Talk:Nazareth

The archaeology section has to be a joke
It relies almost entirely on Salm and even points out how he's not an archeologist but the thing that really shows this sites bias is ignoring the fact that archeological evidence shows that the area was settled as far back as the middle bronze age. (see Yardenna Alexandres "The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period) The Red Cardinal (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's the review of Salms book by the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (Bulletin with review starting on page 142 here:http://aias.org.uk/volume-26/ The Red Cardinal (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read Salm's books. He also claims that a settlement began in the Nazareth basin in the Bronze Age (The Myth of Nazareth, chp. 1).OMiGod (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The settlement in the Nazareth basin (biblical Japhia) was destroyed by the Assyrians in the late eighth century BCE. It was not repopulated until after 100 CE, as detailed in Salm's two books.

Dark's review of Salm's first book was compared to toilet paper by the late Prof. Philip Davies. For a good review, see the one by Dr. Robert M. Price ((http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/salm_myth_nazereth.htm).OMiGod (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My main problem (which I did not convey properly) is that the archeology section relies only on Salm's books when he is not an archeologist. The section also mentions Price's review but just like Salm, Price is not an archeologist. So the problem I have is more that the section relies on people who are not professionally trained in the field when there are people like Philip Davies and other biblical minimalist archeologists. Hopefully this clarifies the problem I have with the section. The Red Cardinal (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)