I have delved into it a little more - but still not finding anything groundbreaking although some of the details are interesting.
On chapter 2 he takes as his starting point the consensus position: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100 - he then tries to argue for earlier dates as others (all of whom are christian apologists) have done. The reason why christians would want to date the gospels earlier is obvious but Bruce provides no compelling evidence and nor have others I've read.
The chapter on Luke is interesting, but doesn't really add anything to what I know - sure there are many references to historical figures who we know from corroboratory evidence existed. Some historical details are wrong. But none of this takes us any further into the historical accuracy of the main claims of christianity - namely the resurrection, miracles, virgin birth, son of god. No amount of correct, but uncontentious, historical evidence elsewhere adds one iota of evidence for the implausible claims. It is a bit like claiming that Harry Potter must be true because Kings Cross station actually exists.
And so onto the key issue - does Bruce actually claim evidence for the miracles as historical fact - he does not - he is clear that they are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote again:
'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'
I was more interested in chapters 8-10 in which he looks at independent evidence - both archeological and written from Jewish and Roman sources. And he admits on both counts there is precious little. He also makes some bizarre claims to try to bolster his position. Perhaps the most notable being a possible reference to Jesus as Ben-Pantera ('Son of Pantera') which is usually suggested to be a reference to a Roman soldier named Pantheras. Bruce tries to claim that Pantera actually is parthenos, meaning virgin - there is no evidence for this whatsoever, beyond a desire on the part of a christian for it to be true.
To summarise, my reading of this document from Bruce (which I fully admit hasn't been every word on every page) hasn't changed my view at all, which may be summarised as follows:
I think there is limited, but sufficient evidence to suggest that a person called Jesus existed in 1stC Palestine. That he was likely a preacher and teacher and gained a small number of committed followers. That his activities became a concern to the authorities, both Jewish and Roman and that he was executed. That his followers scattered and gained support for his views over the following decades, critically not in Palestine, but elsewhere.
The reason why I accept this despite there being limited evidence (and certainly very limited independent corroboration, beyond that off his followers) is because there is nothing implausible about any of those claims, so the threshold of evidence is relatively low.
There is absolutely nothing that leads me to belief that any of the miraculous claims are historically true (i.e. they actually happened) - there is simply no evidence for any of them and the claims are implausible, if not impossible and therefore require exceptional levels of evidence.
Okram's razor also applies as there are naturalistic and plausible explanations for all the miraculous claims and given that those claims are from followers the suggestion of exaggeration and distortion of the actual truth to provide a narrative to fit effectively a political agenda seems plausible too.
