Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio View Post
Thank you, this has been an interesting discussion.

I will merely answer the questions which you raised.



This is a question which I cannot answer accurately, as it is dependent on too many variables. I presume that you are correct, since during the early-high medieval period (from which most manuscripts of ancient texts survive) copies of the Bible were the main object of copyists work. Volume does not always mean much, however, except insofar as more manuscripts means less errors.




Nine which I named, there are more, as well as archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic sources.




This is still controversial: either during the Gallic War itself, year-by-year from 59-51 BCE, or at some point afterwards, before his death in 44 BCE. As to the earliest surviving manuscripts, I am not sure unfortunately. I would guess 8th-12th Century CE.



Again, I do not have absolute numbers: the letters and speeches deal with political life from the 60s-43 BCE, and cover the majority of Caesar’s political life. Even if there is no direct reference to Caesar, there are issues raised by Cicero and his correspondents which would be pertinent to the study of Caesar’s life. Once again, I do not have specifics on the manuscript tradition of all these works, I believe some fragments are from 5th-6th century manuscripts.




Yes, I meant both canonical and non-canonical.



Beliefs of the writers do have a bearing on the possible veracity of the account though. Yes, Caesar was worshipped, and later officially deified after his death. However, due to the way in which the Romans conceived of (what was later) the Imperial cult Caesar’s posthumous divinity had little bearing on his actions in life. The NT does indeed contain references to what the enemies of Jesus said, but through the lens of his supporters. Cicero and the historians when they criticise are expressing their own opinions not reporting those of others. It is simply more direct.

Certainly there are other views, but in the main, they are much later. Islamic traditions only originate in the 8th century CE. The Jewish and Roman traditions are subject to suspicion by some, and add very few details.

Just to reiterate, I am confident that Jesus was a historical individual, but there is little independently verifiable information regarding his life, outside of the NT, especially when compared to a figure like C. Iulius Caesar.


sorry did not break up because time.



numbers,true but usually for most documents there are very few in ancient time,unlike the nt, that is were it separates itself greatly and adds to its authority as to accuracy. Many other documents have long time periods to when written to surviving documents.


oh ok,same for jesus/nt.



that is big difference to nt agreed?.



im not saying they are not, i just was saying if were comparing documents/authors to jesus/cesar, than they need to speak of him,not just things that have to do with his time period, otherwise that would bring in alot more for jesus.


well if you take writings of Caesar as bias as you do nt, than who decides what has to be attested?. But again has nothing to do with if that person is historical,that is topic of thread.