| Note: Opinions both pro and con are acceptable and valued. However, offensive and inappropriate material will not be posted. Copy may be lightly edited for spelling and punctuation, as well as for length. You may sign your comment in the manner you deem fit. External links in the body of the comment are acceptable. No email address (of yourself or others) will ever be posted on this page. |
“I am amazed by your work and can’t wait to see the pathetic attempts to reply!”
—Robert M. Price, PhD, ThD. Author, The Pre-Nicene New Testament.
“[Y]ou have something solid to say and have done it well.”
—Greg Doudna, PhD, author of 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition.
“A very persuasive, even-handed treatment of an explosive topic.”
—Alan Zundel, PhD, author of Be Transformed: A Christian Path to Your True Self.
“I have just read the first part which deals with the Stone to Iron ages and highlights the unreliability of theological archaeologists who apparently find what their Bibles tell them to look for, even if the facts may allow other interpretations…A joy to read, worth the time to consider.” – L. Falvey, Ph.D. Universities of Cambridge (UK) and Melbourne. Author, The Buddha’s Gospel.
“I don’t think that what he’s saying can be easily dismissed.”
—Keith Akers. Author, The Lost Religion of Jesus.
The following are extracts from a review of the book posted on amazon.com. The full review is here [June, 2008]
“I must admit that when I first learned about this book, its author, its publisher, and the lack of peer review, the red flags seemed too tremendous to overcome. I knew that René Salm had a hard sell with me since he was going against the experts, had no formal training, etc. However, I was willing to pick up the book because of the endorsement by scholar Robert M. Price who is an accomplished biblical researcher.
“Well, the author succeeded and has convinced me he is most likely correct. What convinced me the most was that Salm did not actually go against the authorities, but instead followed them, streamlining the evidence into a more consistent picture for what they really say rather than having artifacts becoming exceptional to fit a picture of a pre-Christian Nazareth…
“The book also has the quality of not being an argument from silence as other arguments for the nonexistence of Nazareth have been--it was not mentioned in the Old Testament, Josephus, or the Talmud, and the Christian Julius Africanus (3rd century CE) placed Nazareth in Judea instead of Galilee. Salm has a much more scientific approach and is a positive case rather than a negative one…
“Overall, New Testament researchers must grapple with the thesis put forward by René Salm which is amazingly thorough, even on the points of grammar of the primary literature and an excellent survey of the secondary literature…
“Do buy this book.”—Gilgamesh.
F. Zindler writes: [Nov. 15, 2006]
Proving the non-existence of gods is usually a futile endeavor, generally involving the nearly impossible task of proving a universal negative. Indeed, when the ‘god’ in question is undefined, such proof is impossible. It is impossible because the exercise is scientifically meaningless. In science, unless a claim of the existence of anything—be it a god or a subatomic particle—leads to predictions which can be tested, it can’t even be proven false: it is merely meaningless. The worst part of all this is that no one takes seriously the testing of such claims—nor should he…
…[You have] found and struck the Achilles’ heel of a very popular god—Jesus of Nazareth. While almost nothing in this god’s definition is agreed upon by scholars and believers, one thing must be true. If he ever existed, he must have been from ‘Nazareth’—just as Dorothy’s Wizard was from ‘Oz.’ We know quite certainly that there never was a Wizard of Oz because exhaustive LandSat photosearches of Missouri and Kansas conclusively fail to find remains of Emerald City and Munchkin burial mounds. Absolute proof is possible because an exhaustive search is possible.
If it could be shown conclusively that ‘Nazareth’ did not exist at the time that Jesus and his family are supposed to have lived there… You get my intended point.
…[Your] exhaustive study and critique of what has passed for archaeological excavations of Jesus’ home town make it absolutely certain—or at least as certain as any scientific argument can be—that the place now called Nazareth was not inhabited from around 730 BCE until sometime after 70 CE. This nasty fact is more than a mere inconvenience for those who seek historical facts in the Gospels.
By demonstrating the fictive nature of Jesus of Nazareth, [you] have done a great service for science and civilization in general. Of course, there are those who now might argue that Jesus was actually ‘Jesus of Bethlehem of Judaea.’ Alas, the Israeli archaeologist Aviram Oshri has removed that base from the ball park too. He has shown by his own excavations that although Bethlehem in Galilee was inhabited during the Herodian period, Bethlehem in Judaea was not.
Of course, a Jesus of Kalamazoo or a Jesus of Cucamonga cannot yet be ruled out. Even so, Franciscan ‘archaeologists’ have not yet realized they need to start building a case for possible gods in ZIP-code areas 49001 and 91729. The Jesus they have been riding all these years has been shot out from under them so suddenly, they don’t yet realize they’re being supported only by (hot) air.
[From the Probing Mind column, “Why the Truth About Nazareth is Important,” American Atheist magazine (Nov-Dec. 2006).]– Frank R. Zindler, Author, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew.
Mr. René Salm,
(12/28/06)
I applaud your endeavor to enlighten the public with the truth concerning Jesus. Keep up the good work.
—Andrew D. Benson, author of The True Origins of Christianity and the Bible.
From: RODNEY SHEFFER
Subject: FICTION, FRAUD AND FORGERY
Date: 12/23/06 06:10
[April 25, 2007]
René Salm, THANK YOU!
I first read your work about Nazareth in “American Atheists” magazine, and then met Frank Zindler at the Atheists Convention in Seatlle.I had been looking for something like this for literally two years; reading accounts ranging from Voltaire to Thomas Paine to “The Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism,” etc…dozens of books.
I hope you find a way to get this into public discourse… Again, thank you.— Mark Smith, Atlanta Beach, Florida.
[Oct. 12, 2006]
I’m embarrassed for you, that you would publish such poor scholarship.
—DK Matthews, Ph.D., Professor of Religion, Mount Vernon Nazarene University.
Dear Dr. Matthews,
[Oct. 13, 2006]
It occurs to me that those who miraculously “know” the quality of my scholarship without having read the text are a little like those I’ve often encountered in my research, who already “know” the verdict regarding Nazareth without ever having examined the evidence in the ground. In any case, I appreciate your comment.—René Salm
Yes, and perhaps I should go out and buy a book that claims that it is now proven that the earth is flat, that we never really landed on the moon it was all a Hollywood production—you can't be serious, there must be another motive. No, I won’t waste my money on idiocy. Shame on you.—Douglas Matthews, Ph.D.
Dr. Matthews, You once wrote: “The relentless pursuit of truth, its source and its compelling advocacy, defense and prudent practice is the moral objective of all character-building people.” Though we are poles apart in point of view, I thank you for this sentiment which I share whole-heartedly. I will not annoy you with further emails and am herewith taking you off Kevalin Press’ contact list, yet I do wish MVNU every success in its fine endeavors.— René Salm