René Salm on AFA to discuss Nazareth

[Secret Alias]

And I am writing all this as someone sympathetic to mythicism. I think my son is going to be a great footballer. But if I went around attacking every team who didn't think he'd be a great footballer I'd be acting like a lot of mythicists. When teams come knocking on my door asking for my son, then I know he's made it. When I am knocking on the door of teams telling them they should let my son in, then he still hasn't.

[Nathan]

The Nazareth discussion suffers from the issue of "absence of evidence is no proof of absence",

On the other hand it is more usually harder to claim X if we have no evidence for X.

and isn't the "absence of evidence" disputed by the Israel Antiquities Authority?

What does the IAA say is the evidence for Nazareth in the early first century CE? An interested party would want to know what Salm says about the IAA publications as well as the IAA's claims. One would also be interested in the tourist value of Nazareth.

It's always puzzled me that archaeological handbooks will discuss the evidence for an early Nazareth however limited that may be, yet conventional online wisdom has long claimed that no such evidence exists. Why the disparity? In any case, the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land has this to say (after noting that excavations have not been extensive):

The remains from the Late Hellenistic to Roman town were limited to numerous silos (several with lids), cisterns, immersion pools and storage caves which were cut into the semi-hard (eocene) to soft (senonian chalk) limestone surface of the hill. These installations, various implements and the surrounding agricultural terraces bear witness to the thriving agrarian economy upon which the town was based. Few building stones were left in place since these were reused in the building of later constructions. Nevertheless excavations revealed the remains of a wall from a large public building dating to the 1st century AD as well as various monumental architectural fragments including column plinths (with incised Hebrew letters representing at least nine columns) from a public building, possibly a synagogue, dating to the Late Roman period.

ETA: This article discusses the excavation of a house in Nazareth purportedly from the first century CE.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Regarding "atheist" forums, they usually attract a certain subset of people, at least as far as the regulars are concerned. I think it's quite understandable if people who just start out to come to terms with losing their faith seek out places like that, as a kind of way station. It's the psychological equivalent of a hug I guess. After a short while, they will move on. Personally, I have never felt the urge to go to those places, but I'm living in a corner of the world where not believing in God is quite a common stance and not a social stigma. This makes matters generally quite relaxed.

Agreed. This was also my first thought.

[Giuseppe]

Regarding "atheist" forums, they usually attract a certain subset of people, at least as far as the regulars are concerned. I think it's quite understandable if people who just start out to come to terms with losing their faith seek out places like that, as a kind of way station. It's the psychological equivalent of a hug I guess. After a short while, they will move on. Personally, I have never felt the urge to go to those places, but I'm living in a corner of the world where not believing in God is quite a common stance and not a social stigma. This makes matters generally quite relaxed.

Agreed. This was also my first thought.

A third possible option is here in Vatikanistan... ops, Italy, where not believing in God is neither a ''common stance'' nor a ''social stigma''.

[Ulan]

The Nazareth discussion suffers from the issue of "absence of evidence is no proof of absence",

On the other hand it is more usually harder to claim X if we have no evidence for X.

Sure. My point was that there isn't much material one way or the other, and the reasons are at least in part understandable.

and isn't the "absence of evidence" disputed by the Israel Antiquities Authority?

What does the IAA say is the evidence for Nazareth in the early first century CE? An interested party would want to know what Salm says about the IAA publications as well as the IAA's claims. One would also be interested in the tourist value of Nazareth.

I was referring rather to the coin finds, but in case you don't know, I actually read Rene Salm's "A "House from the Time of Jesus"? Dr. Y. Alexandre's false claim at Nazareth". I can read his article, I can read the statement of the IAA, and well, I'm no archeologist. I don't have the means to decide whether he is right or not. However, even if that building the article talks about is agricultural in nature, it was also used for storage of wine, and I doubt that would happen somewhere remote from where people lived. The dating question is of course more serious, but I'd prefer an independent archeologist would say something regarding this. Until then, I guess the question remains open.

This matters especially in archeological questions if an area has lots of existing buildings which don't allow for an extensive search.

That objection can theoretically be applied to many sites but it does not refute the evidence that does or does not exist.

Yes, this is indeed a common issue, which however doesn't make it go away as an issue. This is also apparent in Jerusalem for example. We don't even know where the Jerusalem Temple was, and nobody denies that that one existed.

I'm actually not averse to the idea that Nazareth might not have existed during the purported lifetime of Jesus. However, I think that this proposition is very hard to nail down. By the way, the case is much clearer in the case of Bethlehem, but nobody makes a big fuzz about that.

While the question itself is surely interesting, this avenue of investigation is just a side show.

One would think so. But then one has to find some way to explain the extreme heat and outright vitriol that the critics of Salm engage in. Why such intensity of personal attacks? Surely there is more than a simple academic interest involved.

That's typical human resentment against change. If an idea has merit, it will prevail, but it may take a few decades. That's the same in all fields. Of course, there are also lots of crackpot ideas around in all fields, so it somehow evens out.

[Secret Alias]

But then one has to find some way to explain the extreme heat and outright vitriol that the critics of Salm engage in

Like mythicists don't show 'extreme heat and outright vitriol' when fundamentalist scholars 'prove' various stupid things dear to their presuppositions! The point is always the same - credibility is earned. For better or worse PhDs demonstrate at least the theoretical vigor to question or defend assumptions. When someone breaks in through a window and starts writing papers without completely the required steps to earn the right to be taken seriously that threshold hasn't even met. So why not pelt him with (metaphorical) stones? Surely the enemy of scholarship is bias not just bias that counters or gets in the way of your bias or agenda. To that end pelting Salm with metaphorical stones is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it might be quite virtuous as long as the stones are evenly distributed to other amateur scholars with perceived biases. Again it's not mythicism per se, or the perceived (or claimed) 'sacredness' of Nazareth nor Jesus that's the issue but the abuse of scholarship. It's preserving the sacredness of objectivity in scholarship. True we inherited unconscious biases from our religious heritage which are slowly being corrected in modern research. But the idea that allowing everyone who wants to show up at academic conference papers and be taken seriously at conferences to show up and be taken seriously at academic conferences is a bad one. Let's hope that scholarship continues to resist democratic principles of 'equal participation' for every idiot and non-idiot who wants to publish papers.

[Jax]

But then one has to find some way to explain the extreme heat and outright vitriol that the critics of Salm engage in

Like mythicists don't show 'extreme heat and outright vitriol' when fundamentalist scholars 'prove' various stupid things dear to their presuppositions! The point is always the same - credibility is earned. For better or worse PhDs demonstrate at least the theoretical vigor to question or defend assumptions. When someone breaks in through a window and starts writing papers without completely the required steps to earn the right to be taken seriously that threshold hasn't even met. So why not pelt him with (metaphorical) stones? Surely the enemy of scholarship is bias not just bias that counters or gets in the way of your bias or agenda. To that end pelting Salm with metaphorical stones is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it might be quite virtuous as long as the stones are evenly distributed to other amateur scholars with perceived biases. Again it's not mythicism per se, or the perceived (or claimed) 'sacredness' of Nazareth nor Jesus that's the issue but the abuse of scholarship. It's preserving the sacredness of objectivity in scholarship. True we inherited unconscious biases from our religious heritage which are slowly being corrected in modern research. But the idea that allowing everyone who wants to show up at academic conference papers and be taken seriously at conferences to show up and be taken seriously at academic conferences is a bad one. Let's hope that scholarship continues to resist democratic principles of 'equal participation' for every idiot and non-idiot who wants to publish papers.

So by your reasoning, a PhD in theology from Jerkwater USA should have the same standing as a PhD in ancient history from Cambridge. Right?

[neilgodfrey]

In any case, the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land has this to say (after noting that excavations have not been extensive): .......

ETA: This article discusses the excavation of a house in Nazareth purportedly from the first century CE.

It is the vagueness and ambiguities in these descriptions that has given rise to the debate. A closer examination of the actual evidence these articles appear to be addressing is the reason for Salm's doubts and much of the substance of his arguments.

[neilgodfrey]

I think the reason most mythicists care about what Salm says or any of these other 'niche amateur scholars' say is that they agree with his conclusions and find them useful.

In fact I think we find that most people on both sides of the historicity of Jesus debate readily concede that the existence or nonexistence of Nazareth in the early first century ce makes no difference to the question of the historicity of Jesus per se.

My observation is that those who are behind most of the personal abuse directed against Salm and who mock his work are those who have not read it. They are the ones who find his conclusions offensive -- without any awareness of his arguments.

[Secret Alias]

So by your reasoning, a PhD in theology from Jerkwater USA should have the same standing as a PhD in ancient history from Cambridge. Right?

I am arguing for a standardized measure of deserving to be taken seriously, deserving to be heard, deserving to be heard.