Sear, if I'm not mistaken, we do not have any copy of the Bible that would date back to the time of Jesus or otherwise be considered an 'original copy' (most if not all don't even date to the same century). So, even the Bible as written testimony comes into doubt. The oldest copies we have are largely hearsay of hearsay of hearsay, etc. Most likely lost in translation.

But, even giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt (which, in my mind would be sacrificing true empirical method for generosity way too much), what I largely meant by no historical evidence is no physical evidence, or no otherwise objective written record of his existence. Same thing with much of the Old Testament's story, like Moses and the plight of the Jews from Egypt, etc.

If we're really going to be talking about evidence and logic; it's not looking too good for Jesus and the Christian God. But I'm not sure if myt truly understands that evidence isn't supposed to be the point, otherwise there would be no 'faith' involved.

And, yes, Jesus was a very popular name at the time. And I'd imagine there were plenty of carpenters. Really the only thing that caught my eye for a moment was 'the Tomb of Jesus' that was debuted on the Discovery Channel. But the legitimacy and method used in that discovery has come into a lot of doubt; especially from the archaeological and historical communities. Until that tomb is properly investigated I think it's safe to say that the Documentary Channel's crew was largely rash in their conclusions. They seemed to make a conclusion, and then find ways to fit the evidence around that conclusion; which we all know is the opposite of the true scientific method.