So is also the information
by Pliny the Younger, Roman governor in Asia Minor around AD 110. In a letter to emperor
Trajan, he asks what to do with the Christians who "sing
responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god".
Not exactly an eyewitness report of Jesus, and surely not hard
evidence of anything other that Christians also sang hymns around 110 AD. Surely it is -- see here. Once again all he gives us is another version of the "hearsay" excuse. Bandoli has no conception of that the evidence requires SOME explanation.
Josephus Flavius
(born AD 37 or 38), a Jewish historian, does not mention any Jesus in his Jewish
Antiquities, the history of the Jews from the beginning of time until the time
of emperor Nero (published ca AD 93). Josephus mentions, among others, Pontius
Pilate, John the Baptist and king Herod, and numerous events of minor and major
political, religious and economical interest in the area. But he does not seem
to know of any Jesus.
Then, in the third century, an earlier unknown
addition to the Jewish Antiquities miraculously emerged, the so called
"Testimonium Flavianum". Here Josephus suddenly witness Christ, and
becomes a Christian. The problem is that this text is a forgery! Yeah, uh huh. Not that our man has any relevant scholarship on the subject; he also forgets the shorter reference besides the TF. See here. Now see what bandoli considers "source work": Even
parts of the Catholic Church acknowledges this. Who? When? Don't even bother asking for documentation. Josephan scholars acknowledge no such thing. The forgery was probably written
by the infamous bishop (and Church historian) Eusebius of Cęsarea (ca AD
265-430). He forged a lot of texts in his time. Want a list? Where is it? And never mind an actual explanation. This hearsay soundbite will do. 
What about
Christ's contemporaries?
None of the literate contemporaries of
Jesus know anything of him. And would have no reason to -- see here. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberia who
lived at the time of Jesus, do not know of him. (Tiberia was a place not far
from Capernaum where Jesus often visited, according to the
Bible). But not Tiberia itself. And not mentioning people was a form of snub. The silence means nothing.
The Jewish scholar and leader of the Jewish society in
Alexandria, Philon of Alexandria (around AD 30 - 45) do not mention any
Jesus anywhere in his texts. Philon was a famous scholar of the Old Testament
and had deep knowledge of the Jewish cults of his time. He died ca. AD 50. Maybe not that early. Philo may not have lived long enough to see Christianity become a threat, and make Jesus worthy of note. "Deep knowledge of Jewish cults" is rather vague. Philo had such knowledge of Alexandrian sects, which is not what Christianity was.
There is thus no real historical evidence of a historic Jesus. One would suppose that, a character like Jesus who according to the gospels raised the dead, healed the sick and annoyed both the Jewish establishment and the mighty Romans to such a degree that they finally had to execute him, one should think such a character would make it into at least some contemporary historical texts. Nope. No record. There's more record of Jesus than there is for a great many historical figures otherwise accepted as having existed. In the meantime bandoli waves about the spectre of "contemporary historical texts" and doesn't name any other than Philo and Justus (whose work is not extant anyway).
In view of the evidence the only honest conclusion is that the Gospel's Jesus never existed. Bandoli is far from "honest" with the evidence. He has consulted no historians, has made no critical analysis, and merely abuses the concept of "hearsay" as an excuse. Now watch this fudge:
That there once
lived a wannabe-Messiah named Joshua (greek: Jesus) in the first century
Palestine is more than probable. Roman sources tell of dozens of more or less
religiously confused wannabe-Messiahs at the time, Do they? No, they don't. There is no record of any person other than Jesus making Messianic claims until Bar Kochba. Bandoli is perhaps confusing rebels with Messiahs, and even then there were far from "dozens". If there were, let's have a list of 24 to justify it, and the sources that name them. and Joshua was a very common
Jewish name. But this could not be the Gospel's Jesus, not the Son of God,
raising the dead, healing the sick, annoying the establishment, executed as a
criminal, and then finally flapping away to heaven. All that stuff is pure
mythical, and blatantly stolen from older pagan cults by the (anonymous)
Gospel-authors. And that nonsense we will address here.
