The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (33 page)

In the controlled excavations no ossuaries
were seen, like those found,
e.g
., in Jerusalem. But since the excavations are very limited we cannot deny that in other tombs
a second burial might have taken place in ossuaries. It is certain that at the “Fright” of the Greek Orthodox there are thrown about many pieces of soft stone with ornaments which belonged to one or more ossuaries. The walls have 3 cm. of thickness and are well worked on the outside, but a little rough on the inside. Nearby are grottos and one might assume that ossuaries were in use therein. The place is much frequented, which explains the breaking of the ossuaries.
^[445]

The “Fright” is the reputed spot from where the Virgin Mother observed the angry Nazarenes when they attempted to throw the Savior off a cliff (Lk 4:29).
^[446]
It is located 1.2 km south of the CA. If the archaeologist is correct, then it would appear that there were one or more kokhim tombs at the “Fright” with Middle-Late Roman ossuaries. Those kokh tombs have not been discovered, but several “grottos” exist at the site which could long ago have been transformed.

The fragments Bagatti describes belong to decorated chalk ossuaries, one of three subtypes described by Aviam.
^[447]
If those fragments at the “Fright” were from a kokh tomb—as seems entirely probable—then they must have postdated mid-I CE, as did such tombs themselves. They suggest comparison with ossuary fragments found in the excavation of a nearby tomb complex at Nazrat Illit, 2.6 km east of the CA, conducted by Nurit Feig in 1980–81. Feig dates those ossuaries to the second–third centuries CE.
^[448]
Aviam has generally dated ossuary use in Galilee to the “second to fourth centuries CE.”
^[449]
Thus, the ossuary fragments described by Bagatti are not evidence of I CE.

Sarcophagi

Four sarcophagi are mentioned by Bagatti on pp. 246–47 of
Excavations
. Two survive—one for an adult and one for a child (the other two were last attested in the 1800s). The photo provided shows a sarcophagus festooned with garlands. Sarcophagi have been known since time immemorial (
pre-70
ancient Egypt). Goodenough discusses several turn-of-the-era examples from the “Tomb of the Kings” in Jerusalem. Recently, Aviam has offered a comprehensive review of Galilean sarcophagi.
^[450]

Bagatti describes the larger Nazareth sarcophagus as “of Roman appearance.” He notes that the plaque bears no inscription and supposes that it may have faded. However, it was quite common to leave the inscription blank, for sarcophagi were (like kokhim) used for a succession of burials.
^[451]
The decoration is similar to that found on sarcophagi at Beth Shearim,
^[452]
and this suggests a Middle-Late Roman dating.

The adult Nazareth sarcophagus found in the Crusader cemetery appears to belong to a large group of Sepphoris sarcophagi. The Crusaders included several virtually identical ones into the wall of their grand tower on the hill.
^[453]
It is probable that this and the other sarcophagi were brought to Nazareth from outside, perhaps as an ornamental addition to the sacred sites long frequented by pilgrims.
^[454]
These massive stone objects are aesthetically pleasing and quite imposing.

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that a Nazareth sarcophagus dates before II CE. In any case, the original findspots of these objects now seem beyond proof. They are discussed here simply for completeness.

Inscriptions

Bagatti treats a number of inscriptions. We shall here consider only those which he or others have claimed go back to I CE. They are two:

 (1) A tablet currently at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris carries a Greek inscription and is sometimes called the “Edict of Nazareth” or “Ordinance of Caesar.” The inscription outlines the penalty of death for those who violate tombs or graves, and similar ones are well known from late antiquity.
^[455]
Its date and provenance are uncertain, though it was shipped from Nazareth to Paris in 1878. Yet, this inscription continues to be cited in the Nazareth literature as evidence of a I CE settlement there. For example, from a 1992 publication we read the following: “The tombs of Nazareth are less known among students of Early Roman Palestine than the famous Greek inscription found there, probably dating to the mid-first century CE, of an imperial decree prohibiting grave-robbing.”
^[456]

Bagatti does not use it as evidence. He writes: “we are not certain that it was found in Nazareth, even though it came from Nazareth to Paris. At Nazareth there lived various vendors of antiquities who got ancient material from several places.”
^[457]
C. Kopp is more definite: “It must be accepted with certainty that [
the
Ordinance of Caesar
]... was brought to the Nazareth market by outside merchants.”
^[458]
In addition, the inscription may be a forgery or may date much later than mid-I CE. All these facts disqualify the Ordinance of Caesar as evidence from Nazareth in I CE.

(2) Kopp reports on an Aramaic funerary inscription now in the Franciscan Museum of Nazareth.
^[459]
In the scholarly literature this inscription is sometimes attributed to I CE, or even before.
^[460]
It reads: “So‘em, son of Menahem. Rest on his soul!” The inscription is incised on a fragment of marble about three feet high and one foot in diameter. Bagatti writes: “Paleographically it is judged as a late Hebrew inscription, of the 4–6 cent.”
^[461]
E. L. Sukenik dated the inscription to IV–V CE.
^[462]

Remarkably, many references in the secondary Nazareth literature consider this Byzantine sepulchral inscription as evidence for an early dating of the village. Thus:

There are no public inscriptions [from Nazareth] whatsoever, instructive of the level of illiteracy and lack of elite sponsors. The only inscription from [
the
]
pre-Christian period
is an Aramaic funerary inscription found in the tombs (CII 2.988).
^[463]
  [
Emphasis
added
.]

The wild misdating by some of this Byzantine inscription to much earlier times might suggest that, in dating it “4–6 cent.” (above), Bagatti has misconstrued BCE for CE (he includes no reference to era). The difference, of course, is at least six centuries.
^[464]
However, I know of no one who has suggested that this marble fragment dates to the Babylonian or Persian periods. From what we have learned in Chapter Two that is, in any case, quite impossible. Bagatti himself settles the matter with his assessment of the inscription as paleographically “late Hebrew.” Its Byzantine dating accords well with the flourishing Jewish village that we will see existed during the fourth to sixth centuries CE.

Graffiti

It is natural that a site so fabled in Christian lore as Nazareth should over the centuries attract a quantity of pious etchings, as those who travel far choose to leave their mark at the hallowed place before returning home. Fathers Bagatti and Testa have analyzed a profusion of these marks of every description—some perhaps not Christian—in a laborious effort to show that, already in the early centuries after Christ, Nazareth was venerated by Jewish Christians.
^[465]
This is of great importance to the Church, whose authority in Nazareth can best be authenticated by demonstrating an unbroken lineage of veneration extending back to the first apostles.

It makes no sense to examine the Byzantine graffiti here, where we are concerned with the basin before 70 CE. I mention them only because Bagatti, Testa, and other Catholic scholars have claimed that some of these marks may date to I CE. The reasoning is contrived, even curious. Bagatti writes:

Note in the second line the cross which has attached to the right arm a line which has the appearance of the Hebrew letter waw [
it is a short vertical line
], which is a symbol of Christ. From the palaeographic aspect the two last letters are noteworthy; the first for its rather unusual form which finds parallels in inscriptions
from the 1–4 centuries, the second for its great height which also has parallels in inscriptions on Palestine ossuaries. The small transversal stroke in the first line is also a motif known from the ossuaries.
^[466]

Taylor, who has examined the graffiti on site, notes that ossuaries are irrelevant in this case and that Bagatti’s palaeographic observations are “cursory.”
^[467]
She shows in a number of ways (not limited to epigraphy) that the graffiti under discussion “should be dated to the period when Christian pilgrims first came to Palestine from outside, that is, some time in the fourth century.”
^[468]
Thus, Bagatti’s estimate regarding dating, “1–4 centuries” is untenable except with regard to the end of that period. The long dating range which, in this case, includes I CE is quite gratuitous, but not atypical.

A similar case exists with a marble stone inscribed with lettering, possibly Aramaic.
^[469]
Bagatti writes:

Since the writing is very rough we may well consider it the work of a pilgrim who wrote on marble, which was visible as, for example, a sceen [
sic
]. Yet the direction of the words, on the opposite side, make us think of marble that could be turned. Fr. Testa, by palaeographic comparisons, dates the inscription to the end of 1
^st
or beginning of the 2
^nd
century A.D. and reads on on [
sic
] side 
hywwg rybw
proposing two possible translations.

Testa translates the recto: (a) “And a well is his body (or his inside or belly).” (b) “And a well is within her (or: within him).” The verso: “In place of the prune the cypress will arise.”
^[470]
He considered that the letters were from an Aramaic targum of Isaiah. Furthermore:

[Testa] holds that this fragment is an archaeological witness of the first order not only on account of the monumental documentation of ideas on the “wells”, but in particular on account of the rapport it has with the place where was venerated the Incarnation of the Word.
^[471]

This is, of course, a great deal of weight to place on a few possibly Aramaic characters of uncertain meaning. If Testa were right and these graffiti have Christian religious evocations, then they certainly do not predate the arrival of Christian pilgrims to Nazareth in IV CE. This despite the fact that Bagatti and Testa hold to a theory that Nazareth was continually venerated by Jewish-Christians from the time of Christ. Taylor has convincingly rebutted that thesis in her book.

On the other hand, it is possible (but likely?) that early Jews of Nazareth inscribed graffiti on their agricultural installations, in Aramaic alluding to the Isaiah targum. However, this fragment is of marble, and Taylor notes that nearby marble fragments come from “relatively modern masonry near the Byzantine convent.”
^[472]
There is no reason to doubt that this marble fragment-
cum
-inscription, too, dates to the same late, post-Byzantine period. Of course, this impugns Testa’s palaeographic dating of I–II CE, which should be revisited. In any case, even were he correct regarding such an early dating, then these graffiti were executed by the Jewish inhabitants of Nazareth between the two Jewish Revolts. No one has suggested that they are earlier than 70 CE.

“Domestic installations”

 
In the  reference article “Nazareth” from the
Anchor Bible Dictionary
, James Strange writes:

In chronological order, the occupational sequence in this area appears to have included: (1) detached caves of indeterminate (perhaps domestic) use, dating before the 3d century…

Five years later, in his article for the
Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East
, Strange adopts an earlier chronology: