Rene Salm, The Myth of Nazareth: As Honest as "Doubting John"

[jpholding]

I've started a thread on this subject because the more I look at this guy and his book, the worse he smells -- and he needs to be called down publicly for it. I have now found several examples of Salm's outright dishonesty.

This first one is one I gave him a Screwball for, but I just today discovered more than makes it all even worse than that. I'll use some of the text of my chapter to describe it.

On the front page of his website, and on pages 105-7 of his book, Salm makes much of a 1931 report by Nazareth excavator Ernest Richmond describing six oil lamps. In the report, Richmond describes the lamps as “Hellenistic.” Salm berates Richmond: “…[A] glance at the photo shows to even an amateur that none of the lamps signaled by Richmond is Hellenistic.” They are, rather, to be dated to Roman times, as reports published in the 1960s and 1980s show. Salm concludes, almost hysterically:

One can only speculate how the word “Hellenistic” entered Richmond’s report. The discrepancy in dating is huge, amounting to between three and five centuries. No expert would be capable of such a mistake…It is remarkable that this egregious error survived the scrutiny of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, in whose Quarterly the report was published. But then, Richmond was himself Director of the Department.

My initial reply to this was that Richmond’s evaluation was both initial and imprecise, and was based on what information he had at the time. There was simply not enough data to make more precise judgments. What Salm would need to do is prove that experts in Richmond’s day recognized the lamps as datable to the Roman period, in order for any degree of his impeachment of Richmond to stand; and of course, Salm doesn't have that to offer. So I concluded that the problem was that Salm was ignorant of the workings of archaeology.

But now I am not so sure. Now I think that Salm is far more likely to be simply a liar, and here is the evidence. Here is part of a post he made on a Yahoo discussion forum back in March 2007:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/message/4410

Knowledge has greatly increased since Bagatti wrote. Specifically, our knowledge of kokhim tombs and of oil lamps have greatly advanced in the last 50 years. A half century ago even the estimable Father Milik stated that "kok burials definitely came to an end by A.D. 135" (Berytus 14 [1961] p. 59, cited by R. Smith). Of course, we now know better, and these tombs are commonly found dating II -IV CE, and I have come across one complex of ten kokhim in a "IV-VI CE" context. This is not to lay blame, for kokhim tomb chronology was still quite uncertain a couple of generations ago. Other writers (e.g. Finegan 1969/92) treated the entire Holy Land as a block, as if kokh use werecontemporaneous in all regions. With the more precise chronology of kokh use and of bow-spouted oil lamps now available, the case for Nazareth at the time of Christ dissolves.

As regards the oil lamps, I hardly have to remind this list of the wealth of new studies in the last thirty years. Correctly dating the bow-spouted oil lamp is especially important in the Nazareth case. We can smile today, but it was once thought that these lamps dated to IV-III BCE in Palestine (H. Waters,1914). Then, in the 1930s, it was thought that they were "common in the Hellenistic Period" (G. Fitzgerald).

Salm here seems quote happy to note that advances in knowledge have, allegedly, worked against a case for Nazareth. But for some reason, that knowledge did not avail him when it came to accusing Richmond of incompetence or conspiracy in his book!

Salm KNOWS that knowledge has changed over time. So when he delivers his accusations against Richmond, it is clear that he knows very well why Richmond reported those lamps as "Hellenistic." The man is a liar, and there's no way around that.

I'll post another shortly. I need to do some editing on the chapter.

[jpholding]

These have to do with Salm's commentary on the Nazareth village project:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalindex5

It's a good idea to preserve these, as he'll likely change it all as soon as it is known that he's bungled. For reference the Nazareth Village report is found (in PDF format) at

http://www.uhl.ac/articles/NazarethV...inalReport.pdf

I'll take from my chapter on the Nazareth Myth again:


To further heap discredit upon the report, Salm rakes his way through the listings of excavated items seeking whatever contradictions he believes he can find within the listings. He uses these, then, to charge the project participants with “incredible sloppiness or absent-mindedness.” Naturally this verdict is reached by once again putting the most uncharitable spin on things as possible -- and in these particular cases, by revealing only what Salm wants his readers to hear. Salm cites three examples of what he calls “double dating” to impugn the credibility of the Nazareth Village report. The first is as follows:

On page 75 of the NVF report Rapuano assigns Fig. 41:32 to “the third century to early fifth century AD.” But on the preceding page he has already dated the same shard (41:32) to the Ottoman period! The difference is one thousnad (sic) years (or more), for the Ottoman period began in the 14th century.

A look at these citations, however, tells a much more complex story that Salm apparently wishes to not reveal the details of. A far more charitable reading of this alleged “sloppiness” is that there was a typographical error (as there is in Salm’s own paragraph!) or perhaps some editorial mistake which attached the wrong enumeration to the wrong picture. And indeed, this is what the evidence suggests in terms of what Salm fails to reveal.

The reference on page 74 to Fig. 41:32 describes the item as a “strap handle of a jar or jug made of Gaza ware.” The illustration corresponding to 41:32 on the prior page suggests that this is the correct description. The reference on page 75 to Fig. 41:32, however, describes the item as “a storage jar (or possibly a jug).” In other words, while Salm tries to convince the reader that Rapuano – the Senior Researcher on the project, and a professional archaeologist – looked at the same piece of pottery twice and dated it vastly differently each time, he seems to know very well that it would be much harder to make a case for that if the reader also knows that Rapuano would have also had to confuse a jar strap for an entire jar!

Salm’s dissembling continues in the second example:

On page 73 of the NVFR (6th line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 41:1. He describes it as the “plain rim” of a bowl of Adan-Bayewitz Type 1E (“mid-third to early fifth century AD”), and states that the findspot was locus 31 of Area B2. On p. 77, however, the archaeologist writes that the findspot of shard 41:1 is Locus 7 of Area B2. Rapuano describes it differently than before, and now dates it from the “early second century to the later fourth century AD.” He completely forgot that he already looked at this shard!

That is not quite correct. The “plain rim” description is applied to the item assigned the designation 41:4, not 41:1, though it does follow the description of 41:1. Evidently Salm was in such a rush to discredit the report that he failed to read it carefully. The second claim is even more absurd: There is no mention of “41:1” anywhere on page 77 of the report. Fig. 41:1 is mentioned on pages 69 and 73, and the descriptions on those two pages are consistent (“Byzantine rouletted bowl,” “deep bowl…decorated with rouletting”). That said, the item designated 41:4 is indeed labelled with the different dates described on different pages; but there is hardly any justification for Salm’s most uncharitable reading that Rapuano “completely forgot” what he was looking at. Perhaps Salm would prefer that the same charge be leveled against him for the mistake described above.

Finally:

On page 77 of the NVFR (top line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 43:3 as “a small bowl with a cupped rim.” He states that the findspot was Locus 2 of Area C3. No dating is offered for the shard, which from the diagram is part of a rim. But later, even on the same page, the archaeologist again itemizes artefact “43:3.” The findspot is now Locus 5 of Area C3, and Rapuano dates it “from the end of the first century to the mid-third century AD.”

But once again, Salm fails to tell the whole story. He neglects to mention that the second description is that of a krater – a bowl with a wide mouth, a deep, broad, body, and a foot. These were used as mixing bowls for wine. An item like this would hardly be mistaken for a “small bowl with a cupped rim.” So once again, Salm tells only part of the truth, and it seems that this is in order to avoid a more charitable solution to the problem, such as a typographical or print-production error.

So it is that Salm’s own words come back on him thus:

From these cases we see that the archaeologist is, presumably, capable of looking at the same shard at different times, forgetting that he already examined it, and coming up with different dates, descriptions, and findspots for it. How curious! Needless to say, this hardly bolsters our confidence in his work, nor in the entire Nazareth Village Farm report.

And needless to say, this sort of recklessness by Salm hardly bolsters our confidence in his own evaluations of the work of professionals whose profession he hardly understands.

Think it's time to invite the manipulator here and let him dig himself deeper?

[JB]

Grow, chapter, grow....

[jpholding]

Oh it will. I just sent him the link to this thread and told him to come defend himself. Also said that if he didn't, I'd post any responses he sent me here.

And I also told him I looked forward to his pathetic attempts to reply.

Which alludes to Robert Price's comments on Salm's book, of course.

[Raphael]

[jpholding]

Who thinks Raphael's popcorn will go stale before Salm shows up here?....

Hey, this thread already showed up #4 in a Google search on "Rene Salm" and "The Myth of Nazareth" together, and 8th in a search of the title alone!

[JB]

Awesome!

[jpholding]

Obviously Chicken Rene has stopped by here. He fixed the typo ("thousand") and ALSO changed the second entry to correct the reference mistake I caught him on:

(2) On page 73 of the NVF report (6th line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 41:4. He describes it as the “plain rim” of a bowl of Adan-Bayewitz Type 1E (“mid-third to early fifth century AD”), and states that the findspot was locus 31 of Area B2. On p. 75, however, the archaeologist writes that the findspot of shard 41:4 is Locus 7 of Area B2. Rapuano describes it differently than before, and now dates it from the “early second century to the later fourth century AD.” He completely forgot that he already looked at this shard!

What a pathetic person he is.

[jpholding]

Still no reply from Chicken Rene?

I just posted a review of his book on Amazon that ought to curl his hair.

[Flipper31]

Nice review....he won't come in here JP....but it will be entertaining if he does..

[jpholding]

I just noticed something else -- Rene has trouble with numbers!

However, over one hundred shards of pottery were found, and they reveal the eras in which those terraces were worked in antiquity. The critical last ten pages of the report (pp. 68–78) deal with the pottery.

Over one hundred? Well, that's true. On just two pages (there may be more):

p. 50 -- 206 pottery sherds collected in one place; 397 recorded pieces (of pottery) in another
p. 52 -- 106 shards plus 14

Total: 723 pieces of pottery

I guess he'd say he was telling the truth. After all, 723 is "over one hundred."

[jpholding]

It doesn't look like Rene Poulet wants to show his face here. So I'm going to note one last huge blunder of his, then tomorrow draw attention on Tekton to this thread.

There's more on his errors in the Christ myth book.

Our very own Jaltus gave me the lie on this one. Thanks, Jaltus!

****

The Gospel references to Nazareth. Most Nazareth-mythicists will simply date all of the Gospels very late, and say that the name of a then-present city was used anachronistically. Salm stretches the limits slightly further; since he agrees to a date of just before 70 A. D. for Mark, he must hypothesize that “Nazareth” in Mark 1:9 is an interpolation. This he regards as “certain,” although it is not based on hard textual evidence but rather upon a supposition that the Nazareth-myth must be correct. Indeed, he proposes that redactors managed to change references to Capernaum to “Nazareth” with just as much textual evidence (that is, none). The remainder of Mark’s references are to Jesus as a “Nazarene,” and Salm identifies this designation with a place called “Nazara” that he supposes to have been located in Judaea, though he admits that it is “as yet unlocated.” It seems rather peculiar that Salm is positing the existence of this “Nazara,” which is otherwise unattested in literary or archaeological records, as a replacement for a “Nazareth” that he rejects because he thinks it is not attested in literary and archaeological records. But that is yet another inconsistency that may be added to his repertoire.

Salm can also give no reason why Matthew and other Gospel authors would perpetuate the “Nazareth” reading, especially since it seems unlikely that they would not know that the village did not exist at the required time. He discovers further justification for his thesis in the variant spellings of “Nazareth” found in Matthew’s Gospel. For Salm, these variant spellings are evidence of “several stages in that gospel’s composition,” and evidence of the aforementioned (otherwise unattested) village of Nazara. It is true that Matthew’s Gospel has three different spellings for Nazareth (2:23, 4:13, 21:11) out of four uses. But there is a far more prosaic explanation than Salm’s contrived tale of three layers of composition, and it has to do with Greek spelling practice. For example, sometimes consonants elide if the next word begins with a vowel or rough breathing. In Matthew, a different spelling occurs before rough breathing (a tau ending, 2:23) than before a simple vowel (no tau or theta, just a simple alpha, 4:13, which would be difficult to pronounce). Before a consonant, the theta occurs (21:11).

***

Rene Salm looks more incompetent every time I look at him.

C'mon, Poulet Rene -- where you at?

[jpholding]

Woo hoo! This thread now comes up SECOND in a search of both terms and in the top 8 in searches for the individual terms.

Let's keep it movin' on up!

[anewlife]

[jpholding]

Poulet Rene is calling out his buddies to neg rep my Amazon review and post their own; he just got his endorser "Dr." (of agriculture) Falvey to post this:

I don't care if Jesus came from Nazareth, Bodhgaya or Timbukto, but I do care for good books, and this is an excellent book on a difficult subject. How could archaeology of little oil lamps be interesting? - ask Rene Salm, for has made it so in this highly readable and objective account of the area where Nazareth was meant to exist about Year 0.

Without preciousness, without the emotion of some recent anti-religion books and without fear, the book incidentally shows that belief is anathema to the spiritual dimensions of religion, yet is the very essence of the religion of the ignorant. I suspect that these latter forces will crucify the work with the usual dogma-based arguments that we too often leave unchallenged. Nevertheless I predict that the work will persist on the shelves of those who strive to understand their spirits - for those in the Christian tradition, this means those who strive to know Jesus, for they know it matters little whether he was a Jew or blond or was born in Nazareth. But it matters if their church is pushing an invented (not an inherited tribal story) myth as fact.

This is a scholarly work in a field dominated by scholars employed by church-related bodies. For this reason it is unique as its scholarship is of a higher order than that of those it criticizes. And potential readers should be aware that Salm's the criticism is kind - regardless of the obnoxious comments of another reviewer whom I suspect has not read the book at all. The reader is led into gentle questions such as `why would the church chose to present the data that way?' and `how could an archaeologist make such a simple mistake?' Of course we learn more with time in all such fields but the book allows for this and softly leads us to consider the remaining questions. We decide - it is not a belief-based study; it is a special and important contribution to a failing religion of a people searching for truth. It should be in every good university library, and will no doubt be on the shelves of the private libraries of the balance and thinking elite.

I invited him over.