The problem with both sides is that the church insists that the village of "Nazareth" was located on the hillside. Digs in the area have failed to uncover any of the normal detritus of human habitation: building foundations, hearths, garbage middens, etc., etc. The likelihood that there was a "village" (far less a "polis" as Luke claims!) is just about nil.
Salm loudly proclaims this finding but then undercuts his own position by pointing out that no one has ever excavated on the valley floor, which, as he says, would be a far more likely site for a town since it sits on the road between Sepphoris and Japhia which DID exist. Here lies the rub. Nazareth today is a Palestinian city and they have extensively built over the entire area. They have no interest whatsoever in dispelling the notion that Nazareth was the birthplace of Christ because separating xtian tourists from their money is a prime industry in Nazareth and they aren't going to cut their own throats. Barring an amazing change of heart by the Palestinians, serious archaeological work on the valley floor is not going to happen. Which leaves Salm in the position of having trashed the Franciscan's cherished fable but creating a far more reasonable alternative which he can not get verified or even examined.
He does go through the normal litany of non-support for the idea of a town in that spot prior to the 2d century. No mention by Jewish, Greek or Roman sources. Josephus commanding the rebel army in Galilee retreated from Sepphoris when they went over to the Romans and literally had to retreat right through Nazareth because he ended up in Jotapata which he held for a 47 days siege against the Romans until overwhelmed. He notes that "Jotapata" can only be approached from the north because of deep ravines on the other 3 sides and geography and archaeology support that conclusion.
Josephus also mentions that Vespasian's camp was 7 leagues north of Jotapata which would put it basically right on top of "Nazareth" if it had existed. Yet, Josephus never mentions the word in his entire recap of the siege.
Further, early xtian writers never seem to make much of a big deal about Nazareth. Origen, living in the first half of the third century lived in Caesarea but never mentions "Nazareth." Neither do the so-called epistles of Paul which, whether you believe they date from the first century or are second century creations of Marcion, is still significant. That part of the story it seems had not been written by the early 3d century.
Salm also fails to address why a town named Nazareth grew up later and I suspect the answer is fairly simple. Sepphoris had surrendered and enthusiastically supported the Romans. Their future was secure. Jotapata was destroyed in the aftermath of the siege. Once the Roman army had moved on to bigger and better things the idea that the survivors in the area might have looked to rebuild their lives a mile or so north of Jotapata does not seem so outlandish but, without excavations on the valley floor, we aren't ever likely to know!
