responding to common objections to bible part 6 final.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.

Thank you, this has been an interesting discussion.

I will merely answer the questions which you raised.

how many total documents [including copies] are there for both these men? clearly jesus wins that.

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.

you said there was 9 authors- jesus has slightly more than that,especially if one counts the non canonical "gospels" and the like.

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

Caesar himself wrote the 8 Books- what time period is the original writings from just wondering,the ear liest copies.

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.

Cicero- i really dont have anything here to try and argue. except question how many of these refer to him and what the earliest manuscript timeframe was from. I would not agree that nothing from jesus time was copied,i think it was and used later in the official gospels.

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.

you said
The majority of the historical record concerning Jesus was laid out from about CE 60-200

I would say from 40's-90 ad for nt. If your including non canonical than yes later.

Yes, I meant both canonical and non-canonical.

NT alone sure,but that matters not to the historicity of the documents,just the beliefs of the writers [not born that way], did not some see Caesar as a god?. i would not than question if he were a true person. But the nt has accounts of enemies of jesus and what they said of him as well. Plus there is Gnostic views of him,Koranic,jewish,roman etc not just from nt. Writings of jesus as well cover langues cultures etc. But in the end good post and i wont compare them together anymore.

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.