The Christ Myth Theory

[Swammerdami]

Thank you, Jarhyn! Thank you very much! You came MUCH closer to what I wanted.

Not quite exactly what I wanted — I wanted VERY specific answers to my 4 questions, based on a SINGLE specific mythology scenario.

I am NOT trying to pin you down. Just the opposite: If I decide your scenario is an 8% chance — whatever that means — then the mythologists win! I will automatically multiply the 8% by six to account for a hypothetical five other detailed scenarios (no need to detail them) just as likely.
.

I see Paul as an original Chrestian, following the Chrestus cult, which would be primarily active some time in 60-100, with active Jewish detractors. It is entirely possible at that time that Paul met with someone who has direct interactions with them. Nobody denies Chrestus had an impact in the early years of the movement, and was probably the first "big name Jesus".

I don't deny the life of Jesus Chrestus, so Chrestus and his cult having someone involved named James claiming brotherhood is not something I deny happening.

Am I mistaken or is the usual "earlier Jesus" MUCH earlier, so he would be unlikely to have a brother living in the 60's?
And is your claim that Chrest and Christ are separate traditions which get conflated early?

This explains why in letters he didn't directly reference Chrestus, either.

The gospels didn't exist at all yet at that point and these letters are from when the cult was quite young, I expect.

Other Jesuses came later than the Pauline letters.

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

The question is whether the character written about in the gospels is actually him, to witch I say "absolutely not". The gospels were written over a hundred years later, after two more Jesuses had lived and died.

So when between 0 and 160, at least two more Jesuses lived and died and spawned followers and cults...

The existing cult just absorbed the followers and the beliefs and the biographies of each successive Jesus.

Then some time late 2nd century, someone dug into all those historical documents (of which there were more available to the contemporary interest), and amalgamated all the later ones onto the frame of the Chrestus legends, whole updating his name with the origin stories of later individuals.

All of the documents of Chrestians are documenting a proto-cult, and possibly just Chrestus. Which is to say "the first or one of the first progenitors of a cult".

I dismiss, like most, any clear later revisions. Rather I see that cult as having likely mostly fizzled down to something quiet and small by 100ce to be reawakened by Ben Ananus and Ben Stada, among others.

This secondary wave of Jesuses would be what we're amalgamated into the older cults and what allows the history to become enough of a general interest to leverage the Markian "gospel" into popularity.

Of course, with a slick presentation like the gospel, it is much like "reading it on the internet", as has been noted. Lies told closer to the truth grow longer legs.

All of this accounts and interacts well with the documents we have and the parts we understand not to be forgeries, even the Pauline letters (though they may be!).

I'll note that even as early as 60, the cults were clearly starting to schism and the truth becoming uncertain of Chrestus's life, with clear evidence of converting a historical person into a mytheme if the Pauline letters were to be believed as original.

It sounds like your specific model — iiuc — has Letters and Acts as mostly valid contemporary documents, but worshiping an early Jesus Chrestus. Is that correct? And the Gospels were composed in the early or late 2nd century, partly as propaganda to bind multiple Jesuses (historic and mythical) together. Is that correct?

I think I know your answers to Questions (C) and (D), but I'd be pleased to have further definition on questions (A) and (B).

Document A) Paul's Epistle to the Galatians where he writes "But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord."
@J - Please tell me who James is. He's much too young to be brother of the Early Chrestus.
What evidence, if any, of James is there outside Josephus and the New Testament?
Paul's statement == "But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord." Is this Paul's only mention of James?
The "But ... saving" seems dismissive, almost rude to James! To my inexpert eye, this smells of petulance or rivalry, rather than the narrative or diction that would be edited in to regularize the conflation of multiple myths.

Document B) Josephus writes "[in Jerusalem] James the brother of Jesus [who is called Christ]."
@J - Which of the antecedents here were added by Christians in the 2nd or 3rd century?

Document C) Paul(?) and/or Luke(?) imply that there are Jews and/or Christians in Rome circa 60 AD.
Yes, these were the same Chrestians that Tacitus writes about.

Document D) Tacitus and/or Suetonis, presumably reading 1st-century accounts, write of Chrestians in Rome circa 60 AD.
Yes, these are followers of "Paul" and his fellow travelers.

Is this about right, Jarhyn?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What can be said is that a number of the stories about Jesus are historically improbable, and others are physically impossible.

This is it. Everything else is secondary.

I've heard the same urban legends told by different people in different states separated by hundreds of miles. And these people believed these stories sincerely as if their iteration was as real as it gets. When I would hear them retold I always commented that I heard that story from another person and that it's clearly just a story meant to engage our emotions. The one we've probably all heard is how the person had a cactus plant that was making strange noises. Then one day it burst open and delivered thousands of tiny spiders - usually tarantulas - to the amazement of the owner. Did you ever wonder how a tarantula came to impregnate a cactus with its spawn? Did you ever wonder how that could happen? Did you ever think about that rationally and factually, separate from your emotional attachment?

Another urban legend I heard was how the owner of a large boat came home to find it mysteriously tethered by chain to a different tree than the one he'd secured it to. Incredibly he found a note attached to the boat saying "If I really wanted to steal it I would have." Oh my goodness, how spooky is that? But when you hear this same story told by different people you know it's total bullshit meant to engage people emotionally.

Honestly, I don't understand the constant re-churning of minutia on the subject of an historical Jesus. Jesus was only ever "historical" for religious reasons. He only ever historically rose from the dead for religious reasons. And that historical Jesus was a supernatural entity with superhuman powers like Superman. How could Jesus ever have been real if Superman or Spiderman were not? Religion, maybe? That's answer enough for any rational person. Clearly the gospel protagonist was only ever as real as any of the thousands of other religious incarnations that have graced human history.

If the historical Bigfoot is a bear or the shadow of a bear then there is no historical bigfoot. If one is going to search for the historical Jesus one should not begin that investigation by assuming that there is such a person. The historical Jesus is just a story, a collection and refinement of urban legend.

Is the story inspired by actual experiences? Hell yes! That's how writers write and storytellers tell. Does that make the story factual? Hell no!

 

[steve_bank]

An Israeli wrote a book about how modern Israel is based on the myth that th Jewish culture of today stretches back in time in an unbroken common culture.

I read there was a dispute between Jerusalem Jews and Syrian? Jews split over who were the real Jews going back to the beginnng.

Us humans as we are. I expect Palestinian Jews were a varied lot. Conservative to atheist like Jews today. Like Christians today therei s no monolithic Jew.

 

[No Robots]

Us humans as we are. I expect Palestinian Jews were a varied lot. Conservative to atheist like Jews today. Like Christians today therei s no monolithic Jew.

The basic division in Judaism was between prophetic/mystic Judaism and priestly/Pharasaic/rabbinic Judaism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Am I mistaken or is the usual "earlier Jesus" MUCH earlier, so he would be unlikely to have a brother living in the 60's?
And is your claim that Chrest and Christ are separate traditions which get conflated early

Having a 60-40 year old brother alive in the 60's is entirely possible.

Chrestus and 'christ' would have happened in large scale on opposite sides of the gospel penning ~170-220ish CE.

They would not be separate translations so much as...


Chrestus lives, riots happen, cult is born. "The idea that I am will return again, and will not stay dead".

Paul lives, gets involved in hunting down the Chrestus cult. He decides that some of the original themes of radical love aren't so bad at all. That this Chrestus guy was right. He gets the cults talking. Historians take note of this movement, at any rate. Years pass.

More Jesus figures are born. Ananus. Ben Stada son of Miriam. Perhaps others. These people are the rebirth of the idea of Jesus, not just in belief but in name and possibly even looking similar, and saying the same things. Their lives were prolific enough that historians took note, a d the legends of them adjoin the cult understanding. Years pass.

The truth of these people bleeds into the beliefs of the cult about "Jesus". Eventually someone ("Mark") wants to tell "the whole story", so researches everything they can find about Jesus and throws it all into an amalgamation between the beliefs of the cult and the apparent history.

This new Jesus is a manufactured thing, wholely fiction. It is an amalgamation.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Jarhyn - If you review my previous post, you will see that the only information I still needed from you is about James, the alleged brother. Again, I don't need argumentation. I just want to know who James was and/or when the James/brother mentions were inserted.

 

[Jarhyn]

@ Jarhyn - If you review my previous post, you will see that the only information I still needed from you is about James, the alleged brother. Again, I don't need argumentation. I just want to know who James was and/or when the James/brother mentions were inserted.

As I said, a living brother to an early 1st century Chrestus would put him at between 40-60, which is well within the range of possibilities.

It's all right there, everything neatly accounted for.

All they were waiting for was the return of Jesus, much like waiting for the return of the Doily Llamas or whatever.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, in your specific model, Paul's mention of meeting James (Chrestus' brother) was factual, as was Josephus' mention? All four of the documents I ask about were factual, but the references were to some Chrestus, who thrived a few decades before the alleged Nazarene?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, in your specific model, Paul's mention of meeting James (Chrestus' brother) was factual, as was Josephus' mention? All four of the documents I ask about were factual, but the references were to some Chrestus, who thrived a few decades before the alleged Nazarene?

Yes. Exactly. Or at least, potentially factual.

Paul could have lied about meeting James.

Then, the acts and history of both the Nazarene, and Chrestus, and also Ananus who happened between the two, as well as any other Jesuses both imaginary and real, who were historically documented.

It's impossible to tease out the stuff actually attributable to the Nazarene from stuff actually attributable to Chrestus and likewise for Ananus -- except through hints from the Pauline letters, which I acknowledge as possible forgeries at least in part.

All three really lived and there's NO reason to think that the streams didn't cross somewhere between Chrestus and Mark.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Jarhyn - Possible loose end. Did you answer this? :—

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

 

[Jarhyn]

@ Jarhyn - Possible loose end. Did you answer this? :—

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

Paul, etc. Chrestus is the Jesus Chrestus referred to by Josephus et al (or whoever) by name, brother of James, and by Paul. Folks clearly talked about him, he's documented at least once, and is used as evidence of Historical Jesus by most historians.

I acknowledge that Chrestus is quite close to being "Historical Jesus" but the point of Amalgamism is that he's not the only historical Jesus.

 

[Swammerdami]

Just to be clear, when you write "Chrestus lived some time around 0" do you mean he was probably born in about the decade 10 BC to 1 BC?

 

[Jarhyn]

Just to be clear, when you write "Chrestus lived some time around 0" do you mean he was probably born in about the decade 10 BC to 1 BC?

Some time ~0ce +/-10y

 

[ramoss]

@ Jarhyn - Possible loose end. Did you answer this? :—

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

Paul, etc. Chrestus is the Jesus Chrestus referred to by Josephus et al (or whoever) by name, brother of James, and by Paul. Folks clearly talked about him, he's documented at least once, and is used as evidence of Historical Jesus by most historians.

I acknowledge that Chrestus is quite close to being "Historical Jesus" but the point of Amalgamism is that he's not the only historical Jesus.

Christus was actually reference by Tacitus, not Josephus, and he used it as a name not a title. That indicates that Tacitus was misrepresneting what the Christians believed, and therefore could only show that Christians existed, not the truth behind the claims.

 

[steve_bank]

So, in your specific model, Paul's mention of meeting James (Chrestus' brother) was factual, as was Josephus' mention? All four of the documents I ask about were factual, but the references were to some Chrestus, who thrived a few decades before the alleged Nazarene?

A falsehood that spread by word of mouth recorded by different people is still a falsehood.

Anyone who has worked in a large company, even a small one, will know how rumorrs get started and take on a life of their own.

In the 80s I worked at a large Lockheed division in New Hampshire. A manger I knew ran an experiment. Within earshot of a few people he made bogus comments relating to the divsion busness. Within a few weeks it came back to him at a Rotay Club meeting.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@ Jarhyn - Possible loose end. Did you answer this? :—

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

Paul, etc. Chrestus is the Jesus Chrestus referred to by Josephus et al (or whoever) by name, brother of James, and by Paul. Folks clearly talked about him, he's documented at least once, and is used as evidence of Historical Jesus by most historians.

I acknowledge that Chrestus is quite close to being "Historical Jesus" but the point of Amalgamism is that he's not the only historical Jesus.

Christus was actually reference by Tacitus, not Josephus, and he used it as a name not a title. That indicates that Tacitus was misrepresneting what the Christians believed, and therefore could only show that Christians existed, not the truth behind the claims.

Someone earlier in the thread questioned how we can even know if the Jesus story we have is the original story. Knowing how much that story has been amended and changed over the centuries and the many variations that have been lost, it makes logical sense to conclude that we don't have the original tale.

 

[Jarhyn]

@ Jarhyn - Possible loose end. Did you answer this? :—

Nobody, again, denies that Chrestus lived some time around 0, and that folks were talking about him.

I didn't know this. Cite? (It's probably upthread and I only skimmed it -- who pointed to the cite?) BTW is Chrestus a fore-name? If not, was the fore-name Jesus?

Paul, etc. Chrestus is the Jesus Chrestus referred to by Josephus et al (or whoever) by name, brother of James, and by Paul. Folks clearly talked about him, he's documented at least once, and is used as evidence of Historical Jesus by most historians.

I acknowledge that Chrestus is quite close to being "Historical Jesus" but the point of Amalgamism is that he's not the only historical Jesus.

Christus was actually reference by Tacitus, not Josephus, and he used it as a name not a title. That indicates that Tacitus was misrepresneting what the Christians believed, and therefore could only show that Christians existed, not the truth behind the claims.

Chrestus was mentioned by Tacitus, if anything. You are assuming the veracity of what are clearly edits. DBZ has effectively argued as much,

There is no reason to believe "brother of Christ" as original.

As to Chrestus, I expect it is in fact a name, not a title

The title "Christ", in the Amalgamist model, comes some time around 350-450(?) With the invasion of the cult into Greek cultures, largely as a result of obscurity of whether they are saying Chrestus or Christus, which would have been an easy failure of etymology to make. It could have happened as early as 250, but I would put my money on "later than that".

GMark would have been some time before the surfacing of Paul's earlier letters, which happened some time around 200-300?

I in some ways expect the early dogma to have held that one of the later Jesuses (Ben Stada Son of Miriam, of Nazareth) was in fact the rebirth of the earlier Jesus, and that this is the discussion the metaphor of the empty tomb was supposed to address.

Later on, that detail could easily get lost in the mix with the play not directly mentioning this, and later mutations and translations embellishing it to include an actual resurrection and reappearances on top of all the embellishments and anachronisms the author ascribe to the main character, itself a long after-the-fact embellishment on the lives of a few different people.

You don't know what it is Chrestians believed at the time. I would much more expect people talking fairly uniformly about Chrestus, in addition to Paul himself, to have been representing the trend of Chrestus cultism fairly accurately.

Later on it mutated further into that play based on a few different folks, including one Yeshu son of Miriam and Stada, of Nazareth, who lived and died in what I understand as the mid-late 2nd century and Yeshu Chrestus, who spawned a cult that caused trouble for Rome, whose followers were.persexured by a guy named Paul, and who has a relationship of some sort to some guy named James.

I would expect that DBZ could probably lay out the entire cast of Jesuses that graced the period in chronological order, the dates they were documented, the dates they lived, the dates they died, and the dates of all the presumed publishings or discoveries of texts related to various Jesuses.

I would very much like to see that timeline laid out.

Maybe text on bottom of axis could indicate discovery/known republication, and then an arc along the top to text pointing to the presumed events referenced, and then an arc back along the bottom to when we expect the document to have been actually generated, along with text explaining when we expect them to have been doctored, then another arc back to the original event.

Each family of bottom arcs would ideally be the same color and each top arc would be the same, thus indicating families of documents. Annotations would be included with full text on the bottom backed by the color of the arc family that indicates the text on the timeline, and highlights of controversial text, lit with off-colors (pale/dark) as per the family's timeline of edits, also so lit.

If DBZ or someone else would like to help create this infographic, I would love the help.

 

[Jarhyn]

@dbz I would like your help constructing a couple of infographics. To do so, I am going to be posting every text I can find on talmudic and historical passages on any Jesus. Could you potentially go through this when it is posted (I'll try to post it within a few hours, but, I'm not sure how long it will take me to dig everything I can find up), note anything I missed, any additional Jesuses, and hilight or annotate any clear transformations on the text, or disputed portions, as a unified collection? We can then lay it out on a timeline and discuss revision points, and maybe get a more clear view of what there is actually evidence for, and against?

Maybe we can get some of the "true believers" to weigh in on what they think this would validate, as well.

 

[steve_bank]

I am starting to see the gospels as a conflation of different events and differnt people. That is making sese to me.

It explains the differnt Jesus personalities and lack of coherence. In modern terms it woud be a movie with a disclamer. The story is based on real events, the characters are fictional composites.

There may not have been a single 'Jesus', it could have just been a loose term used by many.

Now that I think about it there is no reason to think the Jesus Paul refers to is the gospel Jesus. I think Paul makes reference to other groups awhat he considered false representatives of Jesus.

 

[Jarhyn]

Adding dates and date ranges to the origination of these texts would also be bery useful

(The Gemara) raises an objection: A person may not engage in dealings with heretics, and one may not be treated by them even in (cases of) life (-or-death matters).
(There was) an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Ishmael's sister, (in) which a snake bit him. Jacob of the village Sekhanya came to treat him, but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. And (ben Dama) said to him: "Rabbi Ishmael, my brother, let him (treat me), and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah (to prove) that this is permitted." But (ben Dama) did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed, and he died.
Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: "Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: ‘And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.’"
— Avodah Zarah, 27b

(There was) an incident in (which) Rabbi Eleazer ben Dama was bitten by a snake, and Jacob of the village Sama came to heal him in the name of Yeshu (ben) Pandera, but he was prevented by Rabbi Ishmael. (Eleazer ben Dama) told (Rabbi Ishmael), "I shall bring proof that he can heal me." But, he could not bring proof before he died. Rabbi Ishmael said, "Blessed are you, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, ‘And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him.’" But did a snake not bite him (before such a dilemma even occurred?) It will not bite him in the World to Come. What could he have said? "Keep My decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."
— Shabbat 14

(Rabbi Eliezer) said to him: "Akiva, you have reminded me; once I was walking in the upper markets of Sepphoris, and I found a man of the students of Yeshu, and his name was Jacob, of the village Sekhanya. He said to me, "It is written in your Torah, ‘You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute...’ What is (the halakha), (is it permitted) to make, from (the fee of a prostitute) a bathroom for a High Priest?" And I said nothing to him.
He said to me, "Yeshu taught me that (it is indeed permitted, for it is written): ‘Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes, as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used.’ (The coins) came from a place of filth, let them go towards a place of filth."
And I derived pleasure from the statement, and due to this, I was arrested for heresy...
— Avodah Zarah, 17a

Alternatively, the phrase "no evil shall befall you" means that you will be frightened neither by bad dreams nor by evil thoughts. "Nor shall any plague come near your tent", that you will not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., sins in public and causes others to sin, such as [Yeshu].
— Sanhedrin 103a

"There is no breach", that our faction should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged. "And no going forth", that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged. “And no outcry”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Gehazi emerged. "In our open places", that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, as Yeshu (did).
— Berakhot 17b

It should always be (the) left (hand) to push (away), and (the) right (to) bring closeward. Not like Elisha who pushed Gehazi (away) with both hands, and not like Joshua ben Perachiah who pushed Yeshu, (one of) his students, with both hands...
When King Yannai was executing the Rabbis, Simeon ben Shetach was hidden by his sister (and) Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah went (and) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made, Simeon ben Shetach sent him (the following letter): "From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt, my sister. My husband dwells amongst you, and I am sitting lonely". (Joshua ben Perachiah) said "I learn from (the letter) that there is peace!"
When he came, (they) arrived at an inn. (The innkeeper) stood before him with exemplary honor, and accorded him great honors. (Joshua) sat and was praising them, (saying): "How beautiful this inn is!" Yeshu said to him, "My master, her eyes are narrow." [The Aramaic words for "inn" and "innkeeper" were the same] (Joshua) said to him "Wicked one, is this how you conduct yourself?!" He brought out four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him. Every day, (Yeshu) would come before him, but (Joshua) did not accept him.
One day (Joshua) was reciting the Shema, (Yeshu) came before him. He intended to welcome him (this time), so he signaled (Yeshu) with his hands (to wait). (Yeshu) thought he was rejecting him. (Yeshu) went and erected brickwork, and worshipped it (as an idol). (Joshua) said to him "Return thyself!" (Yeshu) said to him "This I learned from you: Anyone who sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent!"
— Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 107

Onkelos the son of Callinicus, son of the sister of Titus, desired to convert himself (to Judaism)...
(Onkelos) went (and) he conjured Yeshu the Nazarene (from the grave). (Onkelos) said (to Yeshu), "Whom is of importance in that world?" (Yeshu) said (to him), "Israel." (Onkelos further queried) "Should I attach (myself) to them?" He (Yeshu) said; "Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye".
(Onkelos) said to (Yeshu), "What is the punishment of that man (who seeks their misfortune)?" (Yeshu) said (to Onkelos), "boiling excrement". As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.
(As said in the Gemara Come see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world.
— Gittin 57a

(The Mishna asserts) a crier goes out before (a man condemned to execution). Before him (i.e. when he is being led to execution), yes; but from the outset (i.e. before his conviction), no. But isn't it taught that on Passover Eve, they hanged Yeshu (after he was killed by stoning)? And a crier went out before him (for) forty days, (proclaiming): "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited (idolatry), and lead the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows (a reason to) acquit him should come (forward) and reveal it on his behalf!" And they did not find (a reason) to acquit him, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.
Ulla said, "And (how can) you understand? (Was) Yeshu worthy of a search to acquit him? He was an inciter, and the Merciful One states, ‘Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him.’ But, Yeshu was different, as he was close with the government."
— Sanhedrin 43a

And (the court) did the same to ben Stada of Lod, and they hanged him on Passover Eve.
(The Gemara asks, Why is he called) ben "Stada" (when) he was the son of Pandera? Rav Chisda says: "(Perhaps his mother's) husband (was named) Stada, (but his mother's) lover (was named) Pandera. (The Gemara challenges this, saying the) husband was Pappos ben Yehudah. Therefore, his mother (was) Stada. (The Gemara challenges this too, saying) his mother was Miriam, who braided women's hair. As they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed (setat da) from her husband.
— Sanhedrin 67a

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
-Tacitus

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.
-Suetonius

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
-Josephus

I'll note that I'm leaving out Testimonium because as is discussed it is most certainly whole cloth interpolation.

This is everything I am aware of that discusses Jesus in any light at all.