The truth about Nazareth

René Salm

The Nazareth QUIZ

Comments

A New Account of Christian Origins

Off-site writings by
René Salm

Submit feedback

Favorite mythicist websites

The Jesus Puzzle
(Earl Doherty)

Robert M. Price

American Atheists

~New & News on Nazareth~

“…I have studied your work relating to the archaeology of Nazareth and find your position very interesting. Concerning the [post-50 CE] dating of the known tombs, you are certainly correct… I concur with your remarks regarding Hachlili [specialist in Judean funerary customs]. She is a splendid scholar who, nevertheless, has another area of investigation and different scientific goals.”—Prof. Hans-Peter Kuhnen, the world’s leading expert on Roman tombs in the Galilee.

“I have been looking over your ‘Nazareth’ volume which you sent me and it is, of course, very thorough in your usual manner. But as I told you early on, you don’t have to convince me. I am a believer. I know there was no ‘Nazareth’… at least not where they were talking about it, from the first days I read Josephus who virtually catalogued all the important locations in Galilee and of course, no Nazareth!”—Robert Eisenman, PhD. Author, James the Brother of Jesus, etc.

James Randi endorses no-Nazareth
YouTube video (11 min.)

James Randi, Atheist, former magician, and archapostle of skepticism, vigorously supports the growing case against “Christian archaeology,” as this video shows. “The amazing Randi” highlights my book and states, among other things: “The facts are that no demonstrable evidence dating either to the time of Jesus or to earlier Hellenistic times has been found at Nazareth. It is a late Roman-Byzantine village, not a mythical settlement at the turn of the era. As author Salm says: that question has already been answered, and answered convincingly… Of course, the religious faction has reacted furiously to the book.”

Essential Reading on Nazareth
With links to important recent articles

2010 Mythicist Prize
$1,000 award for the best essay. Deadline: Dec. 1, 2009.

The Myth of Nazareth:
The Invented Town of Jesus

by René Salm
Edited by Frank Zindler
American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey. 2008
375 pages. $20. ISBN 978-1-57884-003-8

“A joy to read.”
— Prof. J. L. Falvey, Univ. of Cambridge (U.K.)

Available from www.americanatheist.org and amazon.com.

The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

Photo: Six alleged Hellenistic lamps

These six oil lamps were discovered in a Nazareth tomb, and have been used in the scholarly literature as proof of a village at Nazareth in Hellenistic times, as early as the third century BCE. In fact, the six lamps date from the Middle Roman to the Late Roman periods, long after the time of Christ. Gross misdatings of the primary evidence, sometimes involving discrepancies of up to 500 years, are frequently encountered in the Nazareth literature.

The compromised archaeology of Nazareth

The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE—the same era in which the canonical gospels were being edited. Furthermore, this study shows that there was a long hiatus in settlement in the Nazareth basin between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). Finally, it is probable that the extensive remains in the Nazareth basin from the Bronze and Iron Ages are in fact to be identified with biblical Japhia. These conclusions are based on a unanimity of the material evidence from multiple excavations in the Nazareth basin. Whether we are speaking of “Herodian” oil lamps (which constitute the earliest Roman evidence), glass, metal, or stone objects, inscriptions, coins, “kokh” tombs with or without rolling stones, wall foundations, or agricultural installations—all of these point to a Jewish settlement beginning in early II CE and thriving in Late Roman and Byzantine times. Extra-archaeological data confirm this conclusion.

In an explosive revelation, The Myth of Nazareth shows that a number of Roman tombs (not mentioned in any guidebook) exist directly under the Church of the Annunciation, the most venerated site in Nazareth. This locus was part of a cemetery during later Roman times. It could not have been the domicile of the Virgin Mary—a proposition abhorrent in a Jewish context for, according to Torah, tombs were never located within the precincts of a Jewish village, nor near or under habitations. Both the traditional chronology and location are in error, for the cemetery at Nazareth came into existence several generations after the alleged time of the Virgin.

The background

Most scholars summarily dismiss the “invention” of Nazareth on the grounds that the town is frequently mentioned in the Christian gospels. Unwittingly, archaeology is thus held hostage to literary considerations. The textual case for Nazareth in the gospels is much weaker, however, than is generally supposed. The settlement is named only once in the Gospel of Mark, at 1:9 (other instances in the Greek text read “Jesus the Nazarene”). The passage as it stands demonstrably conflicts with the remainder of the gospel, which locates Jesus’ home in Capernaum. Thus, it can be shown that the Gospel of Mark contains the later interpolation of a single word, “Nazaret” at 1:9.

Furthermore, the literary genesis of Nazareth occurs in one of the most problematic passages of Christian scripture, Mt 2:23: And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazaret, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazoraean.” No such prophetic utterance has been identified in the Jewish scriptures. For its part, the Gospel of Luke is equally problematic. The enigmatic scene in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk 4:16-30) has been shown to be an elaborate reworking of prior materials. Furthermore, the third evangelist demonstrates a strident anti-Capernaum stance, one which impels him to divorce Jesus as much as possible from Capernaum roots.

A flawed record

The archaeological record of Nazareth has been written principally by Franciscan excavators on site. Subsequent reviews of critical finds in journals and monographs, by Israeli archaeologists and others, often contradict the conclusions of the Church and form an important part of The Myth of Nazareth.

The Myth of Nazareth reveals an embarrassing history of unscientific fieldwork, tendentious publication, and suppressed evidence reaching back many generations. It is a searing indictment of one school of biblical archaeology.

Where did Jesus come from?

The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus invalidates a central element of Christian tradition. The weighty consequences of its argument inevitably entail a reexamination of the meaning of “Nazarene/Nazoraean,” a reconsideration of the provenance of Jesus, a questioning of the motives of the evangelists in changing that provenance, and a clarification of the textual means by which they did so. This book presages a paradigm shift in Christian studies, one with telling consequences for the interpretation of early Christianity, the assessment of the gospel witness, and the traditional portrait of Jesus.