Do you happen to know anything about this René Salm guy? I can't find any peer reviewed articles by him or perhaps where (if) he received his Ph.D. 

http://dogmafreemerica.libsyn.com

has an interview with him on Episodes 4 and 5 

I doubt it will shock the the world, it's a claim that's been around for a while, and I think that it overstates the case. I think that Nazareth did exist, but in some very humble form (unlike its description in the gospels). Anyway, I check with Richard Carrier on this... not sure off the top of my head....

I studied a little bit of archaeology at A level (the level you do at about 17/18 years old). I would have to say that it is very hard to date a site as specifically as saying 70 CE, a site of that time could quite easily be from the year 0, unless of course there was a change in the styles of building or technologies found in the lowest strata of the settlement which could more specifically date it.

There are also disputes about whether or not Jesus was actually born (if he lived at all) in the year 0. Apparantly some early Christian scholar made a massive mistake in the date that has stuck ever since.

I'm not arguing either way, simply because I don't know the facts about the site of Nazareth. Given the way that religion and mythology work it wouldn't really surprise me if the title Jesus of Nazareth came later. In the Odyssey for example, Homer describes iron swords in some places, iron work did not exist in 1100-1300 BCE, but it did in 700 BCE when Homer was telling his tales. If authors of certain cultural tales (including religious tales) don't completely know the history then they may be inclined to ad lib and change the tales, they may not even consciously change it. If indeed Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, it isn't really that surprising that he became known later as Jesus of Nazareth, especially if Nazareth became a symbol of liberation from the Romans.

 But (no offense) Zindler's PhD seems to be in Biology. We all know how we dislike physicists that cross over into the realm of evolutionary science (Dembski anyone?), I'd unfortunately say that the same goes with archeology and history. You can't take seriously people who are not interacting with the particular area of interest they are reviewing. As far as Salm, I know nothing of him and until I see him either get a little more recognition or perhaps know what organizations he’s published with and what scholars he’s worked with I wouldn’t really consider his claims worth the time (once again no offense this is just the way my mind works).

I would like to see Rook and Rich's take on this as it has been a discussion that has come up several times on whether Nazereth existed or not. 

It's certainly an interesting subject, I think it's just a question of reliability. It may or may not have something valid to say. I may look into it further.

This claim is absolutely ridiculous. Not only is Salm's book not Peer Reviewed, but it reaks of motive, and I've had dialogs with Salm, who is nothing more then another Joseph Atwill trying to sell books on the conspiracy train. Seriously.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt the towns existence even into the 200 BCE. All the archaeological evidence and manuscript evidence we have supports the towns existence, and even the name, it is incredulous to think that the town was renamed later on by Christians when the town had been a haven for the Jewish Priests during the Diaspora, when no pius jew would live in a town named after the hometown of a false messiah - that's just crazy.

I do not condone nor do I accept the possibility of this claim as valid, or even possible. This is just sensationalism at its best and makes Mythicists who take their work seriously, like myself and Carrier, look bad. I would never recommend Salm's book.

 Zindler is even worse - they're both frauds as far as I'm concerned.  Every authority on this subject from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, to Jewish Encyclopedias, to the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land by Negev,everyone agrees that thetown exists, and there is no reason to doubt it.  No supernatural claims exist to make the claim suspicious in any sense, the town was not some floating orb, it's not Atlantis!  It's just a small little Roman polis.  Why not just pretend everything in the Gospels are false and fictional and made up - let's start doubting Pilates existence as well, and why not Herod too?  Or what about Peter and James, because they aren't talked about in Josephus!

 Seriously, this is nonsense.  And this isn't against you, Larry - I'm just really irritated by the level of scholarship displayed by Zindler and Salm, it reminds me of people who hopeless are trying to dig for the city of Atlantis all over the world, its not even like Nazareth was discovered by Christians!  Two german - SKEPTICAL german - archaeologists discovered the site!

The guy sent the link and email to my VCU secualar alliance address.  I know nothing of this but I'm glad it got sorted out.