The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (14 page)

From these disparate strands—the presence of silos, the agricultural character, the poor relatives of Jesus—Bagatti contrives to draw conclusive fodder for the orthodox line: no, Jesus’ family was not involved in agriculture (this would conflict with Joseph being a carpenter); the silos do demonstrate continuity in settlement “until the time of the Lord” (thus reaffirming the doctrine of continuous habitation); this agricultural character is supported by Nathaniel’s reference in Jn 1:46 (giving Bagatti’s theory support even in the gospels). Very possibly, we see Christian Archaeology here at its best.

The prolific number of silos and cisterns under the venerated area is quite adequately explained when we take into account the many centuries in which man has lived in the basin. Let us consider: the first period of habitation in the area was during the Bronze Age. This period lasted eight hundred years (
c
. 2000–
c
. 1200 BCE). To this is added roughly five centuries of Iron Age habitation (1200–
c
. 730 BCE). Finally, we must add the centuries following resettlement of the basin
c
. 100 CE (Chapter Five). Thus, we have a sum total of at least two thousand years of human habitation during which silos, cisterns, and other manmade changes to the environment were effected in the same ground. In other words, the plethora of silos and cisterns does not indicate
continuous
habitation. It indicates
lengthy
habitation, namely, during the three periods outlined above.

Examination of the photos, drawings, and descriptions of the artefacts  at the venerated sites, and itemization of those found in conjunction with the silos and other hollows, shows that some artefacts and related structures date to the Iron age while others relate to later Roman times.
^[160]
A lacuna in the evidence of roughly eight hundred years exists. Together with funereal remains, the agriculturally-related evidence provides a convincing chronology of human presence in the basin during two very disparate eras. This chronology based on the evidence is a very different one from Bagatti’s chronology based on extra-evidentiary considerations, noted in the previous section.

Continuous habitation since the dawn of history?

In sum, the tradition maintains that settlement at Nazareth continued unbroken through the eras, quite contrary to the archaeological evidence which establishes a lengthy hiatus in settlement. Essentially an exercise in denial and rationalization of faith, the doctrine of continuous habitation has been affirmed since the 1950s by the Roman Catholic Church, and is also maintained to this day by many non-Catholic scholars. Baldly stated, it affirms that people have continuously lived at Nazareth from the Bronze Age up to modern times.

It is a most remarkable thesis. According to the doctrine of continuous habitation, the hamlet of Nazareth has been settled uninterruptedly since the time of Abraham. Nazareth, presumably, is in the company of Jerusalem and perhaps a handful of the world’s settlements to have enjoyed such outstanding longevity. Hardly any Canaanite towns can make a similar claim. Many ancient and venerable Biblical settlements do not go back to patriarchal times (Gerasa, Hebron). Others ceased long ago (Gezer, Shechem). Yet others were abandoned or destroyed in the course of time, and then re-established at a different location (Gaza, Jericho, Japhia). In short, the tradition’s shrill assertion that people continuously lived in the Nazareth basin for the last four thousand years would be, if true, most impressive. Quite apart from any Christian considerations, it would raise the site inestimably in archaeological value. The stratigraphy of the venerated area (for that is where habitation is claimed)
^[161]
would be of the greatest interest. Archaeologists would be able to systematically follow the levels of habitation downwards – as they can at Megiddo – beginning with the upper stratum and progressively exposing older and older settlements. Megiddo offers thirty strata encompassing approximately three millennia.
^[162]
The claim of four thousand years of settlement at Nazareth should reveal something at least remotely comparable, showing human presence all the way back to the Bronze Age. The strata would demonstrate the Medieval village, the Byzantine, then the Roman, Hellenistic, Persian, Iron, and finally the lowest Bronze Age settlement. Four millennia of human presence would be revealed by the archaeologist’s spade, each stratum offering evidence such as pottery, wall foundations, coins, seals, ostracae, ornaments, weapons, and so on. After all, the venerated area has been extensively excavated. And so, if the doctrine of continuous habitation were correct, some material evidence would surely have been found to corroborate it.
Some
evidence would be in the ground to tell the tale that the tradition wishes so desperately be told.

But it isn’t. For eight hundred years – from the Assyrian conquest to the First Jewish War – the ground is mute. Perhaps recognizing this irritating dilemma, in 1955 Bagatti had a special trench cut a few meters to the East of the Church of the Annunciation. Its purpose was to determine the stratigraphic profile of the venerated area, to once and for all find evidence of settlement in the various periods, and to provide some much-needed vindication of Church doctrine. The trench was dug 5.6 meters (18.4 ft.) down to solid bedrock, and was continued for a length of 12.9 meters (42.3 ft.). Bagatti’s description of it is on page 236 of
Excavations
, and is accompanied by a photo. The results, however, disappointed the archaeologist. He writes: “at least where excavated, there were no habitations.” He found some Byzantine sherds, similar to many others in the vicinity. Otherwise, no evidence of human presence was revealed. “All the fill,” Bagatti admits simply, “follows normally the declivity of the hill.” That is to say, no man-made strata were revealed at all – only virgin earth and rock.

Excavations in Nazareth (1967/69)

Bagatti’s excavations yielded a great deal of new material, which was incorporated into his two-volume opus,
Excavations in Nazareth
. The first volume, with which we are mostly concerned, contains 325 pages and is subtitled
From the Beginning till the XII Century
.
^[163]
We shall simply refer to it as
Excavations
in these pages. The Italian edition was published in 1967 and appeared in English translation two years later.

Excavations
claims to be a “complete description of the village” (p. 223), but it falls far short of fulfilling that mandate. Its focus is squarely on the venerated sites, where Bagatti himself excavated and which was an agricultural and funereal area in antiquity. Fully half the volume is taken up with the Shrine of the Annunciation and contiguous terrain (pp. 77–219). With the exception of selected tombs, locations outside the Franciscan property are given perfunctory treatment (
e.g
., the Jewish Synagogue, p. 233), or none at all (
e.g
., the Church of St. Gabriel at the northern end of the valley).

The presentation of evidence in
Excavations
is selective and tendentious. Even within the venerated area itself some tombs and certain damaging evidence are ignored, as we shall see. Aspects of the finds that are regarded as supporting the Church’s views are emphasized, while those that contradict its views are minimized. For example, Bagatti devotes no less than thirty-three pages (185–218) to the “little grotto No. 29,” minutely dissecting and analyzing the graffiti on the walls. He and other Catholic scholars interpret these markings as early signs of Jewish Christian veneration.
^[164]
On the other hand, Joan Taylor has shown them to date to the fourth century CE.
^[165]
Despite Bagatti’s lengthy treatment of the grotto, one would hardly suspect that it was once a tomb. Only fleeting mention is made of this fact, couched within a quote of its original discoverer, Brother B. Vlaminck: “in building this trough the workmen had destroyed the original form of the rock, which in former times must have contained a tomb, judging, at least, by the remains of a recess still visible” (p. 186). We shall later have a good deal to say about Tomb 29, and almost nothing to say about the wall markings which are—graffiti. Incidentally, Bagatti renames the chamber “Martyrium of Conon,” thus avoiding use of the word “tomb” entirely.

Despite its limitations,
Excavations in Nazareth
remains to this day the single most important source of archaeological data on Nazareth. We shall refer to it regularly, particularly when we consider the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Excavations
is now dated, and much of the material it presents has undergone revision by other scholars. The resultant redating has yielded significantly different conclusions from those embraced by the Church.

Scholars too busy to study all 325 pages of Bagatti’s tome will appreciate his brief conclusions conveniently set forth in the last two pages of the book. They encapsulate what the Church wishes be known about Nazareth, and there we read a particularly succinct version of the doctrine of continuous habitation:

…contrary to what was believed, life did not begin in the place in a recent epoch, but
already existed in the Bronze Period, to continue down to our own days.
^[166]

“[C]ontrary to what was believed” refers to the prewar observations of Tonneau and Kopp regarding the alarming (though correct) lack of Greco-Roman habitations in the venerated area. “[A]lready existed in the Bronze Period” refers to the town of biblical Japhia, located in the Nazareth basin during the Bronze and Iron Ages. “[T]o continue down to our days” denies the existence of a Great Hiatus at Nazareth, plainly evident from the archaeological record and beginning in all likelihood with the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) at the hands of the Assyrians. Hence, in each and every one of its elements, Bagatti’s over-arching conclusion to this “definitive” study on Nazareth is incorrect. It is remarkable that the conclusion of a thick, evidence-laden book is so wide of the mark. It is ironic, too, that much of the data which would correct its errors is provided within the book’s own pages. It is sad that scholars have unquestioningly accepted Bagatti’s very erroneous historical portrait without examining the underlying evidence. And finally, it is unconscionable that the Church—which has produced, preserved, and protected this false  history—claims the moral high ground of infallibility and the possession of ultimate truth.

Secondary References to Continuous Habitation

The secondary Nazareth literature of all religious denominations is largely dependent on the primary findings of Bagatti and of a few other Catholic archaeologists working on Church property. Up until the present writing, that literature has not attempted an independent assessment of the primary evidence. Consequently, we should not expect to encounter positions in the scholarly literature that are hostile to the traditional view. Similarly, it should not come as a surprise that many Protestant and Jewish reference works of the last half-century have conformed to Bagatti’s interpretations. Nonetheless, the former have adopted a less enthusiastic stance regarding the controversial issues raised in the foregoing pages, most especially as regards the denial of hiatus in settlement at Nazareth. Hence, in the non-Catholic literature, continuous habitation is rarely stated overtly, but is often insinuated according to the model Bagatti himself furnished. Alternatively, the Protestant literature developed a thesis which we shall examine in Chapter 3: the myth of a Hellenistic renaissance.

The doctrine of continuous habitation is voiced in a number of places in the secondary literature. It is not possible to discuss all the relevant passages, and we shall content ourselves with three representative examples. Obviously, evidence from Babylonian and Persian times cannot be cited by those who claim continuous habitation, as there is none. This limitation amounts to an effective prohibition on specificity when it comes to discussing the pre-Christian history of Nazareth. The tack adopted by the orthodox literature, then, is to embrace generalities and vagueness. Conclusions are abundant and, when necessary, data are ignored.

•  Jack Finegan’s
The
Archaeology of the New Testament
(1969, expanded 1992)
^[167]
is a widely-cited book intended for the layperson and non-specialist scholar. Finegan draws heavily on the work of Kopp and Bagatti. The second edition devotes twenty-two pages to Nazareth, and there we read the following:

In 1970 Bellarmino
Bagatti excavated along the north wall of the Crusader church and in some of the grottoes under the wall. When the medieval church was excavated in 1892 much debris was piled here, and in the piles of debris Bagatti found in inverse order (as thrown out in the excavations) pottery fragments
from the Iron Age to the Roman
, Byzantine, and Crusader periods; and in the grottoes likewise he found Roman as well as Crusader pottery,
thus the site was certainly inhabited in the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. as well as earlier and later
.  (Finegan 1992:57; emphasis added.)

We shall see that nothing from this excavation is demonstrably “from the Iron Age to the Roman.” This allusion is based on three tiny, allegedly “Hellenistic” shards. Not only does Finegan accept their Hellenistic dating, dubious on several counts (Chapter Three), but he extrapolates therefrom the doctrine of continuous habitation. In addition, his over-the-top conclusion is entirely unfounded. From this small excavation there is no certainty at all that the site was “inhabited in the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. as well as earlier and later.” In fact, this is one of the purest statements of the doctrince of continuous habitation in the literature.