Nazareth

Most Vridar posts on Nazareth focus on the archaeological evidence for its existence in the first-century, but also address the historical likelihood of Jesus being identified as from that town and the place of Nazareth in the nativity accounts of the gospels.

–o0o–

Two posts answer Tim O’Neill’s misinformed attempt to undermine the work of René Salm and his use of the archaeologist Hans-Peter Kuhnen’s work:

–o0o–

A review of Salm’s analysis of the published reports on the archaeology of Nazareth took a pro-Catholic apologetic perspective:

–o0o–

General comment on changes with and special interests (e.g. Herman Detering’s work on the influence of Buddhism) of René Salm’s website. Includes comments on certain critical receptions of Salm’s thesis and another list of past Vridar posts on Nazareth.

–o0o–

This post challenges the common assumption that the Nazareth background of Jesus was a historical embarrassment that had to be explained away in different ways in the gospels of Matthew and Luke:

–o0o–

A critique of Bart Ehrman’s attempt to refute the view that there is little reason to think Nazareth was an occupied village in the early first century:

 

–o0o–

An introductory overview of René Salm’s second book, NazarethGate

–o0o–

I have been slowly reading the first six chapters of René Salm’s new book, NazarethGate: Quack Archeology, Holy Hoaxes, and the Invented Town of Jesus, stopping to consult wherever I can his footnotes, his citations of various archaeologists’ works, and at this point I have found his argument to be both

  • decisive with respect to the non-existence of Nazareth until well into the latter half of the first century CE
  • and absolutely devastating in his analysis of archaeologist Ken Dark’s published efforts to prove the presence of early first century domestic dwellings there.
  • NazarethGate

    (2016-01-26)

–o0o–

A post on Salm’s response to Ken Dark’s review:

–o0o–

René Salm is one of several persons Bart Ehrman personally attacks:

–o0o–

A clinical dissection of an attempt to refute Salm’s case:

–o0o–

Addressing Bart Ehrman’s less than professional treatment of Salm’s book:

–o0o–

Rene Salm at the Society of Biblical Literature Meeting and related controversy:

 

–o0o–

Salm’s response to Yardenna Alexandre’s claims about discoveries at Mary’s Well:

–o0o–

A copy of another of Salm’s responses to  Yardena Alexandre’s reports of finds at Nazareth:

–o0o–

Not addressing archaeology this time, but a different perspective on the likelihood of Jesus being identified as “from Nazareth”:

–o0o–

Introduction to a linked twenty-page article:

–o0o–

Links to Salm’s responses to critics:

–o0o–

René Salm discusses Nazareth and Nazarenes, James and Paul, Christianity and Buddhism, and Ventures Old and New:

–o0o–

A response to criticisms by Maurice Casey and Michael Kok:

–o0o–

Comments on Salm’s Nazareth book by Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M. Price, Robert Eisenman, Hans-Peter Kuhnen, James Randi:

–o0o–

Another post bypassing the archaeological evidence and examining instead the historical likelihood that Jesus was known to be from Nazareth; also looks at the arguments relating to the appearance of Nazareth in the early years of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke:

–o0o–

Addressing mainstream news media reports of the discovery of a house in Nazareth said to date to the time of Jesus:

–o0o–

Archaeologist Dr Ken Dark, in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society [BAIAS] (Vol. 26, 2008), wrote a five-page review of René Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth: the Invented Town of Jesus (2008). I was led to this review after catching up with a discussion of Salm’s book on the Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board.

–o0o–

–o0o–

Introduction to Rene Salm’s website page introducing readers to the archaeological evidence for an occupied Nazareth in the time of Jesus:

–o0o–

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)