I don't argue against circumstantial evidence, I just argue for there being an impressive amount of it to string together, to give us a much clearer picture than a single piece of circumstantial evidence. It feels like me and Simarien think we are in general disagreement but we're not, all of her complaints about deceptive scholarship also annoys me.
It pretty much seems to me that we're just hung up on a historical trivia question that's all, is the crucifixion the most richly documented single day event in the ancient world? I'm totally cool with finding out I'm wrong if I'm wrong, I just wanna know for certain at this point so I don't state misinformation. Well let me ask my buddy
@Quid est Veritas? who's historical knowledge crushes mine if he has a definitive answer on this??
I have come late into your discussion, but I'll give my opinion. Apologies for repetition.
Firstly, what do we mean here? When is something "richly documented" or well attested? All sources aren't created equally.
Eyewitness accounts are probably better than later second hand ones, but is a bad eyewitness still better than a good second hand one? Do multiple later accounts trump one earlier more or less contemporaneous one? Such questions will always be highly subjective then, unless you create some form of artificial method to grade evidence - which still is subjective, just agreed upon by convention.
Anyway, that aside, to the question at hand:
@Silmarien: Socrates' trial has one eyewitness account - Plato. Xenophon was not an eyewitness, so although a student of Socrates, he based his account on others, likely that of Hermogenes.
There were likely others, but these two seem to be our only extent accounts and later accounts of Socrates' trial seems based on one of these two. They have significant differences, such as in Socrates reason for choosing suicide: Xenophon argues that he wished to miss the ravishes of old age, so a form of Euthanasia. Plato argues for a robust defence of his philosophy requiring it. Similarly, Plato has Socrates calling his daimonion an inhibitory impulse, while Xenophon seems to suggest it actively guided on occasion as well, in their report of what he said in his defence.
So, do we trust Plato? His account was written as a piece of philosophy, with clear structure in that regard. Xenophon's was written to defend his teacher, so is highly biased (as is Plato), but perhaps represents actual events more closely.
One highly biased eyewitness account with ulterior philosophical motives, and a post-fact rationalisation done second hand to the events, that disagrees significantly with one another, really does not make it very reliable. It is however well attested, as there is literally no reason to doubt Socrates was put on trial and was killed, and Socrates has independant verification in Aristophanes and so forth.
Now we turn to Jesus' trial: Here we have no eyewitnesses, as even the traditional authorship of the gospels would not have been present (maybe John at the Cross itself). We have possibly 3 independant gospel accounts though, in Mark, John and perhaps hypothetical Q. We have Tacitus mentioning Christ's execution under Pilate (although using an incorrect title for Pilate). We have a redacted and revised reference in Josephus.
There are references to Yeshu hanging on his tree, or Mara bar Serapion's references, but these aren't definite and refer to His execution, not really details on the trial.
Suetonius merely mentions Jesus' name, and Church Fathers and Lucian are later sources clearly dependant on these earlier ones.
So multiple second hand sources, which on occasion amount to a one-liner mention which implies perhaps a trial. It is however less definite that a trial had to have taken place, as Roman governors could execute a troublesome provincial if they saw fit to, without one.
So who is better attested? I think both are very well attested by standards of ancient events, but it is difficult to weigh one against the other.
Neither are the "best attested" of ancient events. We have multiple letters of Cicero to Atticus outlining events of the late Republic. We have Cicero's speeches, such as those against Catiline. We have other historians writing on these events.
We have Caesar's eyewitness account of the Gallic Wars, with archeaological corroboration for events like the Siege of Alesia. We have multiple accounts of Teutoberger Wald and again, some archaelogical support.
There are many events better attested in my opinion, then either of these trials. Even if we take only trials, we have better attested Roman trials like those of Clodius or Caelius.
If we strip down to just the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, no serious historian doubts that. It has both Roman, Jewish (actual if corrupted, and possible) and Christian sources. That is one detail though, but probably one of the best attested of all. It still matters though, how you judge evidence. Is the one eyewitness of Socrates' death and the tradition surrounding it, better than the multiple second hand ones of Jesus' death? That is highly subjective still.
Single events; such as someone writing Augustus put up the Arx Pacis and wrote the Gestae, then we go digging the thing up and reading it; can still be argued to be far better attested than something which did not leave such physical evidence. Where do we draw the line of evidence required before we believe a thing occurred?
The point is, Jesus' execution by Roman authority is highly probable regardless and since there is a rich tradition of a trial since early days, strong grounds for it as well. If you accept events surrounding it or not, depends largely on your trust in the veracity of the Gospels then. That is another argument in entirety.
