A reply to Bart Ehrman on Nazareth,
and the Real Jesus Challenge award

The following excerpt is from the American Freethought podcast with Bart Ehrman, hosted by John C. Snider. Professor Ehrman’s remarks elicited my responses below (in green type) and have led to the institution of the Real Jesus Challenge (also known as the 2011 Historicist Prize) sponsored by the Mythicists’ Forum.

_______________

John C. Snider: On the other side of the spectrum are people—you know, some Atheists and some free-thinkers—who believe that Jesus was entirely mythical and had no historical reality whatsoever. And we recently came across this thing called the Mythicist Prize…organized by a guy named René Salm, who has written a book in which he claims that the city of Nazareth did not even exist until the second century. But the Mythicist Prize also has the blessing of American Atheists—if you’ll excuse that phrase… But the prize is described as follows: “The sum of $1,000 (U.S.) will be awarded to the author of a submitted essay which, in the opinion of the judges, sheds light on the origins of Christianity and, at the same time, supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.”

Bart D. Ehrman: Right, yes… So, this has become a big thing now. I get a lot of emails asking me if I think Jesus existed or not. I think that this is the flip side of Lee Strobel—that they're both really not doing very well with their history lessons. So, you know, the idea that Jesus was made up—well, the idea that Nazareth was made up—is completely crazy.

JS: [Chuckles.]

BE: I mean, how could it not exist until the second century? We have literary texts from the first century that Jesus came from there. So what, what, WHAT are they thinking?! [Laughs.]

JS: So you're saying that the texts physically can be verified as existing at around 100 C.E.?

BE: Before that. I mean…all four gospels indicate that Jesus came from Nazareth. Mark was written around the year 70. So, where did he get the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth, if Nazareth didn’t exist?

[René Salm: The answer to Ehrman’s logical question is clear (see THE MYTH OF NAZARETH pp. 299–302 for discussion). Few realize that ‘Nazareth’ is mentioned only once in the Gospel of Mark (1:9). That passage obviously conflicts with the rest of Mark’s gospel which knows Capernaum as Jesus’ home. Even the Matthaean parallel (3:13) does not yet know of Nazareth. For these and other cogent reasons, the word ‘Nazaret’ at Mk 1:9 is properly seen as the interpolation of a later hand. ‘Nazareth’ did not appear in the original Gospel of Mark! It doesn’t even appear in the earliest stratum of Matthew’s gospel…]

BE: Moreover, archaeologists have dug up Nazareth, and there was a city there.

[RS: In fact, archaeologists have abandoned any claim to a ‘city’ at Nazareth. They currently advocate for “an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses” (Charlesworth, Tabor, Alexandre, et multi). The (lack of) evidence, however, shows that even this minimalist position is false and that traditionalist affirmations by Christian and other archaeologists writing on Nazareth continue to be tendentious. Worse, they sometimes stoop to fabricating evidence at critical junctures—as my book and articles (in American Atheist magazine and in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society) have demonstrated.]

BE: So, I don't know what [Salm] is thinking about exactly, other than… he’s making something up maybe.

JS: Right. I guess the thing that I found problematic about the construction of this prize…It’s asking people to provide proof of a negative. And, of course, I realize that there’s an argument that you can’t prove a negative, and some people say that you can prove a negative… But, I just didn’t quite get that, because I wondered: ‘Well, what if somebody submits a brilliant essay that has evidence that points to some sort of real itinerant rabbi, you know, living in Galilee around that time?’ Are they going to reject excellent academic papers because they didn’t meet their prior conclusion?

BE: Well, they won’t give them $1,000! [Laughs.]

JS: Right.

BE: It’s very hard to prove that Jesus did not exist. I think it is historically virtually certain that Jesus existed. I mean, there’s just humungous… You know, I’ve actually wanted to write a book on this, and my publisher does not want me to do it. Because my publisher thinks that if I write a book with the question in the title, ‘Did Jesus Exist?’ and my answer is ‘yes,’ then it’s going to be a bit of a ho-hummer. [Laughs.]

[RS: Your publisher is right, Professor Ehrman. Don’t waste your time—not because your book would be a “ho-hummer” but simply because, in the opinion of the Mythicist Prize committee, no one will or can prove that Jesus existed. In support of its position, the Mythicists’ Forum issues a challenge to those who, like yourself, “think it is historically virtually certain that Jesus existed.” Our challenge is this: PROVE IT! In sum, if anyone submits an essay to the Mythicists’ Forum which actually demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, the judges will not only award that remarkable essay with a $1,000 Real Jesus Challenge award, but will be pleased to discontinue the entire Mythicist Prize contest. (Click here for details of the Real Jesus Challenge.)]

~ Nazareth archaeology news ~

Prominent American and Israeli archaeologists raise doubt about the alleged Jesus-era house in Nazareth

An American archaeologist rails against Yardenna Alexandre’s recent announcement:

...What I find most notable is that to date the excavators have yet to report even one shred of evidence that places this structure in the first century CE as opposed to the second century. People can “trust” all they wish, but it is precisely this type of trust that leads the gullible to pay no heed to the requirements of evidence. Instead, they buy into the spurious idea that the traces of farms, Roman bath houses, garrison works, vineyards, caravanseries, synagogues, etc., have been discovered from a turn of the era Nazareth. These edifices do not exist in the factual record, but they widely populate apologists’ fiction.

The same archaeologist writes:

…After reading the MFA [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, which states that the ceramics found at the site were perhaps second century CE, I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion. So, judging from the finds themselves, the “Jesus era” is apparently first-second century CE or perhaps even later. Obviously, this dig adds little if anything to our previous body of knowledge at this time, as we already have scarce first-second century ceramic remains at Nazareth and an evidentiary profile that confirms occupation of the site in the second century CE.

It really looks like our Israeli and Franciscan friends are merely up to their old tricks. I find it highly revealing that an IAA [Israel Antiquities Authority] representative would state that we have a “few written sources that [let us] know” that “Nazareth was a small, Jewish village” in the “first century CE.” Anyone care to venture a guess as to what these written sources might be? Nazareth is a cash/political cow and professional/confessional bulwark that they will never allow to crumble, no matter what the evidence might be.

BTW, if anyone is interested in an excellent summary of the archaeological recoveries at Nazareth to date, I would highly recommend Rene Salm’s book on the subject… [I]t provides an excellent inventory and analysis of the evidence, a feat all the more remarkable when one considers that Salm is not a formal member of our profession.

[Dec. 30, 2009. Emphasis added and name withheld.]

No “house from the time of Jesus” has been found at Nazareth

On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.

The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).

The excavation took place between Nov. 11 and Dec. 7, 2009, under the direction of IAA archaeologist Y. Alexandre. It took place in the so-called “venerated area” next to the Church of the Annunciation, located on the Nazareth hillside. At this time, the official release from the IAA is the primary report and ultimate source of information on this excavation. As is normal, statements going beyond it must be supported by the presentation of verifiable evidence, and statements contradicting it must be viewed with skepticism.—René Salm

The Myth of Nazareth

~ The Book ~

This timely and thoroughly-researched exposé
is sure to significantly impact the traditional view of Christian beginnings.

Prof. Thomas Thompson…

…René Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth has been waiting to be written for twenty years now and I am glad to see that someone has finally taken up the challenge.…—Thomas L. Thompson PhD, University of Copenhagen (Emeritus). Author, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel; The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, etc.

Robert M. Price…

…René Salm has shown that we have an utter void of archaeological vestiges of the Galilean home town of Jesus. At least there was no such town in the early part of the first century… Salm examines every bit of known evidence from the Nazareth Plateau. What a disparity between his results (none of them methodologically dubious, none controversial except in result) and the blithe generalizations of certain well-known Bible encyclopedias and Bible archaeology handbooks[!]…

Salm’s archaeological outcome does fit quite well with other literary considerations, namely the entire silence of both Josephus and the Mishnah when it comes to Nazareth…

One fears René Salm will prove as welcome amid the conventional “Nazareth” apologists as Jesus was among the Nazarene synagogue congregation in the gospels. But for others, it must now become apparent that we must bracket the gospel stories till we can independently reconstruct an account of Christian origins from the evidence on the ground—or the lack of it. New Testament minimalism: full speed ahead!—Robert M. Price, PhD, ThD. Author, The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Jesus is Dead, etc.

(For Dr. Price’s full review, please click here)

Robert Eisenman…

“I have been looking over your ‘Nazareth’ volume which you sent me and it is, of course, very thorough in your usual manner. But as I told you early on, you don’t have to convince me. I am a believer. I know there was no ‘Nazareth’… at least not where they were talking about it, from the first days I read Josephus who virtually catalogued all the important locations in Galilee and of course, no Nazareth!”—Prof. Robert Eisenman, PhD. Author, James the Brother of Jesus, etc.

H. P. Kuhnen…
(on the critical post-50 CE dating of the Nazareth tombs)

“I have studied your work relating to the archaeology of Nazareth and find your position very interesting. Concerning the [post-50 CE] dating of the known tombs, you are certainly correct.”—Prof. Hans-Peter Kuhnen, PhD. Author, Pälastina in Griechisch-Römischer Zeit, the world’s foremost authority on Roman tombs in the Galilee.

James Randi…
YouTube video (11 min.)

James Randi, Atheist, former magician, and archapostle of skepticism, vigorously supports the growing case against “Christian archaeology,” as this video shows. “The amazing Randi” highlights my book and states, among other things: “The facts are that no demonstrable evidence dating either to the time of Jesus or to earlier Hellenistic times has been found at Nazareth. It is a late Roman-Byzantine village, not a mythical settlement at the turn of the era. As author Salm says: that question has already been answered, and answered convincingly… Of course, the religious faction has reacted furiously to the book.”

Page updated: August 18, 2010