relevantThere is no concrete evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. His existence is culturally supported by the historical and collective beliefs of a few billions of people.....
There is archaeological evidence that Nazareth did not even exist at the time of Jesus' birth but significantly it was thriving by the fourth century.
It is highly relevant to remember that the Greek scriptures and historical documents were hand copied and therefore subject to partisan tampering. This was especially the case for those Christian writers whose status was dependent on the successful establishment of Constantine's Catholic Church.
One of the most notorious sources for a historical Jesus is from the pen of the historian Flavius Josephus--or was it someone else's pen?
Josephus actually lived a short distance from where Nazareth later became a town and he was born just a handful of years after Jesus was supposed to have lived--and yet he never researched or wrote an expansive account of this local wunderkind who could raise the dead. Any ordinary conscientious historian (like Josephus was) would have thrashed out the details.
If you don't know the literature this has generated over the centuries-- and have a week to spare-- look up Testimonium Flavianum and just think what the Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea had to gain or lose from supporting his case in the argument.
The nature of religious belief however is driven by a will to prove that the numinous triumphs over the mundane and no doubt the ossuary was attributed to Jesus to this same end.
And by the way, Ancient Origins, although dealing with interesting issues, is on the mass entertainment side of archaeology.
