What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Nazareth
Sure to upset biblical inerrantists and conservative pundits alike, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus presents convincing archaeological evidence that the town of Nazareth was not settled until after the First Jewish War — around 70 CE. In this book researcher René Salm proves that a core element of the Jesus story was an invention of the evangelists who wrote their gospels towards the end of the first century CE — as it turns out, at the same time the village of Nazareth was coming into being.
Requiring eight years of painstaking research, The Myth of Nazareth surveys the archaeological record of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age until modern times. It guides the reader through a stunning odyssey of discovery — one which exposes not only the true history of the site but also a scandalous history of evidentiary suppression reaching back into Early Christian times.
Requiring eight years of painstaking research, The Myth of Nazareth surveys the archaeological record of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age until modern times. It guides the reader through a stunning odyssey of discovery — one which exposes not only the true history of the site but also a scandalous history of evidentiary suppression reaching back into Early Christian times.
454 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 25, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 29, 2026
Drink every time the phrase “kokh tomb” is mentioned.
Excellent reasoned thesis. The fraud of biblical archeology is laid bare. The needs of scripture dictate that Nazareth must be located on the brow of a hill, according to Luke, including a cliff face Jesus’s neighbors tried to throw him from when rejecting his claims as a prophet. This is geographically inconvenient for the Galilee, though early Christians found a small Jewish village in a valley with some steep sloped sides to place the gestation of their savior in. This despite the fact that the notion of a Hasmonean or early 1st century village in the “venerated area,” on the side of a steep hill pock marked with tombs and agricultural infrastructure is completely untenable, and the reality that no credible pre 2nd century movable finds have been identified is well argued.
I would like to see an excavation on the valley floor, the obvious place of the (probable) 2nd century villages location. While lack of finds credibly dating to the time of Jesus in the agricultural area the villagers were obviously working likely rules it out, I would like to see concrete evidence of the foundation of the village, as well as to test Salm’s hypothesis that the area was occupied before the 8th century BCE, and was likely the location of the ancient town of Japhia.
As archeology and history with respect to the levant have finally begun to move into the scientific realm with respect to old testament claims, I look forward to the light continuing to be shown on New Testament ones. I was rather surprised that Salm, while citing Israel Finkelstein positively, nevertheless tended to ignore the realities of his “low chronology” consequences to the claims of a United Kingdom. I would expect Salm to be a David and Solomon minimalist, if he considered them historical at all. But perhaps, as his dealing with that part of history was only cursory, it was simply to far outside of the scope of the thesis to pry that can of worms open.
An excellent read. I highly recommend his follow up, NazarethGate as well. In it, he recons with the traditions scrambling to manufacture saving evidence in the wake of the storm this book unleashed.
Excellent reasoned thesis. The fraud of biblical archeology is laid bare. The needs of scripture dictate that Nazareth must be located on the brow of a hill, according to Luke, including a cliff face Jesus’s neighbors tried to throw him from when rejecting his claims as a prophet. This is geographically inconvenient for the Galilee, though early Christians found a small Jewish village in a valley with some steep sloped sides to place the gestation of their savior in. This despite the fact that the notion of a Hasmonean or early 1st century village in the “venerated area,” on the side of a steep hill pock marked with tombs and agricultural infrastructure is completely untenable, and the reality that no credible pre 2nd century movable finds have been identified is well argued.
I would like to see an excavation on the valley floor, the obvious place of the (probable) 2nd century villages location. While lack of finds credibly dating to the time of Jesus in the agricultural area the villagers were obviously working likely rules it out, I would like to see concrete evidence of the foundation of the village, as well as to test Salm’s hypothesis that the area was occupied before the 8th century BCE, and was likely the location of the ancient town of Japhia.
As archeology and history with respect to the levant have finally begun to move into the scientific realm with respect to old testament claims, I look forward to the light continuing to be shown on New Testament ones. I was rather surprised that Salm, while citing Israel Finkelstein positively, nevertheless tended to ignore the realities of his “low chronology” consequences to the claims of a United Kingdom. I would expect Salm to be a David and Solomon minimalist, if he considered them historical at all. But perhaps, as his dealing with that part of history was only cursory, it was simply to far outside of the scope of the thesis to pry that can of worms open.
An excellent read. I highly recommend his follow up, NazarethGate as well. In it, he recons with the traditions scrambling to manufacture saving evidence in the wake of the storm this book unleashed.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews