>although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurr

>although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of Jesus was behind it is not That doesn't seem quite fair because it's almost certain that the guy named Jesus was not behind the upheavals of that time. That was about the Jewish revolt against the Romans which Jesus was not involved in at all. Also, while Christianity didn't start in earnest until about two hundred years after Jesus' death, stories of his life were written down as early as 60 years after his death. It's very difficult in a society like ancient Israel to fake the existence of a person, people had clan allegiances, they kept track of genealogies and would be able to tell right away if the writings concerned someone who didn't exist. There were translations but that's irrelevant because we have the original dead sea scrolls with the earliest ones dating to a few decades after his death. A time when wealth and power did not hinge on this. We're not solely working with edits and re-translations. I think there's a bias against religious figures that inform people's arguments when they say it's all uncertain - when in reality the evidence is pretty good that he did exist.