"Validity comes from corroberation" Which is what I meant by the way anecdotal evidence can be reinforced by subsequent anecdotes. A single observation is an anecdote.

A thousand religious people reporting that they saw a statue move at Knock may well add up to a thousand anecdotes, but that does not add up to the phenomenon they claim to have seen having been a thousand times more likely. Corroboration requires a little more than anecdote piled upon anecdote. True corroboration leads to the increasing likelihood of verification, not the creation of a bandwagon.

It's just not the case that the Romans kept detailed records about trials and executions, at least none that have survived. After all, this wasn't even about a Roman citizen.

If we are to believe that Jesus was an important political figure in an area under Roman jurisdiction, we would expect him to crop up frequently in contemporary Roman writings, which are abundant. But he doesn't. There are two mentions by the Jewish historian Josephus, writing at least sixty years after Jesus's alleged death. One of these references is regarded as so unreliable as to be worthy of dismissal and the other is, at best, controversial. Look them up. There is one brief mention by Tacitus, writing 80 years after Jesus's alleged death, in a passage about the burning of Rome, in which he mentions the "extreme penalty" suffered by "Christus" at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. That's yer lot. That passage may well be authentic though it is disputed by a number of historians. I've tried to be as honest as possible about that. There is nothing else in all the masses of Roman literature, yet there are hundreds of references in contemporary writings by his alleged followers. In effect, there is an argument for claiming that Jesus was a myth in the minds of his followers. I'm not hanging on to that personally. But please admit that an awful lot points to the possibility that Jesus never existed.