Category Archives: Nazareth

Help with Wikipedia editing

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

Would somebody who has read chapter 12 (“The 1962 Forgery of the Caesarea Inscription”) of my book NazarethGate, and who has some expertise editing Wikipedia, please amend the Wiki Nazareth page that presently reads: “A Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century mentions Nazareth as the home of the priestly Hapizzez/Hafizaz family after the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 132–135).” In fact: the inscription was discovered by the noted forger Dr. Jerry Vardaman (of microletter infamy). He was arrested by the Israeli authorities within hours of his “discovery” of the Nazareth inscription in Caesarea Maritima in 1962. (He was later arrested again on an excavation in Jordan.) There are many additional reasons why the … Continue reading →

The infancy narratives–conclusion

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Nazareth, The second century | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 28 In this post I’d like to wrap up my survey of the Christian literature devoted to the birth of Jesus. As mentioned in a prior post, this literature is surprisingly extensive. In fact, it was once as popular as it is now obscure. The reasons are that the infancy literature gave scope for endearing domestic scenes, to portray the family of Jesus, and to bring a common touch to the otherwise exalted messiah, the awe-inspiring Son of God. In modern times, the only infancy gospel to have been accorded a modicum of scholarly attention is the so-called Protevangelium of James (PrJ).  It was once a very popular work, surviving in many different editions. … Continue reading →

Nazareth update

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

Ken Dark For the last couple of years I have refrained from commenting on Prof. Ken Dark’s 2020 book, The Sisters of Nazareth Convent: A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth. Already in 2006 Dark wrote that his goal in examining the Sisters of Nazareth site over several summers was to produce “a book-length report—fully illustrated with detailed scale drawings and photographs—covering all of the data.” I have already extensively rebutted Dark’s claims of a first century dwelling on the site, both in my book NazarethGate (Chapter 6) and also online (academia.edu). The Sisters of Nazareth Convent is located about 100m west of the Church of the Annunciation. No one (not even Dark) contests the presence of a … Continue reading →

My new 2021 article on archaeological shenanigans in Nazareth

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Nazareth, Salm

I have just uploaded a 29 page rebuttal to Academia.edu. My article refutes a 2020 “primary report” by Yardenna Alexandre, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). Her article concerns the site in Nazareth commonly known as “the house from the time of Jesus.” The abstract of my rebuttal article follows: In 2020 the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) published an extensive article in its journal ‘Atiqot authored by one of its archaeologists, Dr. Yardenna Alexandre, a name familiar to readers of my books and to those interested in the archaeological history of Nazareth, Israel. The IAA article goes far beyond a standard excavation report and functions also as an updated history of Nazareth. I point out that many of … Continue reading →

Ehrman and Nazareth archeology—2

Posted on by
Posted in Archeology, Nazareth, Salm | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

In a prior post I discussed Bart Ehrman’s comments on Nazareth archeology made during the Price-Ehrman debate. Here I rebut a number of Ehrman’s errors regarding Nazareth expressed recently on his semi-private weblog. General considerations I’ve often wondered why Bart Ehrman expresses any opinion at all on the archeology of Nazareth. After almost a decade (my first book came out in 2008) he obviously has not taken the time to acquaint himself with my work or with the subject. And yet he expresses himself on both counts with ill-founded confidence. His training was “in the study of the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament” under Bruce Metzger, among others. There is nothing in Ehrman’s background, training, or personal study … Continue reading →

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 →

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.

Nazareth, Capernaum, and Tabor

Posted on by
Posted in Marcion, Nazarene, Nazareth, The second century | 6 Replies
6

The issue of Jesus’ hometown in early Christian literature is revealing. In the Gospel of Marcion (Mcn) the hometown of Jesus is Capernaum, as it is also in the Gospel of Mark. “Nazara” is only briefly mentioned in Mcn (corresponding to Lk 4:16–30). But the place does not really fit Marcion’s gospel, which locates Jesus in Capernaum both before and after a brief ‘visit’ to Nazara. Now, we know from the Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi) that in gnostic tradition Nazara meant “truth” (GPh 62). This interpretation fits the earlier spirit-Jesus christology, but not the new theios aner Jesus of Marcion, for which Jesus also requires a physical ‘hometown.’ Marcion’s gospel thus was apparently trying to fuse two different christologies … Continue reading →

“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 →