The problem with Salibi is that his claims directly contradict the findings that were literally made with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other (or they were found exactly where you would expect them to be according to the Bible — e.g. Moabite stone or Hezekiah’s seal). And his linguistic approach is more or less laughable. It’s on the level of me trying to prove (merely with hypotheses, made-up stories, and contrary to factual evidence) that all US places named after non-US places are actually the original locations.
He took historical Palestine and compared it with current-day Arab peninsula. It does not work that way. If further research confirms that the few “missing” places were indeed in the Arab peninsula and were called the way they are called today at the time of OT and Jesus, I might reconsider my criticism. Though, I have a suspicion that the places in Arab peninsula were named after the locations in Palestine (if his linguistic parallels are actually correct) after migration of (proto-)Jews and later Christians southward — lo and behold, there’s e.g. Bir Haddaj, a large well at the centre of Tayma that dates back to at least to the middle of the 6th century BC, mentioned in the Book of Isaiah as the place where the descendants of Ishmael’s son, Tema, lived: “Unto him that is thirsty bring ye water! The inhabitants of the land of Tema did meet the fugitive with his bread.”
Well, and he didn’t have to be openly anti-zionist — he was a Lebanese and a Christian, heavily interested in establishing Lebanese national history. We also know how the relationship between Israel and Lebanon looks like. Or the relationship between Judaism and Christianity for that matter — heck, even Islam is closer to Christians due to their partial acceptance of Jesus. Though you are right, musings about origins of Lebanon and Israel in Arab peninsula obviously made Saudis quite ill at ease.
As for your article —all of Salibi’s arguments pertaining to Jesus hinge on Koran, some mysterious missing scripture, and the assumption that his “Arabia hypothesis” is correct. Koran is inconsequential to this debate, my opinion on Salibi’s “Arabia hypothesis” should be obvious, and, according to some commentaries (Benson), the scriptures that Saul refers to in 1 Corinthians are Psalm 16:10 and Jonah 1:17, thus no mysterious manuscript is needed.
All in all, I really don’t understand what difference in Jesus’ message would Salibi’s geopolitical charade make. I would say it makes things even more confusing as they are now. And as I said elsewhere, I think the historicity of Jesus is basically a moot point. If someone believes in Jesus’ message only because the guy allegedly lived and rose from dead, or that he performed miracles and was some sort of human sacrifice that makes one saved (LOL), one is totally missing the whole point anyway.
