The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (31 page)

Bagatti’s dating for the bow-spouted (“Herodian”) lamp seems at least partly a matter of convenience. On the one hand, he is aware that these lamps continued in use into II CE:

The second century is indicated by the round lamps with concave surface (6–7), associated with the “Herodian” lamps…
^[412]

On the other hand, the Italian considers the “Herodian” lamp to be a purely first century CE phenomenon, evident from the following passages which relate to the finds in Tomb 70:

Small pieces of “Herodian” lamps found at the threshold and a little inside show clearly how this place was in use already in the first century. (
Exc
. 46)

The first century is represented by the Herodian
lamps, found entire in a tomb not far from our excavations (see above pp. 238–40)…   (
Exc
. 310)

Furthermore, the archaeologist can consider those lamps evidence of a pre-70 CE village:

In fact side by side with the “Herodian” lamps, you find those round ones with a cavity [=
concavity
] in the upper part, and others more recent. From this we can argue that the village, even though it ran into difficulties in the war of 70, was never abandoned.   (
Exc.
237)

The presence of II and III CE Roman lamps (“round lamps with a cavity”) can only be post-70 CE—as Bagatti is aware. Therefore, his only evidence for pre-70 CE in the above passage is the “Herodian” lamps. Their presence in the same assemblage with II–III CE Roman lamps should have at least alerted the archaeologist to the possibility of contemporaneity. But Bagatti here prefers to see a sequential deposition in the tomb—bow-spouted lamps first, then Roman. His scenario is not possible for the same three reasons given previously. Firstly, the “Herodian” lamps postdate the time of Christ. Secondly, they were found in a kokh tomb, which postdates the middle of the century. Thirdly, the totality of early lamp evidence suggests a post 80–90 CE date for entry of the first settlers into the basin (above, p. 21). In other words, the data Bagatti furnishes indicate not a pre-70, but a post-70 assemblage. The tribulation and survival of a I CE “village” during the First Jewish Revolt can only be described as mythical.

In asserting that Nazareth “was never abandoned,” though it may have run into “difficulties” in the First Jewish War, Bagatti is in fact defending a favored thesis of the Church, namely, that there was an unbroken lineage of Jewish-Christians in Nazareth since the time of Christ. Bagatti needed to put this in print because Kopp, only a few years before, had insisted that Nazareth was entirely wiped out:

In this year 67, the Roman soldiers passed through Nazareth more than once on plundering raids and during the assault of Japha. Those of Nazareth’s inhabitants who had been able to flee to Japha, either fell there by the sword or were taken into slavery. Perhaps all perished, perhaps a few found a haven somewhere or other. It is certain that the Nazareth of the gospels was utterly wiped out in this warfare. Only caves in the rocks, used either for graves or dwellings, were able to survive these storms.
^[413]

Four of the 20+ kokhim at Nazareth contained movable artefacts at the time of discovery. They are tombs 70, 71, 72, and a tomb about 650m northwest of the Church of the Annunciation, located on El Batris Street. These tombs will be briefly considered in turn.

An important assemblage was found in Tomb 70, located 30 m south of the Church of the Annunciation.
^[414]
This single-chambered tomb contained thirteen kokhim and has yielded more artefacts than any other Nazareth tomb. They are diagrammed at
Exc
. fig. 192. Seventeen oil lamps were found there, including seven bow-spouted (three plain, four Darom), three of a local pottery tradition, five dating to Middle Roman times, one Late Roman, and one Byzantine. Eight pottery and glass vessels beginning with those “usually found in kokhim tombs” (
Exc
. 240) complete the inventory.

The artefacts from T. 70 share the same page of
Excavations in Nazareth
with artefacts from another tomb, T. 71, which is located outside the venerated area, approximately 650 m southeast of the CA. Bagatti’s tally from T. 71 is probably incomplete, since no oil lamps are represented and since the archaeologist’s information came not from his own excavations but from the Nazareth museum, which no doubt had a selection (24 artefacts in all).

Bagatti writes: “From this you can see that the tomb [T. 70] was in use for many centuries” (
Exc
. 240). This is of course correct. Nothing, however, in either tomb 70 or 71 need predate 100 CE, as one scholar observes:

Les objets recueillis dans les tombes côtées 70 et 71 ne seraient pas à dater avant le milieu de la période romaine, c’est-à-dire environ au II
^e
siècle de notre ère. Le matériel de la citerne 51 est daté entre le II
^e
et le IV
^e
siècles.
^[415]

T. 72 is the third Nazareth tomb that contained artefacts.
^[416]
This kokh tomb, located approximately 350 m SE of the CA, was considered in Chapter Three in connection with the six oil lamps it contained.
^[417]
E. Richmond and C. Kopp claimed that those lamps were Hellenistic. However, Bagatti reassigns them to the “2
^nd
–3
^rd
cent.”
^[418]
Some interesting glass and metal objects were also found, but nothing that indicates a date earlier than Middle Roman times. In his short treatment of this tomb, Bagatti wrote that it contained “a glass pendant with a lion and
according to
Richmond
other ‘Herodian’ objects” (emphasis added). Richmond, however, does not use the word “Herodian” anywhere in his brief report—it is Bagatti’s invention. The latter’s wording also suggests that the “glass pendant with lion” dates to the Herodian period, though no such dating has ever been established for the artefact.

The fourth and last tomb in the basin to yield artefacts is one located near the crest of the Nebi Sa‘in, presently located on El Batris Street northwest of the CA. A half-page report on this tomb was published in 1998.
^[419]
A number of chambers with kokhim were discovered, but only “sparse ceramic finds,” some of which are diagrammed. Z. Yavor, the report’s author, notes “fragments of a cooking pot, a juglet and a store jar (Fig. 59:1–3), as well as of a bowl and a Herodian lamp.” Many glass and stone beads, a bronze spatula, and fragments of three glass bottles complete the inventory. Yavor assigns the date of the tomb “to the 1st century CE.” If he is correct, then this tomb would date to the latter part of I CE, compatible with Kuhnen’s 50 CE+ date for kokhim use in Galilee. Even if it were one of the first kokh tombs in the Nazareth basin, it is unlikely that its use did not continue into II–III CE, particularly as it appears to have contained several burial chambers.

There was also a quantity of material discovered in the venerated area that was, apparently, not associated with tombs. We shall have more to say about the exact provenance of some of this material in Chapter Five. For now, it is sufficient to point out those artefacts which Bagatti claims to be I CE. There are few. One is on p. 46 of
Excavations
, where the author writes that in locus 24 (an area of silos next to the CA) artefacts from many periods were found. Those periods include the Iron, Roman, and Byzantine. Bagatti writes: “Also, a glass perfume bottle with a form well known in the 1
^st
cent. (see Ch. V) was found.” A check of Chapter Five shows a very typical perfume bottle (Fig. 237:1), approximately 10 cm high and of “bluish” glass. Its form—which is entirely generic—was well known in many centuries, not only the first. On p. 313 Bagatti writes that this bottle was “common in the period of the kokhim tombs”—which for the author signals I CE. Again he is correct. The form
was
common in the first century CE—and in many other centuries besides. Bagatti tells us nothing about this bottle that indicates I CE.

Before passing on to other considerations, it can be noted that the movable finds at Nazareth are treated in a number of places in the primary literature. The major sources of information on those finds are listed here in chronological order:

• Bag. 1955:18–23  —Preliminary finds. This is superceded by
Excavations
.

•
Exc
. 132–38  —Much material found “under the mosaics” of the CA.

•
Exc.
184  —Eleven shards from the venerated grotto.

•
Exc
. 237–42  —Itemized material from tombs
70 and 71.

•
Exc.
258–318  —Chapter Five entitled “The small objects” (pottery, glass, metal, and stone objects). This is the principle source.

• Bag. 1971a  —Material from the St. Joseph
excavation.

All the above passages are from Bagatti’s writings. Other scholars have studied the oil lamps (Rosenthal and Sivan, Sussman, R. Smith,
et al.
) and their results are also incorporated in these pages. The excavations of Nurit Feig (regarding several Middle Roman tombs), though entirely compatible with the results of this study, lie outside the Nazareth basin and are not incorporated in the primary data used in this book.
^[420]
With the exception of Yavor’s contribution discussed above, several recent short reports (
e.g
., from
Hadoshot Arkheologiyot
) have not included itemizations, photos, or diagrams of additional material from Nazareth. Lacking such itemization, their statements (which also accord generally with the conclusions of this study) are not included in the primary data for discussion.
^[421]

Stone vessels

After the beginnings of pottery production in the Neolithic period, the use of stone vessels was limited to grinding and crushing. However, an exception occurred towards the turn of the era in Palestine:

In the late Second Temple
period, from the first century BCE to the second century CE, there was a stone vessel industry in the Jerusalem region whose products were used for storage and measurement. These stone vessels
were made for observant Jews who observed the laws of purity strictly since, according to rabbinic halachah, stone vessels remain pure.
^[422]

The manufacture of stone vessels continued into the second century:

[T]he zenith of the stone vessel industry was reached, with a variety of lathe-turned and hand-carved vessels, between the end of the first century B.C.E. and 70 C.E. The manufacture of lathe-turned stone vessels
seems to have terminated with the fall of Jerusalem, but hand-carved vessels persisted into at least the early second century C.E.
^[423]

Roland Deines studied these vessels, and writes:

The geographical dispersion [
of handworked stone vessels
] was greater than the lathe-turned types, and their use can be followed up to the time of Bar Kokhba.
^[424]

Bagatti unearthed four pieces of two stone vessels. He devotes a short passage to these artefacts at the end of his book. I cite it here in full:

Stone vases
. There are preserved only 4 fragments of white, soft stone, like to that usually used in burial chambers for ossuaries. A first fragment, coming from silo 36, is the wall
of a big vase of 26 cm. diameter outside, adorned on the outside with two lines. The walls are 12 mm. thick.

A second fragment represents the lower part of a vase, which could be the same as the preceding, since it was found in the same place and has the same thickness.

The other two are handles, which can be of the same cylindrical vase of 3–9 cm. in diameter, inside, wall
11–12 mm. They come from the Byzantine
atrium. They are rectangular with a hole in the middle. Both, because all the pieces are fragmentary and because they are well known, we omit reproducing them, especially as they were not found in any sealed place.