Reddit reviews Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice

I think that the best way of answering this is by focusing on the strictly archaeological perspective of the 'historical' Jesus, as opposed to any other spiritual of ideological view-points.

In this case I think it is fairly important to delineate between an archaeological approach and a historical approach, an archaeological one being based on the material evidence and the historical, being based on the written word. As you say, the Jewish people tended to be good at documenting (particularly their own) history and thus the 'Historical Jesus' crops up.

However, what you are asking really is dealing with an 'archaeological Jesus,' and therein lies the complication. As has been mentioned by a previous commenter, there isn't really that much surprise that there isn't any archaeological evidence for Jesus. To take it down to the bare facts, to trace a single individual, a member of (what we could consider) the lower classes, who is not known for his coin-minting or building projects, nor stone masonry, there really isn't very much to work with.

While we could work this in to a discussion of relics and whether these could be counted among the true 'archaeological' remains of a 'historical Jesus' is another issue altogether, as these have had a tendency to be more along the lines of Medieval 'replicas' of what was imagined to be the (for instance) part of the remains of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.

For more research into the subject I'd recommend A Very Short Introduction to Biblical Archaeology and A Very Short Introduction to Jesus both of which will be able to have a far more erudite argument than mine here, and have recommendations for further reading. If you are interested in furthering your knowledge of the archaeological perspective (in a general sense, not related to biblical archaeology) then investigating Renfrew and Bahn's Book, 'Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice' would also be good (although if at all possible borrow it from a library as it is a little on the weighty text-book side of research!).

In terms of actual archaeological theory (as in, not methods, techniques and practice) I'd agree absolutely - easily the best text on archaeological theory available, and damned comprehensive too.

Having called the OP lazy above, I will say that if OP is looking more for method and practice (and not theory) then Renfrew and Bahn's Archaeological Theories, Methods and Practice is probably the best overall reader available.