Well the tablet mentioned on top is authentic though there are some disagrements to the translation, in one line Gabriel says in 3 days, and then a word that is one letter short of being read as live if the translation is in 3 days live then we would have a noter resurrected messias on our hands about 4 years before Christ was borne.
And yes there are very few if any outside sources for the exsistance of Jesus, one would think that a guy who raises the dead, heals the sick, feeds the masses whit 2 fish and a loaf of bread would be written about by most literate people of that time but no.
And something else that is probably wrong too in the bible the way Poncipilat treats Jesus, a few years after Jesus he ran out of wood to make crosses so i doubt he would take time to talk to a inferrior to romans Jew and just said well crucifie him.
And the cross curches use is also probably wrong, if he had to carry anything it would be the horisontal plank of the cross, and that horisontal plank would be put on a slot at the top of the cross so no beem sticking out where the in-ri inscription lies.
The way he is depicted nailed to the cross is also probably wrong, the nails trough the palm would probably not hold him and the romans knew that so trough the wrist is more probable. And a leg found that was crucified indicate that the nails would go trough the side of the heel probably on the sides of the cross. This point is ideal because it misses all the major blood vessals and hits a nerve center inflicting lots of pain and that is what the romans wanted to scare all other "criminals", people naild to the cross in lots of pain as a deterant from crime.
If Garfinkel is correct, the shard would support the case for the Bible’s accuracy, as it demonstrates that Israelites kept written records of Biblical events as they took place. "
A lot of cultures did, thou loads of them do not mention a flood that covered the whole planet, creation like the one in the bible, milions of isrealites escaping egypit, or Jesus, all events one might think one would write down some where though they are only found in the bible.
The problem is finding what the actual story was. What is embellished, added, removed, ... , from this book and whitout outside sources it is hard to find out what realy happend.
If 10 000 years in the future some alien archeologist would find the script for batman would he imidetly conclude such a person exsistred or would he try to find other sources to confirm or deny his exsistence.
Well before that time rolls where used, or clay or something else, then the book as we know it arrived pages..... (though not print).
The book form was better than the role form, or clay. Because more scribes could work on one book every one would get a page to copy, and then those pages would go in to a book, where to copy a role one scribe had to do it or they had to stand very close to one another. More place to write things down where in a book then a role you can only make a piece of paper so long.
A few other things that most belive and its probably wrong.
The notion of a long haired, blond, white, blue eyed Jesus IS wrong.
Jesus was a jew from middle east so he was probably dark haired, dark skinned, whit dark colur eyes (from brown to green), i forgot exastly why but it is also probable that his hair was short.
It is somewhat probable that he was married, though it is not dfinitive, a non married Jew of 30 years would be very very strange for that time.
The notion that Poncipilat thought that he did nothing to deem crucifitcion is wrong. Distrupting passover whit violence was often phunished by death, and the only god walking the Erth in man form at that time was alowed to be the Emperor saying otherwise was also a death sentence.