What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus? I've heard, in several informal situations, claims to the effect that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus. That many saw him and even interacted with him over the span of many days after his crucifixion. However, I'm not aware of the historical basis for such claims -- if there is, I have not yet had the opportunity to have the evidence presented to me when the claim was made and I asked for the basis.
Obviously, I'm fully aware of the writing of the New Testament in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen in resurrected form. For example, we have the eyewitness accounts of the authors of the gospels. We also have the book of Acts, which mentions Jesus' ascension to Heaven in chapter 1. And we also have the testimony of the apostle Paul, who had an extraordinary conversion experience in which he encountered the living Christ on his way to Damascus. So people who claimed to be eyewitnesses definitely existed, but the aforementioned cases only amount to six, not hundreds.
Question: What is the historical basis for the claim that there were hundreds of eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus? Are there independent eyewitness accounts, other than the six that I already mentioned, that have been preserved to this day, in which Jesus is claimed to have been seen alive, in resurrected form, after his crucifixion?
Alternatively, have any writings been preserved containing second hand accounts? One example is 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which claims that there were over 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Are there other examples, e.g., the writings of an early church father providing a similar second hand testimony?
Below is a paragraph from Josephus’ ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ (18:63–64).  At first I was hopeful that it would provide you with a secular, historical source to support eye-witness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.  However, it turns out that the comments in brackets may have been added by a later translator.

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to refer to him as a man]. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah-Christ.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For on the third day he appeared to them again alive, just as the divine prophets had spoken about these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”

Then there is the curious matter of the testimony of women being recorded as evidence:

“When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Israel. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status.&quot; (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

Moving swiftly into the 21st century, you may find the following extract from this article worth considering: https://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, “I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Allow me to leave you with this final quote:

The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be.