The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (44 page)

Bagatti 1955:16; Bagatti 1969:49–50: “sepoltura dai Crociati”

In his 1955 article, Bagatti repudiated Kopp’s notice of a kokh tomb under the CA:

In rural areas, it is not rare to find cisterns
and presses
associated with tombs, but there is not the least trace of the latter
from the Roman period
, even if some cut rocks, not clearly visible, could be considered as such. One of these, called a “kokhim” chamber, was a remnant of a pit under the floor of the church, reused as a sepulcher by the crusaders.
^[625]
   Emphasis added.)

The above passage was prompted by several unsettling observations of Kopp, themselves a response to Viaud’s remarks cited above. In 1938 the German signaled “a typical kokhim tomb” at the center of the Church of the Annunciation, marked T. 27 in
Illus
.
5.4
.
^[626]
We have seen that the kokh type of tomb arrived in Galilee in mid–I CE and was the most common form of burial in Middle and Late Roman times. Bagatti was more aware than Kopp that the presence of such a tomb under the CA is not compatible with the dwelling there of the Holy Family. In the above citation, he is correct in affirming that tombs and agricultural installations often shared the same areas outside Jewish villages. Though Jews did not
dwell
in the vicinity of tombs, they felt at liberty to work near them. We note that
the Italian does not deny the presence of tombs in the venerated area
—it is their dating to the Roman period that he contests.

For his part, Kopp was simply echoing what Viaud had already reported (and diagrammed) before him. Despite some redundancy, I translate what the German wrote in 1938:

Under the floor of the old church, 1–2m from the present western wall, Viaud found graves about which he writes: “They are in a sort of room cut into the rock, whose entrance was from the east. Perhaps it was originally a tomb of the Byzantine Period, destroyed in the construction of the first church and then reused by the Crusaders.” But according to his diagram we are dealing with a typical kokhim tomb [
handelt es sich um eine typische Kokimanlage
]; on the western long-wall are four grave shafts, in the center is a sunken grave; that on the eastern side, which he sees as the entrance, could on closer scrutiny prove to be a damaged kokh.
^[627]

A glance at Viaud’s diagram
^[628]
(redrawn in
Illus
. 4) indeed suggests what Kopp describes. We see what appear to be four kokhim to the west and the remains of one kokh to the east. What Kopp calls a “sunken grave” (
Senkgrab
) in the center is probably the area dug out of the floor to permit workmen and visitors to stand. The installation looks similar to the Richmond tomb (T. 72), a kokh tomb located 350 m to the southwest of the CA.
^[629]
The main difference between locus 27 and the Richmond tomb is that the former has only one kokh to the east, and not four. But even this may have a ready explanation. That side of L. 27 was cut by the wall of the Byzantine atrium (
Exc
. Pl. XI). It also abuts the wall of the 1877 structure, the “Église actuelle” of Père Viaud. In other words, a great deal of building activity has taken place immediately to the east of L. 27, and the original installation no doubt sustained damage and resultant attenuation.
^[630]
It appears that one side of Viaud’s sketch represents the remains of several kokhim.

Bagatti will have none of this line of reasoning. Consistent with his 1955 opinion (cited above), he maintains that this was an agricultural installation during Roman times, and then a tomb in the Crusader era:  

Grotto No. 27
(fig. 9, upper right, in section). A little to the north of these cuttings there is the entrance to a grotto, used by the Crusaders
for the construction of tombs… Below, near the pavement, we have noted Byzantine sherds, then above (b) tombs constructed by the Crusaders with the usual system of placing the bodies between small stone walls… The grotto was seen already by Fr. Viaud, who left it intact, as we also… This room, according to C. Kopp
became “eine typische Kokimanlage,” yet the likeness with other loci and the certain determination that the tombs belong to the Crusader period, makes us believe that this grotto had the same utilitarian scope as the others and was not funerary. Regarding kokhim there is absolutely no question.   (
Exc
. 50)

Bagatti’s interpretation of the evidence raises a number of questions. First of all, his description of “the usual [
Crusader
] system of placing the bodies between small stone walls” is not evident from the drawings. Even in
Excavations
, the section provided shows a traditional kokh.
^[631]
The fact that Bagatti uncovered a Byzantine layer below the tombs does not resolve the matter, for that layer might itself have superceded a Roman layer.

The nub of Bagatti’s hypothesis rests on two assertions: (a) that the pre-Crusader (Roman) layer of this tomb was agricultural and not funerary; and (b) that the Crusaders buried people at this site. Regarding the former, Bagatti simply goes beyond the evidence, for he gives no reason for that opinion. The Italian mentions the “likeness with other loci,” but we have both agricultural and funereal loci from Roman times in the immediate neighborhood (kokh tomb 70 is a mere 40 m away), which robs his comparison of any force. Then again, Viaud’s depiction is not similar to anything else diagrammed in the venerated area. It is unique, detailed, and (at least in Kopp’s view) obviously a kokh tomb. Thus, Bagatti’s comparison with nearby structures is at best a two-edged sword. In fact, he does not address the possibility of an underlying Roman stratum at all.

However, the real problem with the Italian’s proposition lies in his second implication, that Crusaders buried people at this site. This is—to be charitable—untenable. If the Crusaders buried their dead at the site of the Annunciation, then we have no record of the macabre Christian custom, except for Bagatti’s claim. Why, we may ask, would the Crusaders have buried their dead
under the house of the Blessed Virgin
? Is not the very idea preposterous? Then again, who did the Crusaders deem sufficiently worthy for burial in this hallowed ground? Would even a Christian monarch have been so presumptuous? The very idea is repugnant and sacrilegious, if not ludicrous. Furthermore, we are dealing with not one but several burials. Viaud’s drawing indicates at least four, and a probable reconstruction suggests eight graves a few meters from the alleged spot of the Annunciation.

Since the time this area began to be venerated, that is, in the fourth century of our era, the Church would not have countenanced burying people under this holiest of all ground, neither in Byzantine nor in Crusader times. This leaves only one possible solution: the burials under the Basilica of the Annunciation preceded the Church’s presence in Nazareth. That is,
they
preceded the fourth
century
.

Thus we have a
terminus ante quem
for the tombs under the venerated area—the time of Constantine the Great and of his mother, Helena, a devout Christian. We can be sure that these tombs precede the fourth century, when Joseph of Caesarea began building shrines in the Holy Land, and when pilgrims began coming to Nazareth. In other places we have established a
terminus a quo
of mid-I CE for these tombs—more likely, 100 CE due to the artefacts found at Nazareth.
^[632]
These two
termini
define the digging and use of the tombs in the venerated area to the time between roughly 100 CE and 300 CE.

The “Crusader” explanation, as adopted by Bagatti, appears to be a desperate attempt to counter convincing evidence of kokh tombs at this very sacred place. The maneuver was also used, as we shall now see, in connection with the neighboring  locus, Tomb 29.

Tomb 29          

Figures:

Viaud 1910:81 “n” — “Tombeau”; photo Fig. 42; “Tombeau” p. 83 (fig. 38)

Baldi and Bagatti 1937:259 (fig. 7), Pl. 2

Kopp
1939–40:113; Pl  IX, “E”

Bagatti 1969 Pl. XI, no. 29; Figs. 137 (section), 146

Finegan
1992  —  Fig. 46, “F”

Discussion:

Viaud 1910:92–94, 115 “
Est-il de saint Joseph
?”

Kopp
1939–40:87–90 “Recht möglich, dass Josef von Tiberias in dieser Grabkammer seine letzte Ruhestatt fand”

Baldi and Bagatti 1937:249–50; 258–62

Bagatti 1969:185ff. “Martyrium of Conon”

Finegan
1992: 53 “used in relation to baptism”

Like Tomb 27, neighboring Tomb 29 must be placed at the center of the theological storm, for it is attested by all parties and is immediately adjacent to the Chapel of the Angel, between five and ten meters from the spot where Mary allegedly received the angel Gabriel.
^[633]
It is a small grotto about four meters in length and two meters at the widest point. Over the years, a good deal has been written about this chamber. The grotto has been extensively altered and reworked, as the various surrounding edifices have been built, torn down, and rebuilt over the centuries. Though no bones were of course found at the spot, none of the archaeologists working at Nazareth has denied that this small space once contained a grave (see literature above). It is even possible that originally more graves were associated with the site, for the burial appears to be a kokh (loculus),
^[634]
which rarely occurs singly.

 The tomb has a fascinating history. On its walls are six layers of plaster profusely adorned with graffiti. Those scribbles have undergone the most minute inspection by Bagatti, who devotes no less than 38 pages to them (
Exc
. 190–218)—more than 10% of his book. He hardly even mentions that a tomb is there. We, however, shall take the opposite approach, and shall spend a good deal of time on the tomb, and hardly any on the graffiti. Those markings have been interpreted by Fathers Bagatti and Testa as evidence of very early Christian veneration at this site. That veneration, if true, would vindicate the central Roman Catholic tenet that the sites under the Church of the Annunciation are attested even back to the time of Jesus. However, a careful review by Joan Taylor has shown that the graffiti in question are clearly Byzantine and do not predate the fourth century of our era.
^[635]
They are the markings of pilgrims, and sometimes even of children.

On the floor of the front part of the tomb is a fifth century mosaic with a Constantinian Christ monogram. A second, larger mosaic is five meters south of the entrance to T. 29.
^[636]
It contains the words in Greek: “Gift of Conon, deacon of Jerusalem.” Thus, the tomb was dubbed “The Martyrium of Conon” by Bagatti.

Burials at this most venerated place are a keen source of embarrassment for the Church, and tombs are the last thing pilgrims would expect to find at the house of the Virgin Mary. It is no surprise, then, that one does not learn of the existence of this tomb from standard reference sources on Nazareth. Jack Finegan, for example (
The Archaeology of the New Testament
), mentions no burial here. He supposes that this space was used by early Jewish Christians in an elaborate water ritual, one which also involved the nearby cisterns and wine collecting vat ten meters away—this last interpreted as a baptismal basin.
^[637]
Finegan is evidently proceeding from an entirely different set of assumptions than those underlying this work, yet his assumptions are wholly catholic.

The first to rediscover the small Grotto 29 in modern times was Brother Benedict Vlaminck in the late nineteenth century. He was the first to affirm that a burial originally existed there. Bagatti cites Vlaminck’s description of the discovery in his
Excavations in Nazareth
:

To the north of the mosaic work [
of Conon
] I noticed an opening, which I hastened to clear away. It admitted me to a kind of antechamber six feet long by five feet wide, covered with mosaic, which bore a Christian monogram. At the far end I found a roughly built stone bench, which led me to conclude that an ancient monument existed at that spot. I removed the bench and saw that it concealed a small basin
or trough, three feet six inches in height, with circular bottom, built against some ancient stucco work, discovering afterwards, to my great regret, that in building this trough the workmen had destroyed the original form of the rock,
which in former times must have contained a tomb, judging, at least, by the remains of a recess still visible
. They had also taken away a part of the mosaic work in order to replace it by a large slab, which served as a stepping-stone into the basin or trough. Alongside this stepping-stone I remarked a small round hole made to carry off the dirty water.
^[638]
   [Emphasis added.]