The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (8 page)

A brief historical survey of the Iron II and III Ages shows that in the tenth century Megiddo was partially rebuilt (by Solomon?) and the land of Palestine enjoyed an interlude of relative peace. At Solomon’s death the empire broke into two inimical parts—Judah to the south, and Israel (Ephraim) to the north. The ninth century witnessed frequent wars between the two kingdoms. Israel was far less stable than its southern neighbor, not surprising in view of the fact that the northern kingdom consisted of a multitude of tribes vying for leadership, producing no less than nine dynasties between the tenth and the eighth centuries. On the other hand Judah knew only one dynasty—the House of David.

About 923 BCE the Egyptian pharoah Shishak invaded Palestine and sacked a number of cities, including Jerusalem and Megiddo. Megiddo was transformed into a garrison city for cavalry.

The ninth century witnessed the rise of Assyrian power, culminating in the conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE. The deportation of a great many Israelites and an enforced population exchange followed, with many foreigners settling in Galilee and Samaria, thus laying the ethnic and cultural basis for the future Samaritan schism. We need not here discuss the illustrious and long line of literary and political prophets from Amos to Zechariah, prophets from the eighth to the sixth centuries who play such an important role in both the Jewish and Christian religions.

The end of settlement in the basin

The evidence from Nazareth comes to a definite end with Iron III. After that time no evidence is forthcoming from the basin for many centuries.
^[81]
Iron III is a long period, lasting from 800 to 587 BCE, and many scholars consider that the period continued in the material (rather than historic) domain through the late sixth century. Within these three centuries, is it possible to pinpoint more precisely the end of habitation in the Nazareth basin?

 
Illus. 1.5
is of little use in this regard, for it tells us only that roughly ten artefacts date to Iron III. These are Bagatti’s very general results, incorporated into Appendix 2,
Itemization of the Iron Age artefacts
. There is no published dating of the Iron III material from Nazareth that offers greater precision, but our view of habitation at Nazareth during the eighth to sixth centuries is aided by what we learn from settlement patterns in the surrounding area.

Zvi Gal has done the most work in this field. “It seems,” he writes, “that the entire Galilee was abandoned after the Assyrian campaign of Tiglath-pileser III in 733–732 BCE.”
^[82]
This is consistent with the Biblical record that “he carried the people captive to Assyria” (2 Kgs 15:29). Gal pointedly notes: “We did not find any evidence of 7
^th
century BCE pottery in any of the Lower Galilee sites which we surveyed… We conclude, then, that the Lower Galilee was almost totally deserted during the 7
^th
century BCE”
^[83]
This important assessment certainly includes the area around Nazareth.

Mordechai Aviam also reviews what is known of Galilee during the Late Iron Age:

After the conquest of the Galilee by the Assyrians in the eighth century BCE, the population of the Galilee declined. Some scholars have tried to prove extensive continuity in Jewish settlement in the Galilee during the entire period between 732 BCE and 103 BCE.
^[84]

The archaeological evidence, however, indicates massive destruction and abandonment of almost all excavated sites… Archaeological surveys in the Galilee have not demonstrated almost any continuation of settlements between the eighth and fifth centuries BCE.

The written sources present a clear picture of heavy destruction and extensive deportation of residents from the Galilee without any resettlement of new inhabitants…

In summarizing the data from the Bible, the non-biblical sources and the archaeological finds, it is obvious that the Galilee almost completely lost its Israelite population.
^[85]

The older theory that there was “extensive continuity in Jewish settlement in the Galilee” from the Iron Age until Hasmonean times has now been discredited. One scholar comments:

The findings of Zvi Gal’s survey of Iron Age III sites (
i.e.
, seventh-sixth centuries BCE) challenge Albrecht Alt’s contention, argued from the literary sources for the most part, that the Israelite population in the Galilee was relatively undisturbed throughout centuries, thus providing the framework for the incorporation of the region into the
ethnos ton Ioudaion
by the Hasmoneans in the second century BCE (Gal, 1992; Alt, 1953). Alt believed that Galilee had fared better in the first Assyrian
onslaught in 732 BCE than Samaria
did in 721, when the native population was replaced by people of non-Israelite stock (2 Kgs. 14:29; 17:6,24). The absence from eighty-three surveyed sites in lower Galilee of four different pottery types, dated to that particular period on the basis of stratified digs at Hazor
and Samaria, has convinced Gal that there was a major depopulation of the area in the century after the fall of
Samaria.
^[86]

In light of the “massive destruction” attending the Assyrian conquest and the subsequent “extensive deportation of residents,” one would expect that the Nazareth site was abandoned in late VIII BCE along with the other settlements in Lower Galilee.
^[87]
In fact, this model is entirely consistent with the evidentiary profile from Nazareth that we shall now review.

The Iron Age evidence

This comes from several locations: (1) Two silos under the present Church of the Annunciation; (2) “Subterranean areas” under the nearby Church of St. Joseph; (3) A tomb 300 m southwest of the latter church. This tomb was studied by Ms. F. Vitto and will be referred to as the “Vitto” tomb; (4) A tomb (T. 75), about one-half kilometer from the Church of the Annunciation, which yielded no artefacts.

It should be mentioned that Tomb 1 may preserve a few items dating, at the very latest, to the Iron I period. This tomb is next to the modern Church of the Annunciation, a few meters from the southern edge of the old Byzantine wall.
^[88]
Tomb 1 continued in use at least into XIII BCE. Yet, the three items from this tomb that may date to the Iron Age could have been produced as early as LB IIA (fourteenth century). The objects in question are three similar bowls with a carination just below the rim.
^[89]
Amiran states: “This type of Late Bronze bowl has been found up to the present only in excavations in the south of the country. In the Iron I, at least as far as form is concerned, the type also appears to have spread to the north of the country.”
^[90]
These bowls require closer examination to more precisely establish their dating.

(1)
Silos
22 & 57
. Silos are frequently found dating to Iron I in Palestine, but were rare both before and after that period. Finkelstein writes that “A proliferation of silos generally characterizes groups in the process of sedentarization of societies organized in local rural frameworks.”
^[91]
The former of these possibilities supports the model of a new group entering the Nazareth basin in Iron I.

The purpose of silos was agricultural, to store grain (either wheat or barley). When plastered for the storage of liquids they are called cisterns. In ancient times such underground cavities were rarely located under dwellings, but often at the edge of a village or between houses. Thus they were primarily communal (perhaps shared by several households) rather than private.

The two silos 22 and 57
^[92]
contained pottery from the Iron period. Silo 22 is under the Church of the Annunciation, while Silo 57 is a few meters to its north. These two pits were sealed by dirt at the end of the Iron Age, thus establishing their use in that era.

(2)
Under the Church of
St. Joseph
. 28 shards from the Iron Age were recovered on the site of the present Church of St. Joseph. Material from Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval times was also discovered there. These finds are diagrammed and discussed by Bagatti in his article, “Scavo presso la Chiesa di S. Giuseppe a Nazaret.”
^[93]
For the dating of the Iron Age material, the archaeologist relies on typological comparisons with examples from Amiran’s
Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land
. The Iron Age finds from the Church of St. Joseph date mainly to Iron IIB–C (900–587 BCE), with a few that may possibly belong to Iron IIA.
^[94]

(3)
The Vitto
Tomb
. In 1973 a shaft tomb was discovered during the construction of a house, located approximately 300 m southwest of the Church of the Annunciation.
^[95]
It is one of two tombs dating to the Iron Age which have been discovered in the Nazareth basin. A study of this tomb and its finds was published by Fanny Vitto in 2001.
^[96]
Unlike Tomb 75 (discussed below), this one was not robbed in antiquity. However, perhaps owing to considerable damage by a bulldozer at the time of discovery, the finds were relatively scarce. All seven dated pottery artefacts from the tomb were attributed by the archaeologist to XI BCE (Iron IB). Other artefacts found include a scarab, beads, and bracelets. The scarab likewise dates to Iron IB.

The Loffreda assemblage
. Father S. Loffreda studied sixteen Iron Age artefacts whose provenance was unknown to him. However, it can be concluded that these finds come from the Vitto tomb for several reasons: (a) They are from an Iron Age tomb discovered in the early 1970s during the construction of a house (as was the Vitto tomb). (b) The Vitto tomb “had been disturbed prior to the excavation.” One locus was bereft of finds, yet “the cave did not seem to have been robbed in antiquity.”
^[97]
(c) Loffreda’s material was redated by Vitto to XI BCE, the same century as the Vitto finds. These suggest that the artefacts in the Loffreda assemblage had been removed from the Vitto tomb at or shortly after the time of discovery.

The Loffreda material is now in Jerusalem. Father Loffreda published his results in an article which begins as follows:

   The Museum of the
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum della Flagellazione
in Jerusalem
(Old City) received, some years ago, a collection of ceramics of the Iron Age. We know for sure only that the vessels came from Nazareth and that they were found during the construction of a new house, in a chamber tomb excavated in the rock. We also know that other objects were a part of this collection, but unfortunately no one at present can know the complete inventory…

   The collection received by the Museum is composed of sixteen clay vessels, one bone handle, and three metal bracelets. At the time of acquisition almost all the pottery had considerable incrustation owing to the humidity of the site. The breaks are almost all recent, and this suggests that the tomb was never robbed in antiquity…
^[98]

Loffreda dates the collection generally to Iron I which, according to his chronology, ranges from 1200–900 BCE.
^[99]
Vitto reviewed the assemblage and redated it more precisely to XI BCE.
^[100]

(4) Tomb 75.
^[101]
  This bench tomb is located
ca.
500 m northwest of the Franciscan convent at an elevation of almost 450 m, that is, about a five-minute walk from the crest of the hill. This is a large tomb with side chambers, benches, and a special repository for bones in the NW corner. Kopp, who visited the tomb, observed no less than six benches for bodies.
^[102]
The tomb was damaged and yielded no artefacts, but its plan conforms to Bloch-Smith’s Type 3 and Loffreda’s Type RR (rectangular chamber with subsidiary chambers). The type “appeared in the tenth century BCE at sites occupied by Israelites.”
^[103]
Hachlili and Killebrew note that this type of rock-cut tomb usually served a large number of people.
^[104]

Summary of the Iron Age evidence

The tabulation of artefacts shown in
Illus. 1.5
demonstrates continuity of habitation in the Nazareth basin through the Iron Period, sometimes referred to as “Biblical times.” Our discussion has shown that the twelfth century is poorly represented by finds at Nazareth, while the eleventh century is well-represented. Because no artefacts from Nazareth definitely date to the twelfth century BCE, we must consider the possibility that the basin was uninhabited at that time. The Iron Age material examined by Vitto, Loffreda, and Bagatti clearly points to the existence of a settlement in the eleventh century. Those people living in the basin after that time probably identified themselves as Israelites, and perhaps with the tribe of Zebulun. For the next three hundred years we also have evidence of habitation and/or of burial in the valley.