(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...In my post yesterday I began to explain why René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other. Here is my second and final post on the subject, again, from my treatment in Did Jesus Exist?
******************************
Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery … reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources.” They go on to state: “By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth.’”
Another archaeologist who specializes in Galilee, Ken Dark, the Director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project, gave a thoroughly negative review of Salm’s book, noting, among other things, that “there is no hint that Salm has qualifications – nor any fieldwork experience – in archaeology.” Dark shows that Salm has misunderstood both
There is a small fee to join the blog, but all the money that comes in, every penny, goes to charities helping the needy. You get a ton of benefits for your membership. So why not join?? Click here for membership options
Is it really that important that Nazareth existed? If it didn’t, does that really disprove that Jesus existed? One thing that I notice about the gospels is the lack of information about his early life. Most of what we have is contradictory and probably legendary. That makes sense if Jesus led an uneventful life prior to his decision to start preaching the coming kingdom of god. The gospel writers may have known little about Jesus’ early life and simply made up what they did know like where he was born. Yes it inconceivable that the messiah would come out of such a small village but as you have pointed out there is little about Jesus that fits the expectations of what the messiah would be like.
I do agree it’s a bogus argument. But there’s really no doubt that it did exist and that Jesus did come from there, so I’m not willing to concede much of anything on that particular front….
Its only 3 miles from Sepphoris the market city. Everything around is more farm than village. Nazareth is only important if you want to link it to scripture or movements. Even though Sepphoris was a very Romano city, it had a library, the university of its day and I think that’s part of how we get Master Jesus?
Some scholars think so. I myself doubt if he ever went there, as odd as that seems in today’s world.
A bit off track question
Dr Ehrman,
1. When was Syriac Infancy Gospel written and compiled?
2. The usual date is given as 5th or 6th century, could it be possible that Syriac Infancy Gospel was influence by Quran?
I”m not sure which Infancy Gospel you’re referring to.
Isn’t there 2 separate issues here: whether the historical Jesus came from a village in Galilee (that seems to be clear from all available sources) and whether there was a physical place called Nazareth at that time. There are some articles about Nazorean being a religious title and later it was assumed it was a physical place. I have not familiar with the archaeological discoveries but aside from showing that part of the region was inhabited, is there other independent evidence that “Nazareth” was used? I could be wrong but I recall reading somewhere that Emperor Constantine’s mother “declared” a certain place Nazareth.
Yes, those are two separate issues and need to be decided on completely different groudns. But I think both are absolutely true. As it turns out, Nazareth and Nazorean are unrelated terms (even though they look so similar in English).
“Jesus really came from there … ” But you can’t know that for sure. Many things in our current age are multiply attested on twitter, social media, and Fox, but are unlikely to be true.
You may want to check out how historians use the criteria of both independent attestation and dissimilarity; it’s not the at all the same as seeing what is reported in different social media.
As a non-historian (and non-archaeologist), I don’t see how that reasoning can result in “no doubt”, no doubt at all. In some other disciplines, “Jesus came from there … ” would be regarded as an hypothesis to be tested against the data. The data are limited, the hypothesis is motivated by the same data against which it is to be tested, and the power of the tests cannot be regarded as that high.
That’s fine. In my mind there’s no doubt, for reasons that would take a few pagess to lay out, but I don’t object if others have doubts, so long as they have reasons for their own views. I don’t think your argument about data and hypotheses works very well in historical disciplines, though of course it makes sense in a number of the sciences. You have the same issue with whether Lincoln was really assasinated.
Hello Professor Ehrman. In your book with Plese you give the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew a late dating (late 7th century). Do you still hold these views? Also Shoemaker mentions that Pseudo-Matthew draws from an earlier Palestinian tradition, what are your thoughts on this and what do we know about that text (if it exists)? Thanks again for everything Professor!
It is drawing on the Proto-Gospel of James which some think may have some Palestinian traditions. I haven’t done any further research on Pseudo-Matthew since we did our Intro and Translation, so no, I haven’t changed my mind. In that Intro I explain why scholars gnerally date it no earlier than the mid-seventh century. Does Shoemaker disagree with that? (He’s a world expert on the Mary traditions) (and was my student!)
It would seem that Jesus literally “put Nazareth on the map.” Would it be known at all if not for Jesus?
Probably not!
A counterfactual question for Bart: If René Salm had a wall full of diplomas from respectable/accredited institutions along with a CV listing dozens of peer-reviewed publications in the relevant fields of study, would that in any way change your mind about what he claims in his books?
Not an iota. What he says is ignorant, whatever his degrees are.
Good answer! So his lack of degrees and publications in the relevant fields of study have no bearing on the validity of his claims.
Thanks!
Something is right or not independently of who says it. Complex claims usually require either expertise or the ability to access expertise.