My summary is oversimplified. I still think it’s the correct answer to OP’s question: is there physical evidence. Because there isn’t anything physical. But there are written records from a bit later, suggesting that somebody with that name must have existed. Glad someone else thinks I picked the correct article. Seems it’s not that easy to find good information. The English speaking internet is filled with low quality efforts to portray the facts in a way they’d like to have them.
I have a few good books though. Back when I was young (and became an atheist,) I used to read a lot about philosophy, the political message of the New Testament. And what life was like in that time.
The tl;dr of that article isn’t even “no”. It provides both sides of the accounts and references academics that argue both ways.
I read it to make the same argument you did, but ended up considering it a surprisingly well written article.
My summary is oversimplified. I still think it’s the correct answer to OP’s question: is there physical evidence. Because there isn’t anything physical. But there are written records from a bit later, suggesting that somebody with that name must have existed. Glad someone else thinks I picked the correct article. Seems it’s not that easy to find good information. The English speaking internet is filled with low quality efforts to portray the facts in a way they’d like to have them.
I have a few good books though. Back when I was young (and became an atheist,) I used to read a lot about philosophy, the political message of the New Testament. And what life was like in that time.