The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (17 page)

A second problem was more broad: the increasing tension between Hellenism and Judaism (see next section). This also involved the Tobiads, who were thoroughly Hellenized, and had become related by both marriage and financial interests to the leading priestly families of Jerusalem.
^[186]
It is fair to say that the upper stratum of Jewish society in the third century was markedly Hellenized, a fact that eventually made the office and choice of High Priest highly contentious not only in the religious, economic, and political dimensions, but also in the cultural.

Our knowledge of the Galilee in Ptolemaic and Seleucid times is very limited. Strong promoters of Hellenism, the Ptolemies established a few
poleis
in Palestine after the Greek pattern. Attributes of the
polis
included the adoption of the gymnasium, athletic contests, temples honoring Greek divinities, and governance by a
boulé
(association of leading citizens). The citizens of the
polis
had rights of property ownership and inheritance, freedom from some obligations, and the right to mint coins. Except for Philoteria (Beth Yerah) on the southern end of the Sea of Galilee, no new
poleis
were founded in Palestine by the Ptolemies. On the other hand, a number of towns already settled in Persian times were raised to the status of
polis
. These were not in the interior of the Galilee, but on its periphery, and included Ptolemais (Acco), Jaffa, Ascalon, Dor (later) and Gaza on the coast. Albrecht Alt terms this a
Städtegürtel
in the territories surrounding Galilee, namely, on the Mediterranean coast and in the Decapolis.
^[187]
Philadelphia (Amman), Pella (Tabaqat Fahil) and Dion (Tell el-As‘ari) were
poleis
east of the Jordan River. A Macedonian military colony was established in Samaria.
^[188]
In all, few Palestinian settlements were founded or refounded in Hellenistic times. We must bear this in mind when we come to consider the thesis of a Hellenistic refounding of Nazareth (below, pp. 136
ff
.). New Hellenistic settlements tended to be military (Ptolemais, Philoteria, possibly Scythopolis).
^[189]
Though we cannot be sure of the scale of immigration into Palestine by Greek colonizers during this era, Kuhnen points to a substantial increase in population, but no evidence of movement of peoples and, significantly, no repopulation of the interior highlands of Galilee.
^[190]

The fertile Beth Shan and Lower Jezreel Valleys to the south and east have revealed no less than 73 sites dating to the Hellenistic period.
^[191]
This appears an impressive number, yet it is a substantial decline from the 117 sites similarly noted in Persian times. Chancey affirms that “No cities were founded and no colonists settled in the interior of Galilee.”
^[192]

This was already suspected in the 1950s, when Albrecht Alt penned his “Hellenistic Cities and Regions in Galilee” (1959).
^[193]
It begins:

Only in the time of Alexander the Great does the Galilee gradually emerge from darkness, insofar as its fate under the rule of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians is hidden to us. Even then and for a long time thereafter we have scarcely any reports except of individual sites; the region as a whole… clearly re-emerges only after its annexation to the Hasmonean state towards the end of the second century before Christ. Out of this heterogeneous heritage it is necessary to recover a portrait of the settlement history of Galilee in Hellenistic times and, where possible, its relationship to the preceding period.

The characteristic feature of the new age is, in almost the entire Near East, the well-known elevation of discrete settlements to the rank of cities in the Hellenistic sense of this word…  [A]s regards the formation of towns, the plains were much preferred to the hilly country. Galilee, too, was no exception to this rule; for while the high massif in its interior does not once offer [
aufweist
] an urban site in the last and ripest stage, already at the beginning of the Hellenistic age we encounter the first cities on its low-lying periphery…
^[194]

“Admittedly,” writes E. Barnavi, “there were some larger Jewish enclaves inhabiting the eastern Galilee and the Jezreel valley, but the vast majority of the Jewish population of Palestine remained concentrated in the Judean hills and in Jerusalem.”
^[195]
In sum, the third and second centuries BCE appear to have been a low point in the interior of the Galilee.

The Seleucids and the Maccabean revolt

The third century BCE witnessed no less than four wars for control of Palestine and, after three years of warfare, Antiochus III finally succeeded in bringing the region under Seleucid control in 198 BCE.
^[196]
The tax system of the region and trade continued much as before. However, many names changed, and in Jerusalem and some other towns the Hellenists assumed unchallenged control. Surprisingly few new
poleis
were created in the region in Seleucid times, including Antiochia to the north (near Paneas, at the mouth of the Jordan River), and Seleucia in the Golan.
^[197]
In the Galilee only Scythopolis (Beth Shan) has been proposed as emerging in this period, and Gerasa in the Decapolis, but even they are not certain.
^[198]

It was during the fairly short period of Seleucid control over Palestine that the conflict between Judaism and Hellenism came to a head. That conflict had both religious and extra-religious dimensions. It is self-evident that the worship of foreign gods was anathema to Judaism. Practically speaking, only Jews who embraced Greek ways could rise to positions of power in the
polis
. One of the major aims of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE), was to foster unity by spreading Hellenism throughout his extensive dominions, but violent conflict soon followed upon his choice of Jason, an ardent Hellenizer, as High Priest. Jason paid a large sum of money to Antiochus for the position, and vowed he would pursue a policy of vigorous Hellenization among the Jews. Ever mercenary, however, Antiochus soon favored yet another candidate, Menelaus, who offered the king a much larger sum for the High Priesthood (II Macc. 4:24). Some scholars have suggested that Jason or Menelaus was the “Wicked Priest” of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Having been replaced by Menelaus and thinking Antiochus dead, Jason raised an army and laid siege to Jerusalem. Antiochus appeared, attacked Jerusalem, despoiled the Temple treasury, and placed an uncompromising tyrant in command of the city. Antiochus was in a particularly vicious mood after being humiliated by the Romans in Egypt (168 BCE), and on his return trip through Palestine he decided that Jerusalem should be destroyed and repopulated by Greeks. Most of the male inhabitants of the city were in fact killed, and many of the survivors rallied to Judas Maccabeus in the countryside. Thus began the Maccabean Revolt.

Antiochus IV was surnamed Epiphanes (“the manifest [God]”) by his partisans and Epimanes (“the mad”) by his detractors. He proceeded to institute anti-Jewish regulations against Sabbath observance, circumcision, and food laws, on pain of death. He then had an altar to Zeus set up in the Temple (this was probably the “abomination that makes desolate” of Dan. 11:31). His intention was nothing less than the eradication of the Jewish religion.
^[199]
As alluded to above, many inhabitants of Jerusalem as well as faithful Jews were put to death, and open rebellion finally broke out in 167 BCE, when the Hasmonean priest Mattathias killed the king’s envoy. Numerous
Hasidim
(“pious ones”) rallied to the revolution, which went from victory to victory notwithstanding the opposition of large Syrian armies. In the white-hot heat of revolt, an inspirational and apocalyptic tract was penned: the book of Daniel. Judas Maccabeus, son of Mattathias, eventually conquered Jerusalem and reinstituted proper observance in the Temple (on 25 Chislev [December], 165 BCE). Antiochus died a year or two later while campaigning in Parthia.

The Hasmonean Age

For roughly one tumultuous century the Jewish state achieved independence under Maccabean (Hasmonean) leadership. The exploits of Judas Maccabeus (“Judah the hammer”) and his family—champions of Yahweh and quintessential liberators of the Jewish people—are enshrined in the books of Maccabees I–IV. Though Hellenism was a critical element of the Hasmonean revolt, and though that war was largely a reaction against paganism and the excesses of Greek ways, it should also be recognized, as L. Schiffman has pointed out, that:

…the Hasmonean descendants of the Maccabees themselves acquired the trappings of Hellenism. They began to conduct their courts in Hellenistic fashion and were estranged from Jewish observance. This transition went way beyond the need of any monarch at that time to make use of Hellenistic-style coinage, diplomacy, and bureaucracy. The Hasmoneans employed foreign mercenaries to protect them from their own people.
^[200]

It is understandable, then, that the century of Hasmonean hegemony is sometimes referred to as the Late Hellenistic Period. We know comparatively little of the Galilee in the second century. In mid-II BCE Simon Maccabeus “withdrew the Jews of Galilee and Arbatta (exact location unknown) to Jerusalem.”
^[201]
The late second century BCE witnessed the decline or abandonment of a number of major sites in northern Palestine.

Galilee was annexed to the Hasmonean state in the reign of Aristobulus I (104–103). A resurgence in settlement finally followed in the early first century BCE. An archaeological survey conducted by M. Aviam shows that new sites sprang up in the Galilee during the reign of Alexander Janneus (103–76 BCE):
^[202]

The appearance of new sites in the Late Hellenistic era suggests that new settlers moved into Galilee, the most likely candidates being Judean colonists. Perhaps they came to reclaim ancestral territory, or perhaps they were attracted by Galilee’s climate and arable land. In any case, the expanded settlement which began in the Late Hellenistic period continued into the Roman period.
^[203]

Some scholars who cleave to the existence of Nazareth in pre-Christian times have noted the expanded settlement patterns in Galilee in the Late Hellenistic period, and also the rejuvenation or refounding of nearby Sepphoris at this time (below, pp. 136
ff
.). They have suggested that Nazareth experienced a similar refounding during this epoch. However, we shall see that there is no archaeological substantiation for this opinion. A careful review of the excavation reports shows that there was no human presence in the Nazareth basin during Hellenistic times. The few alleged “Hellenistic” shards invariably prove, upon examination, to belong to later Roman times, or alternately, to the Iron Age. In addition, there exists a striking lack of attestation for entire categories of Hellenistic evidence which we should expect to find, such as wall foundations, coins, and common forms of Hellenistic pottery. For example, M. Aviam notes that a coarse form of pottery, which he terms Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW), “was used extensively during the Hellenistic period.” This ware can today be accurately dated,
^[204]
but none has been claimed or found in the Nazareth basin. Again, Chancey (p. 35) writes: “Ptolemaic and Seleucid coinage almost invariably appears in the Hellenistic strata of Galilean sites…” No Hellenistic coins have been found at Nazareth.

Nevertheless, there have been a number of claims in the literature trumpeting the existence of Hellenistic evidence at Nazareth. These claims fall into two basic categories. The first involves movable evidence and tends to be specific. It generally concerns one or more “Hellenistic” oil lamps or pottery shards. These itemized claims occur almost entirely in the primary literature, and in each and every case they are spurious, often for revealing reasons.

A second type of claim involves structural evidence, usually of a vague, non-specific nature. It occurs almost entirely in the secondary literature and points to the existence in the Nazareth basin of tombs, silos, cisterns, wine and olive presses, some of which it labels “Hellenistic.” In a way, this type of claim is more difficult to deal with, for all these structures were used in Palestine in both Hellenistic and Roman times. However, we shall discover a pronounced tendency among certain Christian archaeologists to backdate later Roman evidence into earlier times, in order to substantiate a village before the time of Jesus. The most egregious example is labeling certain tombs and oil lamps “Herodian” when they are in fact Middle and Late Roman. This problem in nomenclature, recurrent in the Nazareth literature, will be taken up in detail in Chapter 4.

In the following pages we shall determine that the “Hellenistic” evidence claimed at Nazareth, both specific and general, is erroneous. We begin with the itemizable artefacts.