[Soliton]

If you are restricting the allowable evidence even further to determine historicity, then you have truly gone off into the weeds, because there isn’t one single historical figure that would survive that level of textual criticism in the extreme.

Almost all historical figures would pass that test. A few like Pythagoras and Homer are considered semi-mythical because of it. We know that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed because there are contemporary records of the former and a stone inscription for Pilate. http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

[Kevmo]

contemporary records of the former
***Here is where you err. The contemporary records that you hold so dearly are from his idealogical allies, and by your standard such records are suspect. That’s why you do not allow the new testament documents as evidence.

[Kevmo]

Almost all historical figures would pass that test.
***And so would Jesus, with flying colors. Something is off kilter with your standard. Since you continue to post on this subject, I gather you consider yourself to have an interest in the historicity of Christ. This subject has come up on numerous occasions on crevo threads, so I’m going to take the initiative and post a historicity of Christ thread and invite you to it.

[metmom]

So now that there’s some extra Biblical source, we can believe it?

If extra-Biblical sources confirm the Gospels, then why aren’t the Gospels trustworthy now?