The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (30 page)

Though it is routinely termed “Herodian” by many archaeologists (see below), I wish to reaffirm that the bow-spouted oil lamp dates from about 25 CE in the Galilee
at the earliest
. We recall that twelve of thirteen plain bow-spouted lamps found at Nazareth are Smith’s type 2, which is the
later
variety (
Illus
.
4.3
). If we accept Smith’s chronology, these most likely appeared in the latter part of the time span for such lamps, namely, from 75–100 CE onwards.

An overall conclusion now emerges with great clarity. After the protracted Jewish Revolt the country lay ravaged, the temple destroyed, and Jerusalem in ruins. People were in motion, seeking a fresh start, and the birth of Nazareth was one result of this momentous chapter in Jewish history. The evidence indicates quite clearly that the first settlers moved into the Nazareth basin in the generation following the First Jewish Revolt.

Regardless of which scenario we follow—early, middle, or late—one thing cannot be doubted: the emergence of Nazareth was after the time of Christ.

“Herodian”

The first reference to artefacts of “the Herodian period” from Nazareth appears to be a reference in a 1951 article by Father A. Médebielle. We recall that already in the late 1930s Fr. Kopp noted with astonishment that recent excavations under the Franciscan Convent had revealed “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” (quoting Fr. Tonneau from a few years before).
^[400]
Apparently over-reacting to this evidentiary lacuna, Médebielle wrote: “The pottery
of the time of Herod
betrays modest circumstances…”
^[401]
(Emphasis added.) Bagatti later corrected Médebielle’s assessment: “The excavations of 1955 made more precise the date of the ‘primitive’ habitations, because the pottery is far earlier that [
sic
] the ‘Herodian’ period.”
^[402]
In fact, Bagatti was the first to identify Bronze and Iron Age remains, which he did not realize were from ancient Japhia.
^[403]

Médebielle’s choice of Herod (the Great) in reference to Bronze-Iron Age finds was a portent of things to come. “Herodian”—a term so laden with chronological implications—would be used by Bagatti himself, and by many others, in reference to the tombs and oil lamps at Nazareth. We have seen that, in the former case the “Herodian” period is a small fraction of the lifespan of kokh-type tombs, while in the latter case the bow-spouted oil lamps appeared in the Galilee only towards the end of Herodian times.

Looking ‘past’ the designation “Herodian” allows us to recognize that the underlying structural and movable finds at Nazareth have nothing to do with the turn of the era. On the other hand, we will surely be misled if terminology guides our thinking, as it did Strange when he incorrectly thought that the 20+ kokh tombs (which he calls “Herodian”) were evidence for a “Herodian and pre-Herodian village.”
^[404]

Finally, we may note that these two major errors—misuse of “Herodian,” and misdating of kokh tombs—generally relate to one another. In the 1990s James Strange overtly identifies kokhim and “Herodian” tombs.
^[405]
With Bagatti, this identification must be ‘teased’ out, as it were. Yet, it becomes clear if the reader follows up sometimes vague, obscure, and difficult references—with which the Italian’s writings seem laden. On page 52 of
Excavations
, for example, the archaeologist writes:

We noticed [
in the Chapel of the Angel
] many sherds of very thin walls and well fired, and we have extracted, among other things, a flat handle characteristic of the “Herodian” period (see Chapter 5).

No page reference is given. The reader, presumably, is expected to examine sixty pages of text (which make up Chapter Five of
Excavations
) in order to find the “flat handle” of which Bagatti speaks. It is, I venture, on p. 280:

The last jug
described with spherical body and flat handle is well known from finds in kokhim…

The identification is made: what is “characteristic of the ‘Herodian’ period” is, for Bagatti, “well known from finds in kokhim.”

The reader also wonders at the arcane challenge to find “the last jug described with spherical body and flat handle”—a reference number would certainly be helpful. A search eliminates several jugs (no mention of a spherical body…), but towards the top of the same page, we discover the object (
Exc
. fig. 220:9):

9, a jug
with spherical body rebuilt from pieces. Leather coloured clay. From the zone to the east of the
Crusader church, No. 68a.

The corresponding diagram shows a jug with a handle identical to those of two neighboring jars. Bagatti considers this jug characteristic of the “Herodian” period (above). However, Fernandez (who typically espouses an early chronology) dates this jug from
c
. 60 CE–
c
. 200 CE.
^[406]
The reference Bagatti himself furnishes points to parallels “of the Roman and Byzantine periods.”
^[407]

The Italian is entirely correct in asserting that many artefacts are typically found in kokh tombs. The problem is that this general fact alone hardly signals a I CE dating in Galilee or anywhere else. Kokhim continued to be used for many centuries, as we have seen. Bagatti either did not realize this or he refused to acknowledge it. As a result, he arbitrarily transposes a wealth of later material back to the first century CE—“the Herodian period.” Furthermore, the references which the archaeologist himself provides contradict his chronology. When followed up, those references inevitably lead to later Roman and even to Byzantine times.

This
modus operandi
cannot exist without an  irreverent, almost cavalier approach to chronology.
^[408]
Unfortunately, “Herodian” is now almost universally applied to bow-spouted lamps. Yet, that is not the most extreme case—Bagatti has even been known to call such lamps Hellenistic.
^[409]

Some perceptive Jewish and Christian archaeologists have begun avoiding the term “Herodian” altogether. Alternatively, they put the designation in quotes—sometimes with an explanation to the effect that the tombs or oil lamps in question date later than the time of Herod the Great.

Other alleged evidence from the first century CE

Pottery

We have seen how two elements common in the Nazareth literature present a false impression of I CE evidence—the “Herodian” label applied to certain oil lamps, and phrases like “the age of the kokhim tombs,” so frequent in Bagatti’s writings. These elements have helped produce a false—and early—chronology of the place. Their misuse has facilitated the backdating of twenty kokh tombs, as many oil lamps, and associated artefacts—in other words,
virtually
all of Roman Nazareth
. For, once the early chronological implications are established, these two elements can then be used to misdate other evidence by association. After all, a panoply of evidence from Nazareth was found in kokh tombs, and much of it was also in the company of bow-spouted (“Herodian”) oil lamps.

The strategy of dating to I CE by association with “Herodian” lamps is found already in Bagatti’s 1955 article “Ritrovamenti nella Nazaret evangelica.”
^[410]
The priest offers a photo of nine fragments (some very small) of cooking pots from the venerated area, briefly describes them, and remarks:

…All these characteristics match those noted in ceramics which have to do with [
che si aggira sul
] the Herodian
Period—in some cases earlier as well, in some cases later—to which these pieces can be ascribed without difficulty.             

   This attribution is confirmed, among other things, by the discovery of so many fragments of “Herodian” lamps…
^[411]

Perhaps Bagatti forgot this passage when fifteen years later he included the same photo in
Excavations in Nazareth
, fig. 225, but failed there to mention the Herodian Period at all. Curiously, his information on dating (
Exc
. 285) omits all mention of fig. 225 and entirely discusses fig. 224 (“Cooking pots”). The relation between the two figures becomes apparent only when the following equivalences (presented in the fine print, as it were) are made:

Exc
. fig.          225:4      =    224:6

225:6      =    224:4

225:1a    =    224:7

All this needless complexity presents a sure obstacle to anyone seeking to make sense of Bagatti’s presentation, and perhaps one could be forgiven for avoiding such tedium and simply taking the archaeologist at his word, as most people have obviously done. Let us not be dissuaded, however, but see if we cannot determine what Bagatti is actually saying, at least in this particular instance.

We learn that the
earliest
of the cooking pots is “No. 1 of fig. 224” which recalls “the Roman period” (
Exc
. 285). This vague “Roman” assertion itself jeopardizes any necessary relationship between these objects and the Herodian period. But then, confusion reaches an altogether new level when we note that a few pages earlier Bagatti assigns that very shard to the Iron Age! His arcane cross-referencing has evidently gotten the better of the archaeologist himself. The details are:

• On page 269 of
Excavations
, item 215:7 is identified as
“the rim of the vase in fig. 224,1.”
This item is included in “Pottery
of the Iron Period.” Bagatti
continues: “Other elements of the Iron Period were found in silo 57…”

à
I.e
., 215:7 = 224:1; “rim of vase”; Iron Period.

• On page 282 of
Excavations
, “fig. 215,7” is identified with
artefact 224,1, “neck of cooking pot.”
This is included in the section “Pottery
of the Hellenistic Roman and Byzantine
Periods,” subsection “Cooking pots.”

à
I.e
., 215:7 = 224:1; “neck of cooking pot”; Hellenistic-Roman-Byz. Periods.

•  Finally, on page 285 of
Excavations
, we read: “The oldest element of these cooking pots
appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224, whether the pieces are parts of one sole vase, or two. The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts. At least from the designs given it is rare to note the thinning of the clay towards the rim,
but in reality it exists in many vases of the Roman period
, even though not in such a pronounced manner.” (Emphasis added.)

The upshot of all this is that the careful reader is left in complete perplexity. Bagatti’s earliest cooking pot turns out to be possibly Hellenistic, vaguely “Roman,” and elsewhere identified with the Iron Age. It can have absolutely no evidentiary value for the “Herodian” period, as he originally insisted in his 1955 article.

Given evidence of this sort of dissimulation, we are faced with the need
in every case
for independent scholarly assessments of the artefacts found at Nazareth, as well as for their typology and dating. The tendentious nature of Bagatti’s writings on Nazareth is clear, with the result that it is impossible to accord those writings the respect normally granted to scientific investigation. To ascribe an artefact on one page to the Iron Age, on another to the Roman period, and yet to use it as evidence for a village in the time of Christ, beggars all explanation. In fact, there is one and only one possible conclusion: in Bagatti’s writings we are dealing primarily not with archaeology, but with faith.

Except for individual oil lamps, there exists no objective study of pottery artefacts from Nazareth. This is a desideratum. We have already shown, in any case, that much of this pottery (that from kokh tombs) must postdate
c
. 50 CE. The general Nazareth evidence, as determined above, also points to a late-I CE beginning for the settlement. The pottery, glass objects, metal, etc., from the basin must certainly accord with these results. Indeed, Bagatti himself dates a great deal of the Nazareth material to Middle Roman, Late Roman, and Byzantine times (Appendix 6). The critical issue examined in these pages is the
early
evidence—the movable and structural finds that Bagatti and others claim is I CE. As far as the movable finds are concerned, these principally amount to a score of oil lamps, lamps which we have determined date as late as 135 CE.