The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (2 page)

Arguments from silence

Literary Considerations

(1) “Nazareth” outside the Gospels

In pagan and Jewish sources

The fourth century Christian sources

“Nazareth” in Ante-Nicene literature

(2) Nazareth in the early gospel tradition

Nazara and its cognates

Epilogue

Appendices to Chapter One

Appendix 1:
Itemization of the Bronze-Age Artefacts

Appendix 2: Itemization of the Iron Age Artefacts

Appendix 3: The Stratigraphy of Megiddo

Appendices to Chapter Six

Appendix 4: The Nazareth Tombs

Appendix 5:
Independent Datings of Nazareth Lamps and Pottery

Appendix 6:
Pottery and Movable Artefacts from Nazareth

Appendix 7
: Nazareth Timeline From
c
. 135 CE

Bibliography

Index

GENERAL  INDEX

Seek not to worship

but to understand.

Introduction

This need is prevalent, in what must be construed as an irrational manner, …that the archaeologists prove that all the events described in the Bible did indeed occur and that all the figures mentioned and the episodes described are entirely consistent with reality. There is in this demand a violation of archaeological integrity and an attempt to impose upon archaeology unattainable objectives—that is, the proof of faith.

…It is therefore not a coincidence that a considerable proportion of the archaeologists active in the Land of Israel over the past one hundred years have come from the religious establishment. Many of them received a large part of their education at various theological seminaries, while their archaeological training was often deficient. This is particularly evident among American archaeologists…

This state of affairs has given biblical
archaeology a reputation for amateurism in some archaeological circles. Modern scientific excavation is so complex that those who have not received adequate training (which is the case with most of those educated at theological seminaries) cannot conduct one properly.

—Amnon
Ben-Tor,
The Archaeology of Ancient Israel
  (1992, p.9).

The archaeology of Nazareth fully corroborates Ben-Tor’s words. The early history of that hallowed ground is as unknown today as when digging first began, one hundred and fifteen years ago. Despite excavations conducted over many generations, mystery covers Nazareth like a blanket protecting a precious baby. In some circles, questions regarding the history of the village are unwelcome, as if the baby might be disturbed by too much probing. So, a venerable hush has settled over the place, a quiet acceptance in catholic circles that the
mysterium verbi
, and all associated with it, is beyond man’s understanding.
^[1]

No one really knows what happened at Nazareth two thousand years ago. Some scholars, uncomfortable with a posture of pure veneration, have attempted to peel back the blanket, at least slightly, only to confront a thick wall of tradition. “Go no further!” is the stern message conveyed to him who asks too many questions. Yet the questions multiply. Already in the nineteenth century some liberal scholars wondered why the town was not mentioned in the Jewish scriptures, nor in the Talmud, nor even once in the prolix writings of the first-century Galilean general, Josephus. The latter had, after all, lived in Japhia, a town less than two miles from Nazareth. Why, they asked, did the first Christian generations either completely ignore the place, or appear to not know where it was? The first writer to mention Nazareth (Julius Africanus,
c
. 200 CE) locates it in Judea.
^[2]
Again, why in the
Acts of the Apostles
(24:5), is Paul called a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans”? Certainly he was not the leader of onetime inhabitants of Nazareth! “Nazorean,” these questioners opined, must once have referred to something other than a place. If so, then what
was
a “Nazorean” (Ναζαωραȋος)? That term seems to be first used by Matthew, for Mark does not know it—the latter exclusively uses Ναζαρηνέ. In any case, English translations invariably read “Jesus of Nazareth” for both ’ Ιησοû Ναζαρηνέ and ’Ιησοûς ό Ναζωραȋος. But was this the original meaning? Finally—for these questions are without end—why in his birth story does the evangelist Matthew introduce Nazareth with a perfectly unknown saying?

And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazaret, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean [
Ναζωραȋος
].” (Mt 2:23)

No such text, “He shall be called a Nazorean,” exists in Hebrew scripture. Often called the most Jewish of the evangelists, Matthew was surely the least likely to make such an error.

From the Enlightenment until today scholars have questioned the historical foundations of the Christian religion. Some have even had the impertinence to deny that Jesus ever existed at all, at least as a flesh-and-blood human being (a few opine that Jesus was a spirit).
^[3]
Yet, mere opinion is weak, like a little water thrown against a wall. It will not bring down two thousand years of tradition. But, with demonstrable facts on its side and backed by science, a position rises above mere opinion. Though facts are fundamental, however, one should not suppose that they alone decide the issue, for everyone claims to have them. After all, in the realm of imperfect human discourse a “fact” is only that which is provable.

This is what gives the Nazareth issue such great potency. Unlike aspects of the gospel story that are quite beyond verification—the miracles of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, his virgin birth, or even his human nature—the existence of Nazareth two thousand years ago can be proved or disproved by digging in the ground. Because the archaeology of a site is empirically demonstrable, “Nazareth” is in a category apart. To this day, it preserves the explosive potential to either prove or disprove the gospel accounts.

Upon that determination depends a great deal, perhaps even the entire edifice of Christendom. For more is involved here than the mere imputation of error to holy writ, grave as that may appear in conservative circles (though hardly new). Motive must also be considered. If Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus, then questions quickly arise: Why did the evangelists place him there? Was there something regarding his
real
provenance that they found objectionable? What
was
that provenance? If Nazareth was a persistent and recurrent invention  in the gospels, then we leave the realm of error and enter the realm of elaborate fiction. This  recognition would require a fundamental reappraisal of the Jesus story, and a paradigm shift in Christianity.

Most scholars summarily dismiss the “invention” of Nazareth on the grounds that the town is frequently mentioned in the Christian gospels. Unwittingly, archaeology is thus held hostage to literary considerations. The textual case for Nazareth in the gospels is much weaker, however, than is generally supposed. The settlement is named only once in the Gospel of Mark, at 1:9 (other instances in the Greek text read ’Ιησοû Ναζαρηνέ). The passage as it stands demonstrably conflicts with the remainder of the gospel, which locates Jesus’ home in Capernaum. Thus, it can be shown that the Gospel of Mark contains the later interpolation of a single word, “Nazaret” at 1:9. Furthermore, the literary genesis of Nazareth occurs in one of the most problematic passages of Christian scripture, Mt 2:23 (cited above). For its part, the Gospel of Luke is equally problematic. It demonstrates a strident anti-Capernaum stance and the enigmatic scene in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk 4:16–30) has been shown to be an elaborate reworking of prior materials.

A textual examination of “Nazareth” and its cognates in the New Testament must be left for another work,
^[4]
but it can at least be recognized that if Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus then many of the problems mentioned above come closer to resolution: why it was not mentioned in the Jewish scriptures, the Talmud, or Josephus; why the first Christian generations ignored the place and appeared not to know where it was; and why the Greek gospels so often wrote “Jesus the Nazarene” instead of “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Though this study focuses on the archaeology of Nazareth and on the material aspects associated with the site, I have presented those facts in the broader context of geography and history. The context is critical, for it alone will validate the radically different history of the site which is presented here. These six chapters show that in each era the existence or non-existence of a settlement in the Nazareth basin is consistent with what we know of surrounding settlements in Lower Galilee. Multiple surveys of the area have been conducted, and many sites in the region have now been excavated. Whatever we may say of the history of Nazareth, it was certainly compatible with broader considerations.

About twenty primary reports form the backbone of this study. These reports are “primary” because firstly, they include published information on specific finds and loci (itemizations,
etc
.), and secondly, they were authored by the excavators themselves or, if not by them, then by experts in subspecialties (
e.g
. oil lamps) who have reviewed specific finds from Nazareth. Specificity is essential, for the Nazareth literature is laden with unsubstantiated conclusions, over-generalizations, and not a little vagueness. Typically, the primary reports represent the first time new evidence appeared in print. Many were written by priests under the auspices of the Custodia di Terra Santa, for the Franciscan Order owns the area of the venerated sites in Nazareth, the only area in the basin to have been extensively excavated.

It is important to note at the outset that the Christian excavators at Nazareth have not all been expert in assessing the nature of the finds they themselves report. This was especially the case with the earlier excavators, who were digging before archaeology became a modern science. The principal archaeologists at Nazareth have been three: Brother Vlaminck in the late nineteenth century, Father Viaud, and Father Bagatti. The first two did not receive any scientific training. Père Viaud was by his own admission an “improvised archaeologist… with no serious acquaintance of archaeology.” His book
Nazareth et Ses Deux Eglises
(1910) was the primary source for the archaeology of the site until the 1960s. It was then superceded by Father Bellarmino Bagatti’s two-volume work,
Excavations in Nazareth
. The principal archaeologist at Nazareth, Bagatti (1905–1990) fits Ben-Tor’s description of the seminary-trained archaeologist. He received his training at the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology in Rome, where in 1934 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Christian Archaeology. Beginning in 1935 he held a chair at the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem teaching Christian Archaeology.

The books of Viaud and Bagatti have traditionally been the main sources for information on Nazareth. Through the years, Bagatti also authored a number of dictionary articles and smaller studies on Nazareth. There is, however, a major flaw in all this Catholic literature: it is unabashedly apologetic. Its interpretations and conclusions have been largely shaped by the exigencies of doctrine and scripture, not by science.

This study attempts to arrive at an objective assessment of the site independent of doctrinal exigencies. To do so, it is necessary  to carefully separate the wealth of evidence conveyed in Catholic publications from the conclusions contained therein. The critical distinction between evidence and conclusion is not made in the mass of secondary literature, which has accepted both the data from Nazareth and conclusions of “conformist” archaeologists, conclusions that are often completely unrelated to the evidence. The secondary literature consists of dictionary and encyclopedia articles, as well as many sections on Nazareth in scholarly monographs.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of scholars and laypeople consult the secondary literature when reaching an opinion about Nazareth. Thus, the average person is two steps removed from a correct appreciation of the site: he must deal with the problems of conformism in both the secondary and the primary literature. This has allowed a very erroneous view of the site to hold the field and remain fundamentally unchallenged.