One correction before the fundies jump all over you, Void. Salm, himself, is not an archaeologist. He makes no such claim in his book. He is a linguist and also a composer. What he has done, however, is correlate all the archaeological evidence to date ( his bibliography is 14 pages long ) including those studies which question the Franciscan's findings.
One of the most compelling parts of the book was the study of ancient writings. "Nazareth" it would seem was of no consequence to early xtian writers. Origen, for example, lived in Caesarea Maritima but apparently never even bothered to go there...and it certainly existed by Origen's time. The so-called "Paul" never refers to jesus of nazareth...or anywhere else, for that matter and common Jewish custom would have been to refer to a person by his father: jesus, son of joseph, for example.
[/u]
One of the most compelling parts of the book was the study of ancient writings. "Nazareth" it would seem was of no consequence to early xtian writers. Origen, for example, lived in Caesarea Maritima but apparently never even bothered to go there...and it certainly existed by Origen's time. The so-called "Paul" never refers to jesus of nazareth...or anywhere else, for that matter and common Jewish custom would have been to refer to a person by his father: jesus, son of joseph, for example.
[/u]
