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.

Closed and open minds

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary, mythicism, Salm | Tagged , , , | 2 Replies
2

Provocative work by fully credentialed specialists in New Testament studies is now quietly being conducted ‘behind the scenes’—that is, out of the general view of the public. An increasing portion of this work is supportive of Jesus mythicism, and a partial list of names quickly comes to mind: Thomas Brodie (recently), Hermann Detering, Matthias Klinghardt, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Price, Markus Vinzent… The historicity of Jesus is now seriously being undermined by these and other fully-accredited scholars. However, one wouldn’t suspect this by reading popularizing literature emanating from the pens of noted scholars such as Bart Ehrman. For that academic, the case is not merely closed—it was never open. Ehrman now has come out with yet another potboiler directed at the … Continue reading →

Part 3—A revolution in the Synoptic Problem

Posted on by
Posted in Gnosticism, Marcion, mythicism, Paul, Synoptic Problem, The second century | 2 Replies
2

[Note: This post has been substantially updated.] The so-called Synoptic Problem can be defined as the search for the literary and redactional relationship between the three (obviously) extensively related “synoptic” gospels—Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Majority opinion has long favored the “two source theory”: Matthew and Luke primarily drew on Mark, and they also drew on a saying source not available to Mark known as “Q” (German abbreviation for Quelle, “source”). However, ongoing disagreements among New Testament scholars show that the two source theory is not satisfactory to many. Perhaps the biggest sticking point is that the Q source is entirely hypothetical. Despite a veritable library that has now been written about it (e.g., see John Kloppenborg’s massive works), Q is … Continue reading →

Brodie, McGrath, and the increasing polarization of biblical studies—Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary | Tagged | 3 Replies
3

An age of seismic cultural shifts America is, apparently, reaching the acme of polarization in just about everything: politics, cultural values, distribution of wealth, opportunity for advancement… The current presidential election is a gut-wrenching, seismic shift, as an old paradigm of power gives way to something new and still uncertain. New, of course, can be good or bad—a Donald Trump, a Hillary Clinton, a Bernie Sanders, a Ted Cruz, a Marco Rubio—choose your poison/panacea… The pundits say the electorate is “angry.” That’s pretty obvious, and it must be because things just aren’t working for the vast majority of Americans. You’ve heard the list of complaints: long work hours, low wages, no raises in a decade, problematic health insurance (do you … Continue reading →

J.P. Holding is sued for libel, and the increasing polarization of biblical studies—Pt. 1

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, mythicism, Salm

The recent lawsuit against the rather notorious Christian apologist J.P. Holding (aka Robert Turkel)—whose tone and language have been anything but “Christian”—gives me an opportunity to invoke a little Buddhist ethics by applauding this recent manifestation of the mighty law of karma: what goes around comes around or, if you prefer, ‘as you do unto others, so also it will be done to you’ (cf. Mt 7:12 etc). It appears that Holding has been rather egregiously abusing the Golden Rule since the inception of his “Tekton Ministries” (a play on the Greek for “carpenter”?), and that the spiritual law of karma—more subtle than air and more predictable (IMHO) than the law of gravity—suddenly struck. As a result, the Tekton Apologetics … Continue reading →

Part 2—Paul moves to the second century CE

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Paul, The second century | Tagged | 3 Replies
3

Powerful headwinds… One has to wonder how it is that, after literally centuries of research, the field of ‘biblical studies’ (encompassing the Jewish scriptures as well as the New Testament) still presents an opaque mass of mutually contradictory conclusions—and, indeed, no universally held conclusions at all! Whenever a promising breakthrough appears—or merely threatens to appear—a chorus of denials predictably rises from the entrenched institutions among us (church, synagogue, and academy) to return to the status quo ante. The correct inference to be drawn is not that (1) people are stupid, (2) researchers are blind, or (3) information is hidden (though a little of all three is probably true), but that in the field of religious studies change is intolerable. Inertia … Continue reading →

Forthcoming anthology: “Christianity in the Light of Science”

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

This is to alert readers to the upcoming anthology, “Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World’s Largest Religion” (Prometheus Books, Fall 2016), edited by John W. Loftus. One of the chapters is by yours truly. About a year ago John emailed me the following all-inclusive message: “I’m looking for authors to write chapters on cosmology, evolution, how evolution impacts Christianity, the scientific method, the Bethlehem star, biblical archeology, the existence of Nazareth at the time Jesus, the genetics of the virgin birth, biblical prophesy, the shroud of Turin, miracles and science, the existence of God and the task of science, the origins of the religious impulse…” My contributory chapter is now complete and delivered: “Pious Fraud at … Continue reading →

Part 1—“Paul,” the improbable phantom

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Josephus, mythicism, Paul, The second century | Leave a reply
Reply

While Jesus mythicists have been focusing on the (a)historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, a related scholarly war has been raging behind the scenes, as it were: the (a)historicity of Paul of Tarsus—or, more precisely, the inauthenticity of his epistles. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the two issues are intimately linked. After all, if the Pauline epistles are inauthentic, then what basis remains to posit the historicity of their author? Other than the epistles, all that’s really left regarding the historical Paul is the notoriously contrived text known to us as the Acts of the Apostles. Of the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in the New Testament (the Letter to the Hebrews is “anonymous”), six are considered even by … Continue reading →

Mythicism on the cusp of history–Pt. 2

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

Scholars mentioned: R. Gmirkin, N. Lemche, J. Milik, J. Wesselius.      Astonishing theories have been recently postulated regarding the origins of Jewish scripture. They may seem quite far-fetched (see below), and the long-standing Documentary Hypothesis (DH) firmly remains majority opinion. But it may need tweaking, if not an overhaul. We recall that the DH (current since the late 19th century and also known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory) posits four major strands of literature in the Pentateuch: Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly.      The DH offers explanations for differences in vocabulary, style, and point of view/content between various passages in the OT. It also goes a long way toward explaining outright contradictions, such as the two incompatible versions of the creation in Genesis … Continue reading →

Mythicism on the cusp of history–Pt. 1

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

Scholars mentioned: T. Brodie, H. Detering, E. Doherty, N. Lemche, D. MacDonald, R. Price, R. Salm, T. Thompson.      Readers of this blog recognize its dedication to mythicism—as in ‘Jesus mythicism’—the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as an historical figure. However, at this time in history when pressure is rapidly building in support of the Christian mythicist position, a different (yet equally important) kind of mythicism is also gaining ground… We can term it Jewish mythicism—the conviction that assumptions about Judaism’s past are (also) mythological.      Only the most naive today maintain the historicity of the patriarchs from Abraham to Moses. Major biblical figures and entities associated with “Ancient Israel” (i.e., the Iron Age, c. 1200–c. 600 BCE) are … Continue reading →

The book NazarethGate

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

Click here to order. This explosive sequel to The Myth of Nazareth documents astonishing scandals on the ground and a desperate race to create evidence for the nonexistent hometown of Jesus. With a bonus final chapter addressing the question: Was any prophet at the source of Christianity?   In softcover and Kindle editions from American Atheist Press by René Salm with a Foreword by Frank R. Zindler.   From the back cover: