Your question has already been answered repeatedly throughout this thread
it was? where?
and it was also responded to in the Dr. Price quote.
nothing in that quote said anything about why historical experts of all stripes acknlowledge the existence of Jesus.
Your position on Caesar has already been exposed for the utter nonsense that it is.
you didn't even respond to it so how could it have been "exposed"? here is the info you haven't addressed:
You state that Caesar has personal written documents and Jesus doesn’t. Do you know anything about caesar’s commentaries?
1. His authorship is a claim by Suetonius. That’s the only proof we have that he actually wrote them. and he didn’t even write all of them. how can we be sure he wrote any of them? we can’t.
2. They are basically journal entries during the gallic and civil wars. They do not tell us much, if anything about Caesar himself. Therefore, they really make no difference in determining if Caesar himself existed. They could have been chronicled by anyone referring to some other Caesar like person such as in the case of the Arthur legend.
3. There are clear signs of embellishment which further smears the credibility of the documents.
These are facts maintained by the academic community, not opinions. Therefore, the commentaries are completely unconvincing admissions into the record.
You state that caesar’s friends wrote about him during his lifetime but Jesus’ didn’t. there are only a handful of copies of the writings of Cicero and Sallust, they are from the middle ages, have lacunae and shows signs of editions by copyists. In comparison, there are at least 5000 greek manuscripts of the nt dating back to 150ad at the latest for the rylands fragment, even more in latin and Coptic and show a miniscule percentage of variants compared to the writings of Cicero and Sallust. By any historical standard, the accounts of Jesus are astronomically more conclusive for historicity. The difference between the size of an atom and the size of Jupiter.
As far as caesar’s enemies, they’re no more trustworthy or conclusive than the writings of Cicero and Sallust and extra biblical accounts of Jesus have been listed by the authors I’ve already mentioned.
First century Christians would be horrified if a sculpture or statue of Jesus were created so a bust of Caesar proves nothing in comparison to Jesus. The followers of Jesus were opposed to such things whereas roman culture celebrated such things. Jesus’ followers preserved His existence in other, no less palpable ways.
I’m sure you’re aware that catholics have for centuries claimed to have artifacts from Jesus’ life and crucifixion so the same for Caesar proves nothing.
Birthdate, date of death and last name come from historical sources. The historical sources are clearly in Jesus’ favor.
No matter how you slice it, the evidence is heavily, heavily in Jesus’ favor. It’s a monumental difference. Your use of the oversimplified chart is very subversive from a historiographical standpoint. It’s really more posturing than actual history.