Islam critiqued feels lucky; non-Christian reports about Jesus?

In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"

The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works.

These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.

There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery.

No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that  the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.

Muslims got their answer to this through revelation 

"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute". 

Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.

Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion

"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".

None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world,  recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.

There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.

Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.

It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.