A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 7

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 6

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 5

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 4

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 3

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 2

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. I will be posting an expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at … Continue reading

A Critique of Ken Dark’s Nazareth Archaeology — Pt. 1

General Overview and Series Landing Page This post is part of an ongoing series examining Ken Dark’s three recent books on Nazareth archaeology (2020 – 2023). The series focuses specifically on the archaeologist’s claims about the first century CE, especially his argument that a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” existed at the Sisters of Nazareth site. Topics include kokhim, Galilean chronology, rolling stones, and superposition. An expanded and fully footnoted version of this critique will be uploaded to Academia.edu after the series concludes. General Overview (Mobile) and Series Landing Page This post is part of a series examining Ken Dark’s recent claims about first‑century Nazareth. The focus: his argument for a dwelling “from the time of Jesus” at the … Continue reading

AI: Jesus mythicists beware!

Recently I had some time to spare and wondered how artificial intelligence—now revolutionizing everyone’s information landscape—deals with Jesus mythicism. I use Copilot, owned by Microsoft, and began to type in the question: “What is the general opinion today regarding Jesus mythicism?” But I can pretty much guess the answer to that question, so I decided to get specific and instead asked Copilot about the uproar that took place almost twenty years ago, after BAIAS (Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society) published my paper critical of then-current fieldwork in Nazareth. (TOC and entire 2008 volume available for download HERE.) My paper elicited several published reactions in the same issue. What follows is the Nazareth-related material in the BAIAS 2008 issue: • René … Continue reading

Blog returning to sleep mode…

I will be taking a break from regular blogging once again, the last time having been a little over two years ago. I hope to return to blogging in the future, but the essentials of my case regarding Yeshu haNotsri have been pretty much set out in the many posts on this site, together with chapter 14 of NazarethGate. Essentially, I am proposing not only a new (i.e. ‘virtually unknown’) figure at the incipience of Christianity, but also an entirely new chronology, one that moves the chronological goal posts back a whole century. I propose also that intimate connections existed between original (gnostic) Christianity and Buddhism. These novel theories will take time to be heard, understood, and digested. The radical … Continue reading

In favor of the “one state solution” in Palestine

While many good people are Jews, and many Jews are indeed good people, the Zionist experiment of the last seventy-five years is an apartheid venture based upon exclusion, oppression, and ethnic cleansing. A political entity for Palestinians was never Israel’s aim, as we latterly see from that state’s aggressive settlement policies. The two-state solution is now dead. The only viable path forward is the one state solution. That state will not be religiously aligned but one in which Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others live together in peace and security. While both Jews and Muslims claim rights to the same land, the problem is not the claim but the exclusivity of the claim coming from either side. This exclusivity was never … Continue reading