My favorite argument against Jesus comes from Bob Price and Rene Salm:
"Few realize that ‘Nazareth’ is mentioned only once in the Gospel of Mark (1:9). That passage obviously conflicts with the rest of Mark’s gospel which knows Capernaum as Jesus’ home. Even the Matthaean parallel (3:13) does not yet know of Nazareth. For these and other cogent reasons, the word ‘Nazaret’ at Mk 1:9 is properly seen as the interpolation of a later hand. ‘Nazareth’ did not appear in the original Gospel of Mark! It doesn’t even appear in the earliest stratum of Matthew’s gospel"
"archaeologists have abandoned any claim to a ‘city’ at Nazareth. They currently advocate for “an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses” (Charlesworth, Tabor, Alexandre, et multi). The (lack of) evidence, however, shows that even this minimalist position is false and that traditionalist affirmations by Christian and other archaeologists writing on Nazareth continue to be tendentious. Worse, they sometimes stoop to fabricating evidence at critical junctures—as my book and articles (in American Atheist magazine and in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society) have demonstrated."
Though there is some contention over these claims, Ehrman for one doesn't buy it.
"Few realize that ‘Nazareth’ is mentioned only once in the Gospel of Mark (1:9). That passage obviously conflicts with the rest of Mark’s gospel which knows Capernaum as Jesus’ home. Even the Matthaean parallel (3:13) does not yet know of Nazareth. For these and other cogent reasons, the word ‘Nazaret’ at Mk 1:9 is properly seen as the interpolation of a later hand. ‘Nazareth’ did not appear in the original Gospel of Mark! It doesn’t even appear in the earliest stratum of Matthew’s gospel"
"archaeologists have abandoned any claim to a ‘city’ at Nazareth. They currently advocate for “an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses” (Charlesworth, Tabor, Alexandre, et multi). The (lack of) evidence, however, shows that even this minimalist position is false and that traditionalist affirmations by Christian and other archaeologists writing on Nazareth continue to be tendentious. Worse, they sometimes stoop to fabricating evidence at critical junctures—as my book and articles (in American Atheist magazine and in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society) have demonstrated."
Though there is some contention over these claims, Ehrman for one doesn't buy it.
.
