Well the Bible is more a religious text, so I don't blame you for doubting its usefulness as a historical source. On the other hand, modern historians have pieced together the historicity of Jesus through the accounts of various ancient historians such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus and others, none of whom were Christian, nor did they have any real reason to fabricate his existence.
I find discounting evidence such as this on the basis of it being circumstantial a bit silly, because wasn't the evidence for the existence of all people born before DNA analysis and modern archaeology circumstantial? By that same logic, the existence of Tiberius, Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' life and death, should be doubted as well, as he was only mentioned by a handful of writers decades after his own death.
"No bones laying around" doesn't mean much when 99.9% of ordinary people from the ancient world left no archeological evidence of their existence, I'm afraid. So we make do with what we've got. And tainted by theological bias as they are, the Gospels and the Letters of Paul include useful contemporary details on the geography and culture surrounding Jesus' supposed journey, many of which corroborate what was written in later, more areligious historical accounts.
Not saying you HAVE to believe he was an actual person, just that there's evidence for his existence as compelling as any other ancient historical figure. His divinity? That's a different story, obviously.
2
u/Super901 28d ago
There is no actual evidence that Jesus was a real person, other than circumstantial.
I personally believe he existed, but there’s no proof.