Author Archives: René Salm


About René Salm

I write about Jesus Mythicism, Gnosticism, Early Christianity (and its possible links with Buddhism), and have been researching the archaeology of Nazareth for over twenty years. My books are Buddhist and Christian Parallels (2004) The Myth of Nazareth (2008) and NazarethGate (2015), the last two examining the physical evidence for settlement in the Nazareth basin during the Early Roman period. I also manage the companion website www.NazarethMyth.info.

Ehrman and Nazareth archeology—1

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, mythicism, Nazareth | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

Links:     YouTube     Cleeng (for those who already paid to view)     Post-debate discussion (audio)     Vridar [Note: This post is also filed under the title “The Price-Ehrman debate—Pt. 3”.] Ehrman’s first order of business in the debate was to tackle the archeology of Nazareth. In the days since then he has also expressed himself more fully regarding Nazareth on his weblog. So, I will address Ehrman’s debate comments on Nazareth here, and his other comments on Nazareth in a separate post to follow this series. Without mentioning me by name, Ehrman asserted at the beginning of his opening statement: “One argument commonly found among mythicists is that since there was no Nazareth at the time of Jesus, it follows that Jesus of Nazareth could not have … Continue reading →

The Price-Ehrman debate—Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, mythicism | Tagged , | 5 Replies
5

Links:     YouTube     Post-debate discussion (audio)     Vridar Mythicism is not “scholarly”? In the last post I mentioned that Jesus mythcists and historicists are talking past each other, and how I want to examine some underlying assumptions that may be the cause. So, here we’ll begin by looking at one little exchange that occurred in the debate. In the final cross-examination segment, Dillahunty asked “Why is mythicism not taken seriously?” Ehrman’s astonishing answer was simply an argumentum ad populum: “It’s not a question debated among scholars.” Wow. Of course, that has nothing to do with lack of evidence or even with history. The short exchange can be paraphrased like this: Dillahunty: Why is mythicism not taken seriously? Ehrman: Because it’s not [a question] taken seriously. … Continue reading →

The Price-Ehrman debate—Pt. 1

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, mythicism | Tagged , | 6 Replies
6

Links:     YouTube     Cleeng (for those who already paid to view)     Post-debate discussion (audio)     Vridar      Note: This review is based on hand-written notes taken down quickly during the 3-hour debate hosted by Mythicist Milwaukee, before the debate went online (links above). Lacking time stamps, I have not rechecked quotations against the video. Hence, all quotes (even when quotation marks are used below) should be regarded as paraphrases, not as the exact renderings of words uttered. (Readers are welcome to email corrections, time stamps, and—as always—comments.)      A post-debate discussion among several scholars also took place. The audio of that secondary event is online, and I occasionally reference it (“Post-debate”) below with the applicable time stamp.      To date, Neil Godfrey (Vridar) has uploaded two posts regarding this … Continue reading →

How late was the name “Paul”?

Posted on by
Posted in Marcion, Paul | 2 Replies
2

A recent post on this site concluded: “I find it curious that both Marcion and Paul bear names that are diminutives. ‘Marcion’ means Little Mark. ‘Paul’ means little. Is this purely a coincidence?” Here I attempt an answer to this question… Diminutives are generally disparaging. There are sarcastic exceptions (“Little John”, “Tiny Tim”) but—unless the names Marcion and Paul are original—the possibility exists that these were nicknames coined with hostile intent. As regards “Paul,” we are told in the New Testament that it was not his only name—the Apostle also went by “Saul” (Acts 13:9). As was common in antiquity, he had a Roman and a Jewish name, and neither one was demonstrably a nickname or disparaging. But, then, we … Continue reading →

How late was the name “Mark”?

Posted on by
Posted in Gospel of Mark, Marcion | Tagged , | Leave a reply
Reply

Note: Since originally writing this post I have concluded that “Marcion” did not exist as a historical figure. He was invented by the fledgling Church and used as a proxy for all the pre-Catholic Jesus followers who clung to the ‘Jesus as spirit’ theology. See here.—RS No doubt readers will be astonished to learn that the name “Mark” is not attested in the Christian tradition before the latter half of the second century CE. While this is explained below, I begin with another name: that of the arch-heretic Marcion. I do this because (perhaps even more astonishing) a survey of Christian writings shows that the invented figure “Marcion” appears (cf. Justin Martyr) before the host of other invented figures that … Continue reading →

Followup on Marcion

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Gospel of Marcion, Marcion | 7 Replies
7

Those who have read my recent posts, Questioning the “Gospel of Marcion,” are now aware of my considered view that Marcion never actually had a textual “gospel.” As I have freely admitted, this view is “contra the totality of scholarship in the field”—today and for the last hundred years. If true, however, this breathtaking assessment must give us pause. After all, what does it say about modern theological research? How can ostensibly serious professors, highly educated, paid by prestigious institutions of higher learning, authoring scores (actually: hundreds) of books—how can all these ‘scholars’ get their specialty so wrong as to reconstruct, critique, and argue ad infinitum about a “Gospel of Marcion” that never even existed? In fact, the boondoggle cannot … Continue reading →

New Nazareth video (October 2016)

Posted on by
Posted in Archeology, contemporary commentary, Nazareth | Leave a reply
Reply

This data-rich video presents a concise review of the Nazareth (non-)evidence for a town in the time of “Jesus.” The power-point format with 18 slides (beginning at minute 10) includes the bogus 2009 claim of a “house from the time of Jesus” (even with an astonishing invented wall); the forgery of the Caesarea Inscription mentioning Nazareth (universally considered authentic and often dated to the first century CE); the shockingly early dating of scores of tombs, pottery shards, and oil lamps; water worn (and completely unreadable) coins from Mary’s Well groundlessly attributed to Hellenistic times; and other remarkable material from both my Nazareth volumes. A must see, particularly for those who have not yet read my books. (1 hour.)—R.S.

Couchoud’s The Creation of Christ uploaded

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary, Marcion | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

I am pleased to notify readers that I have uploaded to this website the English translation of Paul-Louis Couchoud’s seminal work The Creation of Christ: An Outline of the Beginnings of Christianity (1939; original French edition: Jésus, Le Dieu fait Homme, 1937). The expert translation was executed by C. Bradlaugh Bonner and is in two volumes (229 and 241 pages), each in a separate PDF. I would like to thank Frank Zindler for making the digital translation on two CDs available to me, and also for graciously allowing me to put this important work of Jesus mythicism before the general public. The two PDF’s can be downloaded at the links below and also from the onsite introductory page on P. … Continue reading →

An experiment: The original Gospel of Mark?—Chp. 16

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Gospel of Mark, Hebrew Gospel | Leave a reply
Reply

As noted in the Introduction, two texts of the relevant chapter in the Gospel of Mark are presented here. The first is a short, hypothetical “core”—the first draft of an UrMark reconstructed according to the criteria below. At the bottom of this post is the entire Chapter 16 in the RSV English translation. Both the short and the longer forms of the chapter are color coded. In order to separate out later Catholic accretions from the earlier Jewish Christian “core,” I have employed the following criteria: The criteria used for color coding are discussed here. The resultant color coding is as follows: [Contained in the Hebrew Gospel / UrMark] Green: Possible/probable, or amended in UrMark. STAGE 1: Gnostic. To c. … Continue reading →

An experiment: The original Gospel of Mark?—Chp. 15

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Gospel of Mark, Hebrew Gospel | 2 Replies
2

As noted in the Introduction, two texts of the relevant chapter in the Gospel of Mark are presented here. The first is a short, hypothetical “core”—the first draft of an UrMark reconstructed according to the criteria below. At the bottom of this post is the entire Chapter 15 in the RSV English translation. Both the short and the longer forms of the chapter are color coded. In order to separate out later Catholic accretions from the earlier Jewish Christian “core,” I have employed the following criteria: The criteria used for color coding are discussed here. The resultant color coding is as follows: [Contained in the Hebrew Gospel / UrMark] Green: Possible/probable, or amended in UrMark. STAGE 1: Gnostic. To c. … Continue reading →