The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (19 page)

Illus. 3.2. 
Plan of a Jewish kokh tomb.

(The “Richmond”
Tomb 72. Redrawn from QDAP 1931:54.)

Seeing that Richmond’s tomb is of the kokh type, Kopp dates it incomparably early by recalling the very first kokh tomb known in all of Palestine, that at Marisa far to the south.
^[228]
This tomb, the German conjectures, was hewn already in III BCE—itself an improbably early date. In any case, the oil lamps should have sufficed to show that his analogy is grossly in error, for the Marisa lamps have typically long Hellenistic nozzles and are very different in form. They have nothing in common with the lamps found in the Nazareth tomb.
^[229]

Immediately following his citation above, Kopp continues:

Kokh tombs emerge first in Alexandria and the towns of Phoenicia. The earliest example in Palestine is the tomb of
Apollophanes in old
Marisa. Its inscriptions begin in 198 B.C. It must therefore have been cut already in III BCE. The type could not have reached Nazareth so quickly from the south, [and so] we must certainly look to
Phoenician burial installations for inspiration [
als Pate
]. Even as Phoenician colonizers first used this type of tomb in Marisa, so one may suppose that non-Jews were also the pathfinders in Nazareth.
^[230]

This series of speculations derives from one error: that the lamps in the Richmond report are Hellenistic. From that seed, Kopp concludes that the tomb itself must date to early Hellenistic times. This in turn leads to his analogy with the earliest kokh tomb in the land, that at Marisa far to the south, though the Nazareth lamps have nothing at all in common with the former. In fact, the Richmond lamps are closely related to those found in a much nearer kokh tomb, at Silet edh-Dhahr in the territory of Manasseh, used I CE–VII CE.
^[231]
But Kopp cleaves to the conviction that the Nazareth lamps are early Hellenistic, and from this false conviction ultimately ensues his adventurous proposition that the inhabitants of Hellenistic Nazareth were not Jews but Phoenicians—this, because the kokh form of tomb could not have moved so quickly from south to north, and therefore must have come from Phoenicia.

Kopp’s thesis of a Hellenistic-Phoenician Nazareth quickly disappeared from the literature. Bagatti does not take it up, and it is never heard of again. Whatever we may say of the German’s speculations, their purpose is transparent: to make the case that Nazareth existed before the time of Christ.

This is not the end of the story regarding these six “Hellenistic” oil lamps first brought to our attention by Richmond’s short report. In his 1969
Excavations
in Nazareth
, Bagatti acknowledges Richmond’s error and correctly redates the lamps to II–III CE. Having removed one error, however, he then introduces another equally damaging. We shall take up that problem, which involves the term “Herodian,” when we deal with Early Roman times in Chapter Four.

The infamous “Hellenistic” nozzle

As we noted in Chapter Two, a major conclusion of Bagatti’s
Excavations in Nazareth
is the Church’s 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.
^[232]

Of course, a settlement existing from the Bronze Period “down to our days” implies a settlement also during Hellenistic times. On the same page, however, Bagatti offers a terse admission:

We have met with only few traces of the
Hellenistic period, but there are many elements of the
Roman period.

This is surprising. A “few traces of the Hellenistic period” are, of course, far less than one would expect of a settlement in Hellenistic times, one already in existence for almost two millennia. The Italian does not offer an explanation for the paucity of Hellenistic finds, and we are left to suppose that the remains of the Greek village have either evaded the archaeologist’s spade, or that the village was at a low ebb during the Hellenistic period.

Illus.3.3
.  Typical Palestinian
oil lamps.

1. Late Iron age   2. Hellenistic   3. Bow-spouted (“Herodian”)

4. Roman   5. Byzantine

Nevertheless, the existence of even a “few traces”—if they existed—would be of monumental importance as regards the pre-Christian history of Nazareth. We must therefore ascertain what those Hellenistic traces consist of, describe and itemize them, and thence arrive at a conclusion regarding a pre-Christian settlement. We have already addressed one claim—the six oil lamps mentioned by Richmond and then by Kopp—and have found those lamps to be Roman rather than Hellenistic.
^[233]
Indeed, Bagatti corrects Richmond’s error, but he still mentions the word “Hellenistic” upwards of a dozen times in his
Excavations
—rarely, however, in connection with identifiable evidence. A careful review of his tome shows that there are astoundingly few artefacts involved:

The only pieces which seem to indicate the Hellenistic period is [
sic
] the
nozzle No. 26 of Fig. 233, and 2 of Fig. 235, a bit short for the ordinary lamps, but not completely unusual.  (pp. 309–10.)

This is a second surprise. We note, first of all, the incorrect English grammar. The subject is plural and two examples are given, but the verb is singular. It is of no moment whether the faulty grammar is due to the author or to the translator, for—since Bagatti nowhere claims Hellenistic structural remains—we here have the remarkable admission that
the entire Hellenistic period at Nazareth is represented by only two pieces:
an oil lamp nozzle, and number “2 of Fig. 235.” In contradiction to the above statement, a careful review in fact shows that Bagatti alleges other Hellenistic shards in his
Excavations
.
^[234]
He has evidently ignored these latter instances in his above summation which concludes his book. Certainly, two pieces are precious little upon which to base the existence of a village. Apparently, however, they constituted the sum total of pre-Christian evidence at Nazareth as of 1967, the publication date of
Excavations
(Italian edition). Such staggering importance is therefore placed on “the only pieces” from Nazareth witnessing to Hellenistic times, that they merit the most careful scrutiny.

A third surprise meets us when we compare the two artefacts. Incredibly, they are two versions of one and the same piece—represented once in a photo (Fig. 233 #26), and once again in a sketch (Fig. 235 #2). This may explain the singular verb
is
in Bagatti’s statement: the two pieces
are
one.

What, then, is this transcendently important bit of clay? What, by the archaeologist’s own admission, is this solitary proof of pre-Christian Nazareth? What, indeed, is this artefact upon which the entire Christian story depends?

It is the broken nozzle of an oil lamp. Examination of photo and diagram shows that we are dealing with a shard approximately 3 cm long by 2 cm in depth, that is, about the size of an adult’s thumb from mid-joint to tip (
Illus. 4:1
).
^[235]
It was discovered in Silo 24, immediately east of the Church of the Annunciation,
^[236]
and was found among artefacts from the Iron, Roman, and Byzantine periods.
^[237]
This in itself should raise suspicion, for we are dealing with an outlier, a solitary chronological exception in the assemblage. In any case, upon this small shard rests the fate of pre-Christian Nazareth, as far as the principal source is concerned.

Is the shard Hellenistic? The nozzles of Hellenistic lamps were typically long with a rounded tip (
Illus.3.3:2
),
^[238]
though shorter ones were not unknown.
^[239]
Bagatti’s “Hellenistic” nozzle is not particularly long and has a flattened tip. The border of the discus is discernible in Bagatti’s photo, showing us that the nozzle was no longer than diagramed in
Illus.3.4:1
. This is where the fracture occurred, and thus we can see that the nozzle was shorter than the common Hellenistic types.
^[240]
Even Bagatti had qualms in this regard, for he wrote that it is “a bit short for the ordinary [Hellenistic] lamps, but not completely unusual.” We are dealing, then, with an
atypical
Hellenistic oil lamp.

To support his thesis, Bagatti offers several “Hellenistic” parallels in a footnote.
^[241]
One parallel is to a nozzle found at the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem.
^[242]
Comparison of the two shards, however (placed side-by-side in
Illus. 3.4:1
and
3.4:2
), shows that they are quite different: the Nazareth nozzle has almost parallel sides, a flat tip, and large wick hole. On the other hand, the Jerusalem example has a triangular shape with strongly slanting sides, a rounded tip, and small wick hole. Though the scales may not match precisely, the shapes are clearly dissimilar.

In fact, it is not likely that the Jerusalem parallel is itself Hellenistic. Without wishing to open yet another can of worms, I note that Bagatti claims on p. 117 of his book,
Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit
(from which the Jerusalem parallel is drawn), that “nn. 1–7 of fig. 25” belong to the Hellenistic period. This claim is hardly tenable.
^[243]
No. 1 is a small folded lamp of the Early Roman period;
^[244]
nos. 3–5 date I BCE–I CE;
^[245]
and nos. 5–8 are bow-spouted (“Herodian”), that is, I CE–early II CE.
^[246]
  All these lamps are of the Early Roman period. Only Bagatti’s no. 2 is indeterminate—it is too fragmentary to tell. It is precisely this shard that the Italian uses as a “Hellenistic” parallel to the Nazareth nozzle. The nozzles are quite different, in any case, as we readily see in
Illus. 3.4
.

Another parallel offered by Bagatti is to a 1964 article on Hellenistic pottery written by Nancy Lapp.
^[247]
Lapp’s photo presents not one, but three nozzles from Shechem (
Illus. 4:3
). All three are quite distinct, and only her middle example has a flattened tip and approximately the same proportions as the Nazareth shard. But it is not a close parallel—the Shechem example is noticeably wider at the base than at the tip. Lapp calls these “plain, wheel-made delphiniform lamps” whose “nozzles are rounded and carelessly formed.