Self-congratulatory little man digs up some caves in the non-oily parts of the Middle East, relies on folk tales and medieval credulity to tie them to a major Biblical figure, and signs a book contract. The end.

Except it isn't. He witters on for 326pp about his amazing finds and his astonishing insights and his startling conclusions, and they're all pretty sketchily supported from what I can tell, and subject to other interpretations. And that's the kind of sentence he writes, too.

I study Christian/Biblical matters under the heading of "know what your enemy knows"; this book, certainly, shouldn't be part of what the enemy knows because it's a weak case for tie-in to John the Baptist at best. Josephus as your SOLE contemporary source isn't good enough. Josephus wasn't even contemporary to the time of Jesus's supposed existence, and John the Baptist was before that. The New Testament has the same problem. It was written long after the events it purports to describe. So there are no eyewitness accounts to tie this cave to that oddball who behaved so strangely.

Case not proved. Book not needed. Writing not interesting. Next docket item, please. ( )

Haven't read yet.