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.

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 4

Posted on by
Posted in Nazareth, Salm | Tagged , | Leave a reply
Reply

Brian: One more question on the archeology itself… Do the different sects of Christianity agree on a location for Nazareth? Because you have the traditional Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Armenian Church all existing there at the same time. Was there any scuttlebutt between them? René: [There has been much dispute in Nazareth itself over what took place where, who lived where, etc. Regarding the location of the town itself, however, there has been no dispute.—RS] No, no. I think everybody agrees… There’s been no discussion to my knowledge of any other Nazareth. I discuss this a little in my books. It would not fly at all… If somebody said that Nazareth was really somewhere else, then you’d have ancient … Continue reading →

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 3

Posted on by
Posted in Buddhism, Christian origins, Mandaism, Nazarene, Nazareth, Salm, Yeshu ha-Notsri | Leave a reply
Reply

The Nazarene is “the enlightened one” (See also here.) René: …Everything is showing that Marcion’s was in fact the first gospel and that Capernaum was the original hometown of Jesus.      The reason “Nazareth” was invented—that would be by Matthew, now, and taken up by Luke—is to change “the Nazarene,” because “Nazarene” was objectionable to the Catholic Church. “Nazarene” had some strong religious and theological meanings at the time, and it would be very valuable if scholarship looked seriously at this question, because this brings us to the heart of the issue: What does “Nazarene” mean? René: Jesus in the earliest gospels is called “Jesus the Nazarene.” But nobody seems to know what that meant. Now, “Nazarene” means the enlightened person, … Continue reading →

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 2

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

René: There was a claim of a house from the time of Jesus… Brian: Yeah, in 2009, I believe. René: I devote a long chapter [in the book NazarethGate] to that. Actually, it’s a wine-making installation. Very clear… There’s no doubt about it.      [This might be a good time to] address a common criticism: that I’m not an archeologist. You know, people say, “Well, René, how can you have an opinion?” And what I say is that I don’t have an opinion. I don’t make any judgments myself. I am scrupulously careful to quote the opinions of the experts, of the archeologists who have studied the stone vessels, who have studied the oil lamps, who have studied the pottery, who … Continue reading →

“Jesus has a Nazareth problem” (interview transcript)—Pt. 1

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

“Don’t miss this incredible interview!”—Mythicist Milwaukee      The recent Mythicist Milwaukee podcast (April 12, 2016) covered a surprising number of important topics: a review of the term “mythicism”; the recent emergence of Jesus mythicists within the academy (T. Brodie, and several teaching scholars known to me who resist public acknowledgment of their position); the gospels’ incompatibility with Nazareth archeology; Marcion as a formative influence on the canonical gospels; the term “Nazarene”; my views regarding Yeshu ha-Notsri (early first century BCE) as the real prophet underlying the Christian religion; and the remarkable resemblance of sayings and parables in the gospels with Buddhism, especially as regards the common doctrine known as “karma.” I decided to transcribe and upload the interview to this website … Continue reading →

The early bodiless Jesus—Pt. 4

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Gnosticism, Nag Hammadi, The first century | 3 Replies
3

Outside the familiar terrain of twenty-seven New Testament books lies a vast, virtually unexplored expanse of so-called “apocryphal literature.” The word apocrypha derives from Greek and literally means “from [that which is] hidden” (apo+crypto). Well, let me say up front: the only reason most of this literature is hidden is because the Catholic Church has done everything it could to hide it. In short, these texts contain what is threatening to the Church—what it doesn’t want you to read. The Church’s suppression of the apocryphal literature was pretty successful during the fifteen or so long centuries when European scholarship was either conducted by the Church or approved by it. Increasingly, however, secular modern scholarship has broken the Church’s monopoly on … Continue reading →

The early bodiless Jesus—Pt. 3

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Gnosticism, Paul, The first century | Tagged , , | 2 Replies
2

The spiritual Jesus At an early stage of Christianity, according to the foregoing analysis, Jesus was a spiritual entity. This was a pre-canonical stage, to be dated to the first century CE—before the invention of Jesus the Nazarene and before the writing of the canonical gospels. The spiritual Jesus is evident, for example, in the epistles of Paul, works that do not know Jesus the Nazarene (“Nazarene” or “Nazareth” do not occur even once in the Pauline epistles). As I wrote in NazarethGate (p. 409):           Paul enthuses in his epistles about the spiritual entity he calls singly and severally the “Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ.” The entity grants grace, peace, comfort, authority (2 Cor 10:8), will slay the “lawless one” at … Continue reading →

The early bodiless Jesus—Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in The second century | Tagged , , | 1 Reply
1

“It will certainly be to many a discovery that Jesus was known in the first century as the Wisdom of God.”           —Rendel Harris, 1916 (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel, p. vi) In the last post we looked at the Acts of Pilate (AcPil)—being the first half of the rather obscure Gospel of Nicodemus, a Jewish Christian work probably of the mid-second century CE. The work betrays a most unusual theology where “Jesus” is partly physical, partly spiritual, and somehow able to pass from one person to another. This ambiguous theology is the author’s focus. For example, the setting is scrupulously laid out whereby Joseph of Arimathea is locked into a sealed room (even without windows), and … Continue reading →

The early bodiless Jesus—Pt. 1

Posted on by
Posted in The first century | Tagged , , | Leave a reply
Reply

In the last several posts we looked at Marcion’s critical role in early gospel formation, and at two recent scholarly views that propose a new synoptic paradigm: Marcion’s gospel predated all four canonical gospels. This includes the Gospel of Mark which, accordingly, now moves to the mid-second century CE. Prof. Markus Vinzent, in particular, has proposed that it was Marcion of Pontus who, in the first half of the second century, ‘invented’ the figure of Jesus of Nazareth (more correctly: Jesus the Nazarene). Vinzent writes: Marcion created a powerful narrative of a transcendent, pre-existing figure who appeared on this alien earth, in the midst of history, to liberate human beings from these physical chains of ignorance, greed, law, sin, judgement … Continue reading →

Part 4—Towards a new synoptic solution

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Marcion, Synoptic Problem, The second century | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

This is one of the longer and more significant posts on this website. Here we will look at the recent work of two German patristics specialists, both of whom propose that Marcion of Pontus (ostensibly fl. c. 130–c. 160 CE) presented the world with a gospel that predated all four canonical gospels. This in itself is mind-boggling, for it not only dates the canonical gospels much later (well into the second century) than is presently thought, but it also means that the heretic ‘Marcion’ was critically implicated at an early stage of the canonical gospel tradition. [Note: I have placed the name ‘Marcion’ in single quotes because—six years after originally writing this post—I concluded that ‘Marcion’ was an invention of … Continue reading →

Did the arch-heretic Marcion author the first gospel?

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Marcion

In a prior post we began looking at the increasing evidence that the New Testament is a product of the second century, rather than the first. We continue now by examining the role that the arch-heretic Marcion of Pontus played in gospel formation, a role that is becoming ever more astonishing as scholars finally realize that Marcion is certainly implicated in the earliest stratum of canonical gospel formation. That stratum is normally associated with the Gospel of Mark. Can there be any historical connection here between the names “Mark” and “Marcion”? If so, how ironic that would be, since one is a Christian hero and the other an arch-villain! No gospel is mentioned by the Church Fathers before the appearance … Continue reading →