The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (22 page)

Bagatti’s inconsistency is also noted. In 1970 he writes of a pile with no order, and a year later of an “inverse” order. Surely his first observation is correct, for the building of a rubbish heap (which is essentially what the shard-pile originally represented) is rarely done with care, and much mixing and scattering inevitably take place.

It can also be noted that in this excavation Bagatti had no way to know what came from where, nor even if the material in the shard-pile had been excavated at the site or had been brought in from somewhere else.

It is of course not possible to expect modern scientific methods from the earlier Franciscans, nor even from Bagatti. Today excavation is conducted with the stratigraphic position of everything (sometimes even pollen!) being carefully documented. Thus, it is possible to create a three-dimensional diagram showing the original positions of all material at a site. Though such scientific rigor was never expected of the Franciscans, we do have every right to ask why they did not use the proper care and correct methods available at their time. Sloppiness, too, can be useful, as when the desire exists that certain facts
not
see the light of day. In this case confusion and disorder are a tool. We have already noted (Chapter Two) a chronological confusion, a “cavalier” approach to dating, under which the tradition has labored in dealing with the archaeological evidence from Nazareth. With so much to hide—indeed, the entire eight hundred year hiatus—is it any surprise that the Franciscans have chosen not rigor, but laxity in their archaeological work?

Remaining material represented as Hellenistic

In the preceding pages we have reviewed the three principal cases in which Nazareth evidence was labeled Hellenistic in the primary literature. These cases are notable because the conclusions based upon them have been enormous, though the shards themselves are sometimes very slight.

We now turn our attention to the few remaining Hellenistic claims of specific material in the ground.

• A.
On page 183 of Bagatti’s Excavations in Nazareth, we read:

We give (figs. 144–5) the principal pieces of pottery found in the earth over the Grotto. Evidently they appertain to different periods, and
from the oldest shards
we can establish with certainty the presence of life there several centuries before Christ
.        (Emphasis added.)

This eminently quotable and self-assured statement places us squarely in the evidentiary gap following the Iron Age, the gap that I have termed the Great Hiatus (Chapter Two). In the last sentence Bagatti insists upon the incontrovertible existence of evidence from (presumably) the Hellenistic period. Of what does that certain evidence consist?

The archaeologist himself eliminates from contention ten of the eleven shards in the accompanying photo (p. 184), for in the itemization and discussion we read that Nos. 1–7 are from the Iron Period; No. 11 is Byzantine; while Nos. 9 and 10 are unspecified. This means that shard no. 8 bears the full weight of Bagatti’s certainty regarding “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ.” It is a triangular shard, approximately three inches long (no scale is given). The description reads:

8: Fragment of vase, exterior view, with white colour below and black above. On the inside (5 mm. thick) it is black, although the outside is leather coloured.

Remarkably, on the immediately following page the archaeologist admits that he is not certain whether the shard is early at all. In contrast to his previous conviction, he now mildly suggests that it may be Roman or Hellenistic:

“The black
varnish given to No. 8 reminds us of the custom in such products during Hellenistic-Roman times.” (P. 185).

Of course, black varnish was used in many epochs. Though Bagatti appears to be suggesting “Hellenistic-Roman times” for the shard, his statement is a monument of ambiguity which may refer only to the varnish. In any case, the archaeologist is merely offering a suggestion, not a rigorous typological comparison—the varnish simply “reminds” him of a custom during Hellenistic-Roman times, that is, between 330 BCE and 330 CE, a period of no less than six and one-half centuries! The word “Hellenistic” appears entirely gratuitous. There is nothing uniquely Hellenistic about the shard, and the Italian offers no parallels in a footnote. We must conclude that his certainty regarding the “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ” has no material basis.

Judging from the context, no. 8  is probably not a Hellenistic outlier, but comes from the Iron Age or possibly from Roman times, as Bagatti himself intimates. There is no reason at all to consider it Hellenistic.

Bagatti’s
modus operandi
is transparent. On the one hand an archaeological statement is made with conviction, a statement which is eminently quotable and which establishes the Church’s position regarding Nazareth. Such statements are amenable to citation in the secondary literature. Then, however—in the ‘fine print’ as it were—the former conviction is modified, reduced, or even annulled. In every case involving Hellenistic evidence, inadequate (or no) substantiation is given for the prior certainty.

As regards the St. Joseph’s shard, Bagatti’s self-contradictory presentation suggests that he has merely engineered an opportunity to introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his tome. It had the desired effect. For example, in reference to this very passage from Bagatti’s
Excavations
, Joan Taylor writes: “Sherds found in rock fissures within the grotto date from Hellenistic to Byzantine times.”
^[279]
Other authors have been similarly misled.

• B
. On pages 136–37 of
Excavations
in Nazareth,
we read:

The Objects found under the pavement give us the remains of several periods, but as far as we know nothing beyond the 5
^th
century. The oldest fragment appears to be the big vase Fig. 79, No. 1, with a small lip on top, which has parallels in Hellenic times and also earlier. Considering their fragmentary nature,
^[280]
it is not easy to be precise, but the type is clear. Equally Hellenistic is the concave collar, No. 4, of which there are samples from the 1
^st
century B.C.

        (i) Two claims of Hellenistic (“Hellenic”) evidence are made by Bagatti in these lines. The first is to a fragment of a “big vase [
i.e
., jar] Fig. 79, No. 1.” The description at
Exc
. p. 132 describes the fragment as follows: “rim of a wide open vase of clay of a leather colour outside and black inside…” A black and white photo of the shard is offered (fig. 80:1). It appears to be approximately 1 x 3 inches (no scale is given). Bagatti writes (above) that it has parallels in Hellenistic times “and also earlier.” In a footnote he gives two parallels—both to the Iron Age. If the shard were Hellenistic, one can be sure the archaeologist would have provided Hellenistic parallels, for that is the era he claims for it. Bagatti freely admits that the shard could be “earlier.” This is confirmed by the parallels provided, and we shall accordingly consider that it comes from the Iron Age. There is nothing particularly Hellenistic about the artefact, and the word “Hellenic” may again be gratuitous.

 (ii) The second reference to Hellenistic evidence occurs in the last sentence of the above citation and regards “the concave collar, No. 4.” Unfortunately, Bagatti’s text and diagram supply only the most general idea of this shard. No photo is provided, and we do not even know the size of the piece in question. The pertinent description (
Exc
. 132) reads simply: “mouth of a vase of yellowish clay, well fired, made in haste.” Bagatti claims there are “samples from the 1
^st
century B.C.,” by which he seems to mean that this shard has similarities with  artefacts of I BCE from elsewhere in Palestine. He offers a footnote with parallels. It is tempting to explore those parallels here
^[281]
and to verify whether they are indeed first century BCE. But that does us little good. Though we can learn all we wish about the parallels he furnishes, we are supplied with insufficient information to match or not match the Nazareth shard against them. Finally, Bagatti’s wording is not a rigorous typological match, but simply a similarity. In sum, we cannot admit the shard as evidence of anything, for we know too little about it. This Hellenistic claim must be rejected as unverifiable.

• C.
On page 285 of
Excavations
we read of a shard that Bagatti apparently ascribes to the Roman period, and in whose description we also find the word “Hellenistic.” It is the neck of a cooking pot, “maroon outside, black inside”:
^[282]

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
.]

In a footnote, Bagatti provides only Roman parallels for this shard. Similar to the preceding case, the word “Hellenistic” in this description is misleading and entirely gratuitous.

Unsubstantiated Hellenistic claims

We have now reviewed all the material evidence that the primary Nazareth literature presents as “Hellenistic,” and have found that the little that in fact exists has invariably been misrepresented. We began with the Richmond oil lamps, considered the “Hellenistic nozzle,” the St. Joseph material, and finally the few remaining artefacts that Bagatti claimed belonged to the Hellenistic period. In each case we discovered that the Hellenistic claim was unfounded. Only in the case of one shard (C, above), was there not enough information to arrive at a conclusive opinion. But, given what we have learned in the foregoing discussion, it is all but certain that this shard, too, is not “Hellenistic.” It appears to be  yet another pretext to introduce that word into Bagatti’s book.

 We now come to a different class of assertion: those Hellenistic claims made by Bagatti and others that are not backed by any discrete evidence at all. Numerically, such abstract claims preponderate, for they are very easy to make. They are found in both the primary and secondary literature on Nazareth, and are particularly damaging for they are often eminently quotable. These empty “Hellenistic” claims are found in virtually all the reference works on the place, including Bagatti’s own reports. We now look at several such general declarations in
Excavations
. They are simply claims, not tied to any material evidence at all, and are prominent in the text, usually being found at the head of a section or in its closing summary.

• D.
On pages 29 and 32 of
Excavations
we read the following critical conclusion, which we have previously encountered:

Chronologically we have: tombs
of the Middle Bronze Period;
silos
with ceramics of the Middle Iron Period; and then,
uninterruptedly, ceramics and constructions of the
Hellenistic
Period
down to modern times.

This assertion was carefully analyzed in Chapter Two in reference to the doctrine of continuous habitation.
^[283]
It mentions “ceramics and constructions of the Hellenistic Period,” but I wish to emphasize that nowhere does Bagatti discuss any actual “constructions” (wall foundations, tombs, agricultural installations) of that period. Had he done so, I would mention it now and would itemize those passages here. There are none. The only pre-Christian structural remains in the basin that Bagatti discusses are Bronze and Iron Age tombs and silos (Chapter One). In the next chapter we shall consider Roman and later structural evidence. Nowhere does Bagatti (or anyone else) discuss any actual “constructions” from the centuries of the Great Hiatus at Nazareth,
i.e., c.
700 BCE–
c
. 100 CE.

In light of this situation, the word “Hellenistic” in the above citation simply does not belong. Bagatti’s last phrase should read: “and then, ceramics and constructions of the
Roman
Period uninterruptedly down to modern times.”

However, the statement as published had great effect. It helped establish the doctrine of continuous habitation (Chapter Two), and introduced the ‘certainty’ of Hellenistic evidence at Nazareth. It was requoted or paraphrased in the
Encyclopedia Judaica
and other reference works.
^[284]
Even with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, a sentence such as the above can be especially damaging, for a scholar need only read it once in order to assure himself that the village of Nazareth existed in Hellenistic times. Indeed, that is why the statement was thus worded.