Yes, like ?
Look, i hate posting one liners cause they look like spam so if you have any credible historical document NOT written by a priest or a xian come on and post info.
Case is that there is only 1 "document" supposedly written by the a Roman but it is a 17th century fabrication.
Eh and about the books of the apostles , the books they wrote have several significant inconsistencies…like which day supposedly JC was crucified
Given that priests were often the only ones literate, it's a pretty bad idea to toss out anything they write just because you don't like them.
Not sure if the Roman you refer to is Josephus or not, but he writes about Christ twice in Antiquities of the Jews. The first, and most well known, passage has been disputed because it appears to have been altered, though there is a 10th century Arabic version that appears to reference the original. Either way, while their is dispute about the exact language of it (and how much has been inserted later), there is little dispute that Josephus did write a passage in that spot that referenced Jesus of Nazareth.
The second passage, referrencing James as the brother of Jesus, is generally considered to be authentic as well.
As for the books of the apostles, of course there are discrepencies. What would you expect? Ever seen an accident? Ever ask more than one person what happened? Ever get the EXACT same story?
Tacitus wrote about Christ being crucified in his Annals (116AD).
The simple fact is that there aren't a lot of writings that have survived from this time frame PERIOD. Hell, only 35 of the 142 books of Ab urbe condita libri, considered for centuries to be the most sought after book from antiquity, survive.
The Christian movement was not a major event in the Roman Empire at the time it occured. Even within Judaea at the time it began it was considered more of a minor nuisance than anything. Why would you expect all sorts of historians of the time to be making note of it?