"The reconstructions of three Norse buildings are the focal point of this archaeological site..."
I'm not impressed by reconstructions. I went to the site you suggested and found nothing there.
I'm reading more and I have come to AF's trouble with Hebrew texts which consist only of consonants. (This is mostly true but there a couple of "silent" letters which imply some vowel; and the oo and the oh are frequently represented.) He (or the translator) foolishly makes analogies to English where BLD could be blood, build, etc., but does not describe where in Hebrew, which has many fewer words than English, this could lead to significant ambiguities. I sometimes agonize over translations but I don't ever recall it being because one word in the Torah could be construed as some other. Also AF makes it seem as if this non-use of vowels is some ancient artifact when in fact most publications in Israel today do not use vowels (e.g. see http://www.haaretz.co.il/).
But that said, his placement of the cities of the Bible in Italy is at least interesting. (Yes, I know there are problems.) I would note that Mel Gibson choose Italy as the place where he filmed most of the Judean scenes in his Passion.
The notion that a lot of the "ancient" manuscripts are frauds interests me. I see the recent "discovery" of the James Ossuary as typical of what would have passed for truth 500 years ago. The bias is that so long as it fits in with the accepted history it must merit strong consideration, and bring credit to the "discoverers."
I do believe, as does most everyone else, that the reference to Jesus in Josephus is an insertion by transmitters. But if AF is going to argue that the references to Jesus in the Koran are insertions, then I think I am going to have a big problem with that.
I'm continuing to read. Thanks for the discussion.