The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (52 page)

Many other nearby graves also remain to be explained, for Tomb 29 is but one of six under the CA, dating to Roman times. Kopp himself notes with astonishment that the basilica is located in a Roman cemetery:

In the closest proximity lay the Laham tomb to the south, the Shrine is now erected over a second Jewish kokim tomb (H), others may have been converted by workmen into cisterns, it is possible that even more [
tombs
] have disappeared in the foundations of the church and the bishop’s residence. A strong and certain recollection must have drawn the basilica into this cemetery [
Gräberfeld
].
^[753]
  

Kopp supposes that Tomb 29 (with a single surviving grave), together with its vestibule, is from the earliest part of the basilica. After considering the possibility that St. Joseph (not of Tiberias) was buried there, he concludes that “in IV CE fledgling Christianity fell victim to an error, in that it supposed Mary herself was buried here. Even her birth was for a long time localized in Nazareth, though Jerusalem has the older and better claim to that.” Elsewhere Kopp writes:

The signs of love [
evident
] in the construction, embellishment, and graffiti at so early a time can only be connected with her. The basilica took on literary life as “the house of Mary”; she, not Saint Joseph, is the soul of the sanctuary. 
^[754]

By VI CE popular Christian tradition had localized Mary’s tomb in the Kidron Valley near Jerusalem. From that time forward any connection of Nazareth to the tomb of Mary was an embarrassment. “Soon the veil of forgetfulness fell over our rock grotto,” writes the German.

Unable to satisfactorily explain Tomb 29, Kopp speaks of the “riddle of this small rock cave.” In Chapter Five (p. 257) we considered the possibility that Count Joseph was buried in this grave, and noted that such a burial would resolve many problems for the Church. But it is hardly likely. Are we to imagine that the Christians allowed someone to be buried under the house of Mary? Besides, the Count died in Scythopolis. Are we to suppose that his body was carried to Nazareth and interred there, a hero of the
minim
in this Jewish village? Such ideas are remarkably inventive, but have nothing to do with the evidence of Nazareth. The kokhim tombs under the Church of the Annunciation were mundane burials of inhabitants of the Jewish village. Riddles accompany these tombs only when we introduce impossible Christian expectations.

The Secondary Literature

A characteristic passage

We have covered much chronological territory in this book, from the Stone Age through Roman times. In so doing, we have seen the Nazareth basin occupied, then laid waste, then left empty of human habitation, and finally reoccupied in Middle Roman times. This chronology is entirely new, for continuous habitation or a Hellenistic renaissance are what the curious inquirer will read elsewhere. Certainly, the published literature furnishes scholar and layperson alike no
entrée
into the actual facts of the matter. A representative example of the general view of Nazareth’s history is given in a popular book published in 1998. Lee Strobel’s
The
Case for Christ
devotes a couple of pages to “Puzzle 2: Existence of Nazareth.” Strictly intended for the layperson, we read there:

In an article called “Where Jesus Never Walked,” atheist Frank
Zindler noted that Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, by the apostle Paul, by the Talmud (although sixty-three other Galilean towns are cited), or by Josephus (who listed forty-five other villages and cities of Galilee, including Japha, which was located just over a mile from present-day Nazareth). No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazareth before the beginning of the fourth century. The name first appears in Jewish literature in a poem written about the seventh century A.D.   (Strobel:102)

Zindler’s 1993 article correctly deduces many conclusions we have arrived at in these pages, without the benefit of a detailed itemization and analysis of the material record. He places the town on the valley floor, notes that the venerated area was full of tombs in later Roman times and uninhabitable, points to the lack of masonry remains from the first century, the vague (mis)use of the phrase “Roman period” to backdate evidence, and concludes that the basin was settled “some time after the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E.” This is admirably close to the date arrived at in these pages, but though correct in so many ways, Zindler’s article receives short shrift in Strobel’s admittedly conservative tome. Strobel solicits the opinion of an American archaeologist, John McRay (who to my knowledge has not published or dug at Nazareth). McRay in turn cites secondary literature written by James Strange, voicing opinions we have already rebutted. Strange backdates the removal of the Hapizzez from Jerusalem to after 70 CE rather than after 135 CE, and notes “first-century tombs” (which we have seen postdate 50 CE). These two claims are really the only “hard” (non-) evidence  furnished for a village “at the beginning of the first century.” Strobel concludes his treatment as follows:

“Such findings suggest that Nazareth may have existed in Jesus’ time, but there is no doubt that it must have been a very small and insignificant place.”

So insignificant that Nathanael’s musings in John 1:46 now make more sense: “Nazareth!” he said. “Can anything good come from there?”  (Strobel 103–04)

A comment is in order regarding this statement from the fourth gospel, which is often interpreted as above. Nathaniel’s question does not speak of Nazareth’s size but of its
goodness
. In fact, Nazareth was viewed with hostility by the evangelists, for it did not believe in Jesus and “he could do no mighty work there” (Mk 6:5). In all four gospels we read the famous saying, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house” (Mt 13:57; Mk 6:4; Lk 4:24; Jn 4:44). As is well known, at Lk 4:29 the Nazarenes even attempt to kill Jesus by throwing him off a cliff. Many scholars since W. Wrede in 1901
^[755]
 
 have noted the so-called “Messianic secret,” whereby Jesus’ true nature and mission were unseen by many, including by his inner circle of disciples (Mk 8:27–33;
pre-70
only those to whom the Father reveals Jesus will be saved, Jn. 6:65; 17:6, 9,
etc
.). Nazareth, being the home of those near and dear to Jesus, apparently suffered negatively in relation to this doctrine. Thus, Nathaniel’s question, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” is consistent with a negative view of Nazareth in the canonical gospels, and with the fact that even Jesus’ brothers did not believe him (Jn 7:5). We shall consider this animus against Nazareth—which also extended to “Nazarenes”—in a subsequent volume.

Strobel’s treatment is fairly typical of what the average person can expect to read concerning the history of Nazareth. It does not consider the primary literature, is based upon faulty data and unfounded conclusions in the secondary literature, and ardently defends tradition.

Arguments from silence

Each person seeking a rational conclusion about Nazareth in the time of Jesus must eventually tally up the evidence. The two sides of the tally are essentially “I BCE” and “I CE.” Those who advocate a village in Jesus’ time must show material evidence from the first century BCE—no other century will really do. On the other hand, those who deny a village in Jesus’ time must show that no material evidence has been found from that century.

In Chapter 4 we located all of the relevant evidence on one side of the tally—to CE times. All the extant post-Iron tombs postdate 50 CE, all the oil lamps postdate 25 CE, and not even a shard necessarily predates 100 CE. Furthermore, we saw that there is
no
Hellenistic evidence from the basin, nor any from I BCE going back to Assyrian times. So, the tally—very generally set forth—looks like this:

    
    I BCE                                                            I CE

Evidence of                                 Evidence of the birth of 

        Nazareth at the                 Nazareth in the common era

Time of Jesus

—— none——                             After 25 CE: All oil lamps

                                                        After 50 CE: All post-Iron age tombs

After 50 CE: All pottery and other movable evidence

Having reviewed the evidence regarding ancient Nazareth, the claim that a settlement existed in the basin at the turn of the era is one argument from silence that can no longer be tolerated.
^[756]
  The ledger is clear: on one side is a panoply of evidence, which unambiguously shows that people began coming into the basin in the second half of I CE, and that the settlement—one that can be deemed worthy of a name—emerged in the decades between the two Jewish revolts (Chapter 4). On the other side of the ledger lies only a glaring void. Not even the two stone vessels—the sole recovered artefacts from the basin which could conceivably date to the turn of the era—are secure evidence for Jesus’ village, for such vessels continued to be used and manufactured into the second century of our era. On the basis of the surrounding context it is all but certain that the use of those vessels dates to the interwar decades. The structural evidence that is datable is equally clear. It consists of approximately two dozen tombs of kokh and later types. (The agricultural installations are not independently datable.) We have seen in Chapter 4 that those tombs postdate mid-I CE in the Galilee. Together with the oil lamps and pottery, this is powerful confirmation indeed that the village came into being towards the end of the first century of our era.

Because there is no demonstrable evidence from the turn of the era, the claim of a village at that time has no substantiation at all. Those who argue for a village at the time of Jesus have nothing material on which to base their opinion, and they must argue
against
the available material evidence. This is the situation with Nazareth: material evidence on one side confronts arguments from silence on the other.

This is not new. There has long been a tendency to overlook disturbing evidence at Nazareth (
e.g
., tombs under the venerated area) and, where possible, to exploit lacunae in the archaeological record in order to promote the tradition view. The implications of such convenient arguments are rarely taken into account and often lead to ridiculous scenarios.

One obvious lacuna in the archaeological record is that the Nazareth valley floor has never been excavated.
^[757]
  In Chapter Five it was demonstrated that the village was not on the hillside. For some, the claim that a settlement
of Jesus’ time
must therefore have been located precisely on the valley floor cannot be far behind. After all, we have noted that the inhabited portion of the settlement, in the periods when people lived in the basin, was indeed on the valley floor.
^[758]
  The issue at hand is chronology, not location. The valley floor is now heavily built over and will in all likelihood never be excavated. This is convenient for those who claim a village there in the time of Christ, but it is untenable on several grounds. First of all, it is hardly likely that the village predated its tombs. The dozens of scattered tombs from Roman Nazareth that have been excavated on the hillsides all postdate 50 CE. This shows that the village did also. As was stated: “The earliest tomb at Nazareth is a significant clue regarding the existence of a village” (Chapter 4, p. 157). 

In order to deny the fairly overwhelming evidence from Nazareth, the tradition must resort to increasingly farfetched arguments from silence, such as that tombs of Hellenistic and Early Roman times are somewhere on the hillside but have simply not been discovered. A glance at a map of the basin (Chapter 5,
Illus 5.2
), however, shows this line also to be futile. Is it possible to seriously maintain that not one tomb from Hellenistic or Early Roman times has been found, though a score of later Roman tombs have?

Some arguments from silence are like kicking the proverbial can down the road. One argument is dispatched only to be replaced by another of similar ilk. This situation especially obtains when one party seeks to evade evidence rather than respect it. Unfortunately, such opportunities are theoretically unlimited. They range from refusing to engage in substantive argument, to redefining terms, to intimidation and (in bygone eras) even elimination of the opposition.

It is worthwhile to consider the various counter-arguments to the evidence, because the issue of Nazareth in the time of Jesus is so explosive. In the case of the putative Hellenistic tombs mentioned above, once such tombs are shown not to be on the hillside of the Nebi Sa‘in, then one might assert that they were elsewhere—perhaps on the valley floor itself. But this too makes little sense, and is a reversal of what one would expect: presumably, the ancient Jews were living on the steep and rocky hillside, and constructing their tombs on the flat valley floor!