Matthew is recorded in the New Testament as one of the Apostles whom Jesus chose to be His witness, it is certain that Matthew saw Jesus with his own eyes, alive after being crucified.

500 Eyewitnesses Who Saw Jesus All At The Same Time

Jesus was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I (Paul) had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. ~1 Corinthians 15:4-8

These Men And Women Who Saw Jesus Alive After Dying On The Cross, Said They Are Witnesses Of The Risen Jesus

Peter: 32 “God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this.” ~Acts 2:32 (NLT)

Jesus told these men that they are His witnesses and He wanted them to tell the whole world about what they had seen Jesus accomplish.

So when the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, “Lord, has the time come for you to free Israel and restore our kingdom?” He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” ~Acts 1:6-8

In describing their eyewitness testimony of Jesus. There is no ambiguity in what these writers meant; they saw Jesus with their eyes, they heard Him with their ears, they wrote a truthful testimony.

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Is one justified in rejecting the historicity of the life of Jesus if there are no eyewitnesses to Him and His life, and the accounts are decades after He lived? Is this the standard that historians use? Or is it a double standard?

 
The Strange Case of Hieronymus of Cardia

Hieronymus [356–323 BC] is not a household name, but among historians he’s known for several things. He was an eyewitness to the campaigns of Alexander the Great, but he lived to the age of 104 — long enough to record the first battle between a Roman army and a Hellenistic kingdom. He was a friend and confidant of kings and commanders during the chaotic aftermath of Alexander the Great’s death. He was a military governor in Greece. Furthermore, he managed the asphalt industry on the Dead Sea.

Above all, he is regarded as a key source for many of the most of the history of the years 320–270 BCE. He’s also a prime authority for Plutarch’s famous biographies of Eumenes, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Pyrrhus. In fact, he’s often cited as the first Greek to write about the rise of Rome.

On the other hand, Dionysius Halicarnassus — writing during the reign of Augustus — called him “a historian no one bothers to finish.” He’s everywhere without being personally a key historical figure.

However:

The bit about him being 104 at the age of his death comes from another author whose work is also lost: Agatharcides of Cnidus who lived roughly sometime in the later 2d century BC — born probably three generations after Hieronymus’ death. We know he discussed Hieronymus because he, in turn, is quoted by Lucian of Samosata (~ 125–180 CE) — about 300 years after Agatharcides and over 400 from Hieronymus.

The oldest surviving work that refers to Hieronymus by name is that of “a certain person named Moschion” who probably would have lived a bit before Agatharcides, writing in Sicily — 750 miles or more from where Hieronymus lived and worked and maybe 75 years after his death. The only thing we know about Moschion is the handful of his pages quoted by Athenaeus, about 450 years after Hieronymus.

There’s no reference to Hieronymus in any Latin source, despite his reputation as an early reporter of Rome. The reference to him being the first Greek to write about Rome comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about 250 years after Hieronymus’ death.

Key biographical details — his relationship with Eumenes, his work for the Antigonid dynasty, and his governorship — only show up in Plutarch, 350 years after Hieronymus’ day.

The history for which he is famous is lost; it exists only in paraphrases or name-checks by later writers. Although there are several facts attributed to him, there is no verbatim quote of anything the wrote. It’s a commonplace among historians that Hieronymus is the main source for much of what is interesting and detailed in the work of Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote 200 years or more after Hieronymus’ death.

Diodorus tends to be somewhat wordy and diffuse, but when he covers the age of Hieronymus he suddenly becomes more detail oriented, has interesting anecdotes, and provides reasonable numbers; this is all assumed to come from Hieronymus. However, although Diodorus does refer to Hieronymus (for example, he tells the story of Diodorus’ job in the asphalt bureau in book 19) he never explicitly quotes him. The common assumption is that big chunks of books 18–20 are basically plagiarized from Hieronymus — but naturally, Diodorus doesn’t tell us this himself.

He’s not quoted by Polybius, whose account overlapped with events he wrote about. His most industrious recyclers are Diodorus and Dionysius during the transition from Roman republic to Roman empire (~200 - 250 years), and then Appian and Plutarch in the second century CE (~ 350 - 400 years).

It’s worth pointing out that not only is he not attested very close to his own lifetime — neither are many of the sources which refer to him. Agatharcides for example has no contemporary mentions — he’s cited by Diodorus, and by early Roman-era writers but none closer to him than a couple of generations.

Diodorus, too, is not referred to by his contemporaries — we have to guess when he died from the contents of his book, which does not refer to any event later than around 32 BC. At least his book survives him — about a third of it, anyway. The last complete copy was destroyed during the Turkish sack of Constantinople. There is no evidence for him that does not come from his own writings, and the oldest explicit quotation from him is from Athenaeus in the latter half of the second century CE, over 200 years from his own time.

Of the people mentioned in this piece by name Plutarch, Appian, Athenaeus, and — of course — emperor Augustus are attested by contemporary sources and known by any other means than their own writings. Only Augustus and Plutarch are known from physical objects (the latter from a single inscription). There is an inscription from Diodorus’ hometown in the name of a Diodorus; we have no way of knowing if it’s the same Diodorus and it offers no clue to the date.

This is how a fairly famous person — a widely cited author, diplomat, and friend of kings — fares in the sources. Hieronymus of Cardia is a figure who is completely familiar to ancient historians; if anything they are often over-eager to spot traces of him — he is almost universally assumed to be the source of most of the interesting and detailed bits of Diodorus and Dionysius in the the era of Alexander’s successors. He routinely shows up in any discussion of the early historiography of Rome.

But he does not pass the contemporary mention test by a country mile. [Source]

The implication: 

Therre are no eyewitness account for the life of Hieronymus of Cardia and no contemporary accounts of him either, yet historians have no doubt or minimal doubt that he existed.

But maybe is just an outlier, surely this is just an anomaly, an exception, an oddity.... 


What about other well known people from history, they certainly are much more documented than people from Bible, right?

Spartacus 103–71 BC

The story of a slave turned gladiator turned revolutionary has been told and retold many times in media. Although a well-known and much-admired historical figure, Spartacus does **not** actually have **any** surviving contemporary records of his life. His enduring fame is in part due to the heroic visage crafted by a priestess of Dionysus, who was also his lover.

The story is mentioned in Plutarch’s biography of Crassus, the wealthy Roman who ultimately put down the uprising led by Spartacus. Parallel Lives was a collection of 48 biographies of prominent historical figures written by the Greek historian in the **second century AD**. Another major source of information about Spartacus came from another Greek, Appian, **writing around a century after the events**.


Hannibal born in 247 B.C

Despite how well-known his great deeds as a general are, there are **no** surviving firsthand accounts of Hannibal - or indeed Carthage at all. The closest thing to a primary source for the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage is the account written by the Greek historian Polybius around **a century later**

The historian was alive for the third and final Punic conflict and spoke to survivors of the second war, but obviously did **not** meet Hannibal himself.

Another major ancient source, which drew on other works from the time that are now lost, was by the Roman historian Livy. The History of Rome was **written in the first century** AD, but only part of the 142-book collection remains. While not considered as objective as Polybius and far removed from the events, Livy’s work fills in a lot of the gaps.

Alexander the Great 356 - 323 BC

At its peak, his empire stretched from the Balkans to the Indus River. Countless pages have been written of his deeds, but almost all were done **long after** his was dead

Our only knowledge comes from the much later works that drew on those long-lost pages. Perhaps the most valuable of all was the tome written by his general Ptolemy, who would later found his own great empire. One of the very few written records that survive from Alexander’s time is an incredibly brief mention of his passing in a small clay tablet of Babylonian astronomical reports.

William Wallace 1270 - 1305 AD

The screenplay for the 1995 film Braveheart occasionally drew upon a poem written by a monk known as Blind Harry in the 15th century.

Because Harry's romanticized account was penned more than **150 years** after the Scottish hero was tried and executed at the behest of Edward I, it’s not exactly going to be a reliable telling of the tale. One of the few contemporary records comes from a **single** English chronicle that doesn’t try to be objective: *…a certain Scot, by name William Wallace, an outcast from pity, a robber, a sacrilegious man, an incendiary and a homicide, a man more cruel than the cruelty of Herod, and more insane than the fury of Nero…*

The passage details an unflattering description of the Scottish defeat at Falkirk in 1298, where Wallace apparently fled the scene before being captured. The time between the loss and his later apprehension was spent in mainland Europe, attempting to raise support for his cause. We know this because one of only **two** surviving documents personally attached to Wallace is a letter written on his behalf by the King of France to the Pope

Attila the Hun (c. 406-453 AD) was one of late antiquity’s most notorious figures, a brutal conqueror who ransacked the weakened Roman Empire.

Little is actually known of the Huns, as they left little evidence behind, and the few contemporary accounts that remain are from sources not disposed to view them favorably. The surviving fragments of a history of Rome written by Ammianus Marcellinus depict a backward, savage people of unknown origin.

As for Attila himself, much of his early life is the subject of speculation from later authors. Jordanes, a **6th-century** Eastern Roman historian, wrote a second hand account as he drew upon the work of Priscus, a fellow Eastern Roman who actually met Attila. Unfortunately, only a few scraps of Priscus’s work remain.

So it seems that historians have no problem in taking as historical, people and events are much less evidence than what the Bible contains.

If anyone uses the "The gospels are not eyewitness accounts" argument to dismiss the Gospels as history, commits the double standard logical fallacy 

Bart Erhman - [He is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic
Jesus existed. Source for the quotes below]

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John). All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit. .... Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.

There is more. Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

Why would the author leave the key sentence in Aramaic? If you have ever had bi-lingual friends who assume you too know their second language and have heard them tell a joke about something that happened in the other country, you will know that sometimes they give the punch line in the other language, even though the lead up to the line is in English. That’s because often the punch line packs a better punch than the original.

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, 

Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

Objection A  - But Jesus is said to be God and rose from the dead. That's a major difference between all these other historical figures

Reply: So, your real objection has to do with the metaphysical implications of saying the Jesus rose from the dead, not the hidtorical nature of the account. That is beyond the scope of this argument.

However, I invite you to read why Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is logically self-refuting and why there is evidence for God

Objection B - The eyewitness stuff is important with the Gospels because there is a massive difference between 'I lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died' and 'I heard others lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died.

Reply: But the "eyewitness stuff" is apparently not impoertant - see nthe above for how many people/events are considered historical sans eyewitness account. The take Luke, for example, said the he investigated everything from the beginning and wrote an orderly account. This sems to be in line with what other ancient historians did, like Herodotus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian - There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

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.