New Indian-Chennai News + more

Admin · Guru

The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus

Admin · Guru

Scandal 1
The (unacknowledged) tombs under the Church of the Annunciation

(By René Salm, author of The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus)

Photo: Roman-era tombs in the venerated area of Nazareth

Above is a map of the venerated area of Nazareth with modern buildings and streets indicated. The Church of the Annunciation (CA, in the lower part of the map) is a major destination of pilgrims coming from throughout the world, and is the largest Christian structure in the Middle East. Under the church is the traditional maiden home of the Blessed Virgin Mary (“M”), where she received the annunciation from the Archangel Gabriel:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [Lk 1:26-28 KJV]

Not mentioned in any guidebook, however, are three Roman-era tombs less than ten meters from that holy site, now called the “Chapel of the Angel.” These tombs are marked by a “K” which stands for “kokhim,” a well-known type of tomb prevalent during Roman times in Palestine. Two other tombs also may have existed under the present church (in parentheses on the map), but the evidence for them was destroyed during construction of the edifice. Nevertheless, early twentieth-century witnesses mention them in obscure scholarly reports.

In Judaism, corpses are a source of ritual impurity. The Pentateuch mandates that “everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse” must be put outside the camp for seven days (Num 5:3). The Talmud mandates that tombs be a minimum distance (“fifty ells,” or about twenty-five meters) from the nearest habitation. Of course, the implications of this are explosive where the Christian claims at Nazareth are concerned. Mary’s family was certainly Jewish, and the tombs under the Church of the Annunciation are tombs under her very house!

Fully realizing the potentially fatal implications for traditional doctrine represented by the presence of these tombs, the principle modern archeologist at Nazareth, Father Bellarmino Bagatti, strove to ignore their existence—even though they were described, mapped, and drawn by his predecessors who were also priests. Only one of the tombs next to the Chapel of the Angel is mentioned in his standard two-volume work, Excavations in Nazareth. Bagatti lamely suggested that the tomb (with several graves) dated to Crusader times. It is a desperate explanation, however, for there is no record of such a macabre Christian custom of burying Crusader dead at the house of the Blessed Virgin Mary!

A Roman-era wine press has also been located ten meters north of the Chapel of the Angel. In sum, the archeological evidence clearly shows that this was a cemetery and agricultural area in later Roman times—not the location of dwellings.

Admin · Guru

Scandal 2
The dishonest shell game with the Nazareth evidence

Our eyes should be opened when the primary archaeologist at Nazareth (Father Bellarmino Bagatti) assigns an artefact on one page to the IRON AGE (c. 1200 BCE-c. 600 BCE), and a few pages later assigns the same artefact to the MIDDLE ROMAN PERIOD. The difference, of course, is 1000 years. . . Was the priest confused? Inattentive? Inebriated? Unfortunately, his error is hardly unique in the Nazareth literature, and points up the need for a wholesale reassessment of the primary data by neutral, objective archaeologists.

The main source for scholarly information on Nazareth is the 325-page book Excavations in Nazareth by Fr. Bagatti (English edition 1969). This book is considered the definitive study of Nazareth archaeology and is repeatedly cited in the scholarly literature. It is no small thing, then, when one reveals Bagatti’s book to be full of blunders.

One could study Bagatti’s book for months and not realize anomalies such as the following example, which becomes apparent only if one makes a written itemization of the hundreds of artefacts in his work, as I have done while researching The Myth of Nazareth. The example I choose for this Scandal Sheet is the following:

(a) While discussing pottery of the Iron Period (1200-587 BCE) Bagatti comes to a v-shaped piece of pottery which he calls a “rim of the vase.” (For those with access to his book, it is on page 269, item 215:7.) He also diagrams this pottery shard in his figure 224.1. Bagatti continues his discussion, “Other elements of the Iron Period…” So, there is no question at all that the archaeologist considers this shard to be from the Iron Age.

(b) On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.” More importantly, Bagatti is oblivious to the fact that he earlier assigned this artefact to the Iron Period. Now, on p. 285, he writes: “The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224… The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts.” So, we see that on one page the archaeologist assigns a shard to the Iron Age, and on another page he assigns it to the “Hellenistic-Roman” period.

Our confidence must be shaken in an archaeologist who ascribes the same material to two eras separated by up to a thousand years. Doesn’t Bagatti know what he is talking about? Or is there something more nefarious at play, something which goes beyond error? For we see that the priest’s use of the word “Hellenistic” on p. 285 is entirely inappropriate. He signals the typical Roman features of this jar, not Hellenistic ones! It would appear that the archaeologist has simply found another excuse to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his book.

For a village of Nazareth to have existed at the time of Christ, it had to come into existence before that time. That is why Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth is so important. It is also why Bagatti has, as seen in the above example, contrived to falsely introduce the word "Hellenistic" into his book. In fact, every one of his uses of that word is inappropriate, for there is no Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth! This is clearly shown in Part Three of my study.

In a subsequent Scandal Sheet, I will show how more Nazareth artefacts have been falsely called “Hellenistic,” thus furnishing more bogus evidence for a village at and before the time of Jesus. All those artefacts do not date before the time of Christ, but they are Middle Roman (second-third centuries after Christ).

Folks, we've all been spoofed!
—René Salm

Admin · Guru

Scandal 3
Alleged “Hellenistic” evidence

It is self-explanatory that if the village of Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, then it had to come into existence before his birth. For the Christian tradition, then, scripture all but requires that Nazareth was already in existence in Hellenistic times, the age that preceded the Roman conquest of 63 BCE. One epoch depends on the other: the existence of a viable village at the turn of the era (one with a synagogue and crowd that could accompany Jesus, Lk 4:16-30) depends on it being in existence already in Hellenistic times.

As early as 1931, however, Catholic archaeologists themselves noted a shocking lack of evidence of a Greco-Roman settlement in the Nazareth basin (see Part Two of The Myth of Nazareth). This placed an enormous burden on the tradition to materially demonstrate the existence of Nazareth in Early Roman times, as demanded by scripture.

Photo: Six alleged Hellenistic lamps

These six oil lamps were discovered in a Nazareth tomb, and have been used in the scholarly literature (photo from QDAP 1931, Pl. XXXIV.2) as proof of a village at Nazareth in Hellenistic times, that is, as early as the third century BCE. In fact, the six lamps date from the Middle Roman to the Late Roman periods, long after the time of Christ. The interesting story of these oil lamps (and their gross misdating) follows.

In 1930, while laying the foundations for a private house in Nazareth, a tomb was discovered 320 meters southwest of the Church of the Annunciation. As is customary in the Holy Land, work was immediately suspended and the Department of Antiquities was notified. An inspector came to the site, and subsequent excavation uncovered a rectangular underground chamber with nine shafts (kokhim) radiating outwards from three sides. The tomb was known to Bagatti (the principle Catholic archaeologist of Nazareth) as number 72. It contained human bones and some artefacts, including the six oil lamps above, a juglet, beads, and small glass vessels. These finds were summarized in a brief report published in the 1931 issue of a new journal, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. The report, entitled “A Rock-cut Tomb at Nazareth,” consists of a mere half-page of prose, followed by three pages of diagrams and photographs. It is signed “E.T.R.” (Ernest Tatham Richmond). The report itself is unremarkable except for one word in the final sentence:

Tomb No. 10. Two glass vessels (Pl XXXIII.5, third and fourth from left), six Hellenistic lamps (Pl. XXXIV.2), and iron, glass, and pottery fragments. E.T.R.

This is the first mention in the scholarly Nazareth literature of specific Hellenistic evidence. If Richmond were correct, and if six Hellenistic oil lamps were indeed found only a few hundred meters from the venerated area, then the case for Nazareth existing in the time of Jesus would be closed, and virtually assured. Such is the awesome importance of the single word “Hellenistic” in this brief and obscure report.

Are the six oil lamps Hellenistic? The answer is emphatically “no.” A glance at the photo shows to even an amateur that none of the lamps signaled by Richmond is Hellenistic. The two in the upper row have been dated by Israeli specialists to between “the second half of the first century A.D.” and the third century, that is, to Middle-Late Roman times. Two of the lamps (lower left and lower right) are of the bow-spouted (“Herodian”) type, which are dated in Galilee from c. 25 CE to c. 150 CE. The remaining two lamps are Late Roman (see below). In other words, all six oil lamps date to the common era, and some long after the time of Christ. The error in Richmond's report amounts to five or more centuries!

More precise details on dating these lamps are given in my book, The Myth of Nazareth. Using 70 CE as the beginning of Middle Roman times, all six oil lamps in the illustration are Middle Roman, Late Roman, or Early Byzantine. None is remotely Hellenistic.

One can only speculate how the word “Hellenistic” entered Richmond’s report. The discrepancy in dating is huge, amounting to between three and five centuries. No expert would be capable of such a mistake. Nor would he treat these six lamps as a group, for they represent strikingly different types. It is remarkable that this egregious error survived the scrutiny of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, in whose Quarterly the report was published. But then, Richmond was himself Director of the Department at the time!

The six oil lamps pictured above underwent a second stage of misrepresentation a few years after the publication of Richmond’s report. Fr. Clemens Kopp penned the first installment of his extensive writings on Nazareth archaeology in 1938. He commented on Richmond’s “Hellenistic” assessment as follows:

R[ichmond] classifies 6 lamps by date very generally as “Hellenistic,” according to the accompanying photographs of the finds they must surely go back at least to 200 BCE.

This statement goes considerably beyond Richmond’s error of the single word “Hellenistic,” which denotes a period continuing into I BCE. Fr. Kopp supplies a much earlier date: “at least… 200 BCE,” i.e., the third century BCE. This magnifies the previous mistake and, again, we can only wonder what made the German priest choose a date that has not the remotest relevance to the lamps in question. Even an amateur collector would not be so misled, much less an antiquities dealer, not to mention a writer on archaeological matters such as Fr. Kopp. To date this group of Roman-Byzantine oil lamps before 200 BCE is a monstrosity. There is no question of an inadvertent slip for, as we see, Fr. Kopp claims to have examined the accompanying photographs himself, and he appeals to his own expertise. The only possible conclusion, then, is that deception is heaped upon deception.

The priest’s modus operandi is transparent. Kopp fabricates Hellenistic evidence in an attempt to bolster the case that Nazareth existed before the time of Christ. At the same time, he undergirds the Church’s position by providing a false Hellenistic claim, one now available for subsequent citation in the Nazareth literature.

The story does not end here. In the 1960s Fr. Bagatti acknowledged Richmond and Kopp’s error and correctly redates the lamps to II-III CE. However, having removed one problem, the Catholic archaeologist then substituted another which is equally inappropriate:

Tomb No 72 (fig. 3 D1). In this place there are several kokhim tombs, but the plan of one only is given with a description of the objects, by the one time Director of Antiquities in Palestine T. Richmond. It had lamps, which are round and have a concavity; they were in use in 2nd-3rd cent.; a glass pendant with a lion and according to Richmond other “Herodian” objects. (Exc. 242)

Bagatti does not mention the word “Hellenistic,” and his dating “2nd-3rd cent.” can only mean “CE” (an interesting omission, for the four centuries between II BCE and III CE are precisely the issue at stake). The archaeologist’s quaint terminology—“lamps, which are round and have a concavity”—is his customary euphemism for a common Roman lamp type. (Typical mould-made lamps of Middle-Late Roman times are round and have a concavity or depressed area towards the center of the discus.) But we are most interested in Fr. Bagatti's final phrase: “according to Richmond there were other ‘Herodian’ objects.” Of course, Richmond did not use the word “Herodian.”in his report. This was purely Bagatti's invention. The Italian priest has essentially substituted the word “Hellenistic” with “Herodian.” If he could not defend the one, then he would use the other. Both support the Church’s position, and both are equally incorrect in relation to these oil lamps.

It should be noted that “Hellenistic” and “Herodian” are highly-charged terms when associated with the archaeology of early Christianity. They are prized by the tradition, for both these terms support the orthodox view that a settlement at Nazareth existed in the time of Christ. “Herodian” is a misnomer. Lamps known by that name (more correctly called bow-spouted lamps) were used in the Galilee between c. 25 CE and c. 150 CE. This is after the time of Herod the Great, and even too late for the time of Jesus. It effectively removes these lamps (which are the earliest datable Roman artefacts at Nazareth) from evidence for a village at the turn of the era.

So it is that the tradition has completely confused Nazareth archaeology by inappropriately using terms like “Hellenistic”and “Herodian” in relation to artefacts which are in fact Middle and Late Roman.

The oil lamp evidence alone clearly shows that Nazareth did not yet exist in the time of Jesus.
—René Salm

Admin · Guru

Scandal 4
“Herodian” and the misdating of Nazareth evidence

The published Nazareth literature demonstrates a predictable trait found particularly among Catholic scholars, namely, both the forward– and backdating of evidence to the centuries immediately preceding the first Jewish Revolt (66–73 CE). My review has shown that the basin was not settled during eight centuries (c. 730 BCE to c. 70 CE), a period I term the Great Hiatus. The existence of this hiatus is carefully substantiated in my book, The Myth of Nazareth. Here I would like to simply note some of the more egregious attempts on the part of the tradition to “fill in” the hiatus in order to authenticate a settlement at Nazareth in the time of Jesus, as is required by scripture.

First of all, we can mention that as long ago as 1930, Catholic scholars themselves noted with alarm that “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” was found in the venerated area of Nazareth (that is, where the Church of the Annunciation and nearby structures now stand. See Myth pp. 65 ff.). From this time on, attempts are found in the literature to postdate Iron Age finds, as well as to backdate later Roman finds, in an effort to authenticate ‘:on paper’ what cannot be authenticated in the ground of Nazareth. These attempts are individually described in my study. Thus it is that chronologically mislabeling material is rife in the Nazareth literature, as I shall briefly describe now.

We have already encountered an example of postdating Iron Age material (Scandal Sheet 2), where Bagatti is capable of assigning the same artefact on one page of his Excavations in Nazareth to the Iron Age, and on another to “Hellenistic-Roman” times. It was demonstrated there that this was a ploy to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” again into his tome. Though postdating Iron Age material is indeed found (Kopp, Bagatti, Finegan), the more prevalent modus operandi is a wholesale backdating of Middle and Late Roman artefacts to “Early Roman” and even to “Hellenistic” times. The reasons are obvious: there is a great deal more later Roman evidence from the basin than there is Iron Age material. Also, Middle Roman evidence is only one century removed from the target period (the turn of the era), not 5–12 centuries as is the case with Iron Age artefacts.

A large part of this deceptive dynamic involves terminology. Thus, the word “Herodian” is misused by traditional archaeologists to denote bow-spouted oil lamps which, in fact, are found in the Galilee only after c. 25 CE (as explained at Myth pp. 167 ff.). They continued to be made and used in the Galilee until c. 150 CE. Thus, this type of lamp found in the Nazareth area (and called “Herodian”) considerably postdate the reign of Herod the Great. This problem alone is a major stumbling block for the cursory reader. It is no wonder that many archaeologists refuse to use the problematic phrase “Herodian oil lamps,” given the fact that these lamps in Galilee postdated the time of Herod the Great by several decades, and those at Nazareth may even have postdated the entire Herodian dynasty (whose last survivor died c. 100 CE).

Furthermore, “Herodian” has been applied to the kokh tomb, an important type of tomb found in the Holy Land as late as the fifth century CE! It is clear that labeling such tombs “Herodian” is extremely misleading, and tends to misdirect the unwary reader to the time of Christ. Invariably, however, we find that these tombs and oil lamps are termed “Herodian” by Bagatti, James Strange, and other Christian archaeologists.

The German scholar Hans Peter Kuhnen has shown that the kokh tomb (of which over twenty exist at Nazareth) first appeared in the Galilee only after c. 50 CE. This critical and much-overlooked fact is carefully noted in my book. It means that all the material found in kokh tombs, including Tombs 70–72 at Nazareth, as well as the Feig tombs (outside the Nazareth basin) dates after the middle of the first century CE. Whenever we encounter Nazareth evidence, we must immediately ask: Was this material found in a kokh tomb? If it was, then all that evidence must have been placed in situ after the time of Christ (perhaps long after). It cannot be used as pre-Jesus evidence. This simple maneuver alone removes 90% of the evidence alleged for the putative town of Nazareth at the turn of the era!

When we realize these two facts—(1) that the earliest bow-spouted oil lamps (“Herodian”) at Nazareth postdate c. 25 CE (they may be as late as c. 150 CE); and (2) that the kokh (“Herodian”) tombs postdate c. 50 CE (they were also used for many subsequent centuries)— then the case for Nazareth at the time of Jesus dissolves before our very eyes.Nazareth certainly came into being after the middle of the first century CE.

After all, there are no pre-kokh tombs in the Nazareth basin (unless we skip all the way back to the Iron Age). There are also no provable I BCE oil lamps, nor other I BCE pottery evidence. Of course, we have a few artefacts here and there which could date before the turn of the era. But the fact that they invariably come from kokh tombs removes them from consideration as pre-Jesus evidence. In any case, and in every case (I have examined and tabulated them), these few questionable artefacts have a lifespan of use which stretches well into Middle Roman times, thus making them eminently compatible with a beginning for Nazareth c. 70 CE.

For example, Nurit Feig notes one oil lamp which she terms “Hellenistic” (1990, Illus. 9:10), but in a footnote in her Hebrew article she then writes that “Lamps of this type are dated between the middle of the fourth century BC and the first century CE.” In this case she also interestingly draws comparison to a “lamp found at Shimron dated by Lapp from the first century CE.” The latter dating (known only to those who have read the Hebrew article together with its footnotes) is undoubtedly correct, for the Feig lamp was found in a kokh tomb which, as we have seen, existed in the Galilee only after the middle of I CE. This proves that the lamp was deposited in situ no earlier than the latter half of I CE, and possibly well into II CE.

The Feig tombs lie outside the Nazareth basin (they are 2.6 km east of the Ch. of the Annunciation, and one kilometer from the crest of the hill, that is, from the edge of the basin). These tombs may have been hewn by residents of a nearby community (such as Afula), and her article would be better titled “Burial Caves near Nazareth” rather than “Burial Caves in Nazareth.” Due to their removed location, the Feig tombs cannot be used as primary data for Nazareth, and hence I do not use them as such in my study. It is clear, in any case, that Feig uncovered nothing which contradicts a settlement at nearby Nazareth beginning after 70 CE, whether or not her tombs belonged to that settlement.

A remarkable conclusion of my research into Nazareth archaeology is that not a single artefact can with certainty be dated before 100 CE (unless, of course, one goes back to the Iron Period). Given the extant scholarly literature (which continues to defend the traditional history of Nazareth, quite to the exclusion of the evidence from the ground), this state of affairs is nothing less than shocking!

In the next Scandal Sheet, we shall look at further evidence of “backdating” Roman evidence to the time of Christ, including three jugs which Feig (under the influence of Catholic archaeologists) calls “from the Early Roman Period” (1990, fig. 9:1–3). To anticipate for a moment, it can be stated here that these jugs were also found in kokh tombs, thus clearly signaling a post-Jesus dating.

Admin · Guru

Scandal 5
The Nazareth Village Farm

A major report on Nazareth archaeology was published in the 2007 issue of the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (Vol. 25, pp. 19–79), too late for inclusion in the first edition of the book, The Myth of Nazareth. The study is entitled “Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report,” and is authored by Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano. This extended 60-page article probably is the most significant contribution to the archaeology of the basin since Bagatti’s Excavations in Nazareth (1967/69). It is referred to below as the NVF (Nazareth Village Farm) report.

The Nazareth Village Farm lies on fifteen acres to the south and west of the ancient settlement area, which was on the valley floor. The NVF was obviously the site of ancient agricultural activity and terracing. Though it was too steep for ancient habitations (20% grade), it is here that an ambitious plan is now underway to recreate Jesus’ hometown, known as “Nazareth Village.” When complete, this project will contain streets and stone houses “inhabited by actors and storytellers in authentic garb, [who] will illuminate the life and teachings of Jesus. A Parable Walk, museum, study center and restaurant are also planned…” (according to the NVF publicity). According to the first page of the report we are considering in this Scandal Sheet, “For nearly two decades, the University of the Holy Land (UHL) and its subsidiary, the Center for the Study of Early Christianity (CSEC), has laboured to lay the academic foundation for the construction of a first-century Galilean village or town based upon archaeology and early Jewish and Christian sources.” As of 1999, an international consortium of Christian groups (called the Miracle of Nazareth International Foundation) raised $60 million for the project. Contributors in the U.S. include former President Jimmy Carter, Pat Boone and Rev. Reggie White, the former Green Bay Packer football star.

Most of the NVF report is chronologically “non-diagnostic,” that is, the terraces and other structures (e.g. watchtowers) are virtually undatable. However, several score pottery shards were itemized (among the hundreds which were found), and they reveal the eras in which those terraces were worked in antiquity. The critical last ten pages of the report (pp. 68–78) deal with the pottery. They were authored by Y. Rapuano, and it is his contribution to the report (because of its importance for dating purposes) that most concerns us.

Curiously, there were two (competing?) surveys of the NVF area conducted in the past, both in 1997. One was officially sponsored by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). [See ‘Nazerat (Nazareth) Area, Survey’ in Hadashot Arkheologiyot 1999; English p. 90, Hebrew p. 113]. This IAA survey concluded that “Sherds, mostly dating to the Late Roman period (2nd–4th centuries CE), were scattered on the surface.” This quite believable verdict is consistent with my researches on Nazareth, which show that the town came into existence between the two Jewish revolts (c.70–c. 130 CE). Note: the IAA report was authored by Mordechai Haiman, a respected Ph.D in archaeology. It makes no mention at all of evidence from the time of Christ. Incidentally, the Haiman survey was apparently carried out at the same time as the initial excavations by UHL/CSEC (April, 1997). Presumably, Haiman had access to precisely the same empirical information.

Perhaps the backers of the Nazareth Village Farm were unsatisfied with the IAA report, for a different survey report has appeared on the internet (unsigned and copyrighted by the University of the Holy Land, whose President is Stephen Pfann). This unofficial report is titled, “Summary of Excavations of the Nazareth Village.” (At the time of this writing, the UHL report is still available at http://www.uhl.ac/dig.html.) This revisionist report claims to find much evidence at Nazareth Village Farm dating both to the time of Christ and to Hellenistic times. Both of these eras, we recall, are entirely unmentioned in the IAA survey.

The conclusion of the UHL report is a marvelously imprecise sentence: “Potsherds were found on the surface of the terraces dating from various periods beginning with the early to late Roman period.” This phrase also occurs repeatedly in the recent 60-page NVF article (cf. pp. 19, 24, 28, 32, 56). However, we shall see (below) that the shards found at the NVF all date to the later Roman period, not to earlier times at all.

One may wonder what the phrase, “early to late Roman period” means. After all, if a potsherd is dated in this way, then is it Early Roman, Middle Roman, or Late Roman? The question is not merely academic, for upon it may hinge the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus.

Well, if a potsherd is characterized vaguely as “early to late Roman,” then it might actually be later Roman, entirely consistent with other evidence from Nazareth. What I am getting at is that the phrase “early to late Roman period” has absolutely no force as regards Early Roman times—none, at any rate, if the pottery came from later Roman times, as the official IAA report had already suggested.

All the shards dated by Rapuano in the NVF report are small—usually too small to confidently date an artefact. Sometimes the fragments are “tiny.” Yet Rapuano still ventures a dating for them. This may be one reason his report is peppered with tentative words such as possibly, probably, evidently, appeared to be, etc.

Most importantly, whenever Rapuano dates a shard to the Hellenistic period or to I CE (the eras most valuable in establishing Nazareth in the time of Jesus), he expresses doubt through one of the above tentative words. In short, Rapuano is (by his own admission) on shaky ground when claiming pre-70 CE evidence.

Problems of double-dating

Surprises await the person who patiently itemizes all of Rapuano’s findings. We recall that Bagatti, in an embarrassing but revealing lapse, assigned the same shard on one page to the Iron Age and on another page to Roman times (Scandal 2). Rapuano is capable of not one, but four similar gaffes. The fact that there are four cases of double-dating in this NVF report seriously undermines the confidence one can place in it and points to incredible sloppiness or absent-mindedness.

The cases of double-dating are as follows: (1) On page 75 of the NVF report Rapuano assigns Fig. 41:32 to “the third century to early fifth century AD.” But on the preceding page he has already dated the same shard (41:32) to the Ottoman period! The difference is one thousand years (or more), for the Ottoman period began in the 14th century.

(2) On page 73 of the NVF report (6th line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 41:4. He describes it as the “plain rim” of a bowl of Adan-Bayewitz Type 1E (“mid-third to early fifth century AD”), and states that the findspot was locus 31 of Area B2. On p. 75, however, the archaeologist writes that the findspot of shard 41:4 is Locus 7 of Area B2. Rapuano describes it differently than before, and now dates it from the “early second century to the later fourth century AD.” He completely forgot that he already looked at this shard!

(3) On page 77 of the NVFR (top line), Rapuano itemizes artefact 43:3 as “a small bowl with a cupped rim.” He states that the findspot was Locus 2 of Area C3. No dating is offered for the shard, which from the diagram is part of a rim. But later, even on the same page, the archaeologist again itemizes artefact “43:3.” The findspot is now Locus 5 of Area C3, and Rapuano dates it “from the end of the first century to the mid-third century AD.”

(4) On page 74 of the NVFR, under the section “B-2 – L-34”, Rapuano itemizes artefact 41:8 as “The tiny fragment of a rim, probably of a small bowl of the Roman period.” Farther down on the same page he writes: “Fig. 41:8 is the edge of the rim of what was evidently a Galilean bowl with a plain rim (Adan-Bayewitz Type 1E) dating from the mid-third century to earlier fifth century AD.”

From these cases we see that the archaeologist is, presumably, capable of looking at the same shard at different times, forgetting that he already examined it, and coming up with different dates, descriptions, and findspots for it. How curious! Needless to say, this hardly bolsters our confidence in his work, nor in the entire Nazareth Village Farm report.

What coins?

On page 39, the authors of the NVF report suddenly launch into a review of coin evidence from the rest of the Nazareth basin. We may wonder why a report, otherwise purely concerned with the Nazareth Village Farm, includes a discussion of coins at Mary’s Well (at the distant northern end of the basin), or of Bagatti’s numismatic finds in the Venerated Area. The answer is that the authors are here being revisionist as well. They bluntly allege that coins found at the northern end of the basin (Mary’s Well) “included a few Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Early Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad and Crusader coins.” But the archaeologist who dug at Mary’s Well (Y. Alexandre) never claimed coins dating before Byzantine times! (I have exchanged emails with the archaeologist on precisely this point.) In other words, in the review of those remote loci several reckless and unsubstantiated claims are made—claims which now support a village at the turn of the era.

The pottery

Rapuano itemizes about 75 artefacts, mostly small pottery shards. Of these, only 15 artefacts (20% of itemized finds) are furnished with a typological parallel, invariably to an artefact in the volumes of Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee. (1993). A parallel is essential, because it allows the reader to verify what would otherwise be the archaeologist’s unsubstantiated opinion. But we see that in 80% of cases, Rapuano’s itemizations are not accompanied by parallels. Hence the characteristics and dating of most of Rapuano’s evidence amount to no more than the (unverifiable) opinion of the archaeologist himself.

In eleven cases, Rapuano insists on a pre-70 CE dating. These claims represent the totality of the NVF evidence for a pre-70 CE Nazareth, and yet they are all without foundation in fact. It is revealing that in every one of these cases no typological parallels are available. Put bluntly, the NVF evidence for Nazareth in the time of Jesus rests on no more than Y. Rapuano’s opinion. He can point to no parallels in the published literature for his venturesome pre-70 CE claims.

As we have noted, without standard parallels to published literature an archaeologist’s claims must be considered non-diagnostic and are rejected as (arbitrary) opinions without substantiation. It can also be noted that Rapuano’s early datings conflict with the evidence from the rest of the Nazareth basin, as determined in the pages of The Myth of Nazareth.

Finally, it should be mentioned that in most of these early dating cases Mr. Rapuano admits uncertainty. In eight of the eleven cases he himself writes “tentatively,” “possibly,” “probably,” or “likely.” He simply is not sure! His own uncertainty shows us that we cannot seriously consider the presence of people at the site of the Nazareth Village Farm at the turn of the era.

Finally, in those relatively few cases where Rapuano actually offers a typological parallel, the dating range is fully compatible with a post-70 CE beginning for Nazareth. In other words, all the datings—when properly supported by a parallel—are consistent with a post-70 CE beginning for Nazareth. There is no real conflict between the NVF report (properly examined) and the emergence of the settlement after the First Jewish War. This is the main conclusion of this Scandal Sheet.

For the preceding reasons, Rapuano’s datings regarding the NVF pottery must be considered tendentious. In particular, there is no support for his early datings, those which would substantiate a village in the time of Jesus. Indeed, there is no evidence at all in the NVF report for a settlement before 70 CE.—René Salm

Admin · Guru

Scandal 6
No “house from the time of Jesus” has been found at Nazareth

On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement (recently taken offline) from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.

The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).

The excavation took place between Nov. 11 and Dec. 7, 2009, under the direction of IAA archaeologist Y. Alexandre. It took place in the so-called “venerated area” next to the Church of the Annunciation, located on the Nazareth hillside. At this time, the official release from the IAA is the primary report and ultimate source of information on this excavation. As is normal, statements going beyond it must be supported by the presentation of verifiable evidence, and statements contradicting it must be viewed with skepticism.

Prominent American and Israeli archaeologists raise doubt about the alleged Jesus-era house in Nazareth

An American archaeologist rails against Yardenna Alexandre’s announcement:

...What I find most notable is that to date the excavators have yet to report even one shred of evidence that places this structure in the first century CE as opposed to the second century. People can “trust” all they wish, but it is precisely this type of trust that leads the gullible to pay no heed to the requirements of evidence. Instead, they buy into the spurious idea that the traces of farms, Roman bath houses, garrison works, vineyards, caravanseries, synagogues, etc., have been discovered from a turn of the era Nazareth. These edifices do not exist in the factual record, but they widely populate apologists’ fiction.

The same archaeologist writes:

…After reading the MFA [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, which states that the ceramics found at the site were perhaps second century CE, I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion. So, judging from the finds themselves, the “Jesus era” is apparently first-second century CE or perhaps even later. Obviously, this dig adds little if anything to our previous body of knowledge at this time, as we already have scarce first-second century ceramic remains at Nazareth and an evidentiary profile that confirms occupation of the site in the second century CE.
It really looks like our Israeli and Franciscan friends are merely up to their old tricks. I find it highly revealing that an IAA [Israel Antiquities Authority] representative would state that we have a “few written sources that [let us] know” that “Nazareth was a small, Jewish village” in the “first century CE.” Anyone care to venture a guess as to what these written sources might be? Nazareth is a cash/political cow and professional/confessional bulwark that they will never allow to crumble, no matter what the evidence might be.
BTW, if anyone is interested in an excellent summary of the archaeological recoveries at Nazareth to date, I would highly recommend Rene Salm’s book on the subject… [I]t provides an excellent inventory and analysis of the evidence, a feat all the more remarkable when one considers that Salm is not a formal member of our profession.

[Dec. 30, 2009. Emphasis added and name withheld.]

The Mary of Nazareth International Center

The Grand Opening of The Mary of Nazareth International Center took place on March 25, 2011. This imposing complex (see below) is located directly on the site of the so-called “house from the time of Jesus,” one discovered in Nazareth in late 2009. For the last year, the Roman Catholic Church has been publicizing this very small dig—one evidently unworthy of any scholarly report, for none has appeared.

I’ll first talk a little about the excavation before discussing the new edifice. Neither the archeologist (Y. Alexandre) nor anyone else has published any verification of material findings or claims. That is one major problem with the excavation. The closest we have had to an objective report was a (very) brief IAA statement which made no mention at all of finds from the time of Jesus. That report has now been taken off the web, so the world must now rely entirely upon the claims of the Church regarding the primary evidence: “the house dates with certainty from the time of Christ… pottery and ceramics are from the Hellenistic Period.” All this is typical. For two thousand years the faithful have similarly relied exclusively on ‘in-house’ reports regarding their founder Jesus of Nazareth—namely, the Gospels.

A second problem with the excavation is that the original house (whatever it’s actual date) was quickly covered over—by construction of The Mary of Nazareth International Center, thus preventing any future investigation of the underlying evidence. So, we have (1) no verification in the published literature, and (2) not even the possibility of verification due to subsequent construction at the site. No one can ever really know what was there. The reader should remain skeptical of all claims made on the Internet, in the popular literature, and even in scholarly articles and books (that will probably appear) which discuss this excavation, for they are all based on the same two problems noted above: the lack of verification, and the lack of possible verification now and in the future.

There is, however, a statement in the Catholic literature which, I submit, should be taken seriously: “Up till then [that is, the recent ‘house’ discovery], there was no scientific evidence affirming the existence of a village of Nazareth of the epoch of Christ.” After a hundred years of digging, this belated admission is entirely correct, besides being an oblique nod to my work. Coming from the Catholic Church, it is categorical assurance (were any still required) that the last century of excavation in Nazareth has utterly failed to vindicate the traditional story of Jesus.

Now, to The Mary of Nazareth International Center. The humble Mary, Mother of God, must be proud as she looks down from her heavenly throne on the spanking new edifice which, curiously, marks not her home but that of an anonymous next door neighbor. You see, Mary herself lived across the street at the present Church of the Annunciation. Who her (now-exalted) neighbor was nobody really knows …or seems to care. It couldn’t have been Joseph, for he evidently lived to the other side of Mary’s dwelling (the Church of St. Joseph is 100 m. north of the Church of the Annunciation). Anyway, an unknown Nazarene is now posthumously venerated by the Catholic Church at this new Center. The impressive edifice consists of several areas including: (1) a 120-seattheatre for rent, amenable to performances, conferences, and motion pictures. (2) A cafeteria-restaurant for “coffee break, an ice-cream, or even a full meal,” for hungry sinners requiring sustenance of a physical nature. (3) A Boutique where one can buy “olive tree wood, icons, cards, souvenirs, books, CDs and DVDs, ceramics, candles, confections, jams, olive oil, and spices”—evidently, all one could possibly need to get to heaven. (4) A botanical garden “with a breathtaking view.” (5) A chapel. (6) Offices of the Chemin Neuf association, which runs the Marian Center.

The Chemin Neuf (“New Path”) association seems to be the arm of the Roman Catholic Church which reaches out especially to young adults. Founded by a certain Père Laurent Fabre, it’s motto is “Let Mary be your guide through the Scriptures.” Chemin Neuf exists in many countries. There is a photo online of its local director in Nazareth, a certain Marc Hodara. Looking very much the Catholic foreman, he stands in front of the Marian construction site wearing dark glasses, a prominent crucifix, and a construction hat emblazoned with the letters “MH”.

Certainty at Nazareth?

The founder of the Mary of Nazareth Association is a certain Olivier Bonnassies. He has written (regarding the Nazareth house excavation): “One is able to establish the date of these stones—they are datable because of pottery and ceramics; and they date to before Christ, that is, before the Hellenistic period, which is to say before 67 B.C., the year of the conquest of Pompey, which made Palestine roman.” This confusing statement aptly summarizes the position of the Catholic Church regarding Nazareth. It contradicts itself and is quite unsubstantiated. In the first place, skeptics and scholars alike must consider the alleged ‘pottery and ceramics’ mythical for, as mentioned above, no report has appeared in the literature regarding them. In other words, they don’t exist in the scholarly record. Secondly, the time “before Christ” is not “the Hellenistic period” (which ended with Pompey’s conquest in 63, not 67 BCE). So, if material there were to date to the Hellenistic period (which I very much doubt), that would hardly substantiate a settlement at the turn of the era. Finally, the claim of evidence from “before the Hellenistic period” adds another layer of confusion and moves us back several centuries before ‘Christ.’ In sum, we don’t really know what Bonnassies is saying here.

Oh, well. I’m not sure he himself knows what he is saying.

Admin · Guru

Scandal 7

“Israel’s Evangelical Approach” and Nazareth
If the facts would only go away…

On Saturday, May 07, 2011, a notice appeared on the BiblePlaces.com blog’s Weekend Roundup:

ICEJ [International Christian Embassy Jerusalem] News reports on Israel’s plans to invest in Nazareth: On Wednesday, Israeli tourism minister Stas Meseznikov announced that the government is planning to invest more than NIS 12 million [$3.5 million] over the next four years in Israel’s largest Arab city, Nazareth, which is also a major tourist attraction due to its status as the town where Jesus grew up, being visited by over 40% of the tourists who arrive in Israel every year. One of the strategies used in order to develop the city is to encourage local residents to open their own businesses, and grants of up to 30% of their start up investments are therefore offered. “The program to boost development of the tourism industry in Nazareth is part of a 2010 government initiative to encourage development in the Arab sector,” Meseznikov said.

What, we may ask, is the ICEJ? We learn the following from its website:

“Comfort ye, comfort ye My People” [Isaiah 40:1-2]… was the “mandate from heaven” given to the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem three decades ago… For over thirty years the ICEJ has embarked upon a journey of giving comfort to Israel. This journey has involved deeds and compassion and every town, village and city has been impacted, in some way, by our benevolence ministry that has helped the poor, healed the sick, housed the lonely, encouraged the children and cared for the elderly… [We have] impacted more than a hundred thousand Christians with the biblical perspective of recognizing the hand of God in Israel’s modern day restoration and the need to work with what God is doing, and bless it… As Israel moves steadily but surely to her God-given destiny, we are determined to “stay the course” with her…—Rev. Malcolm Hedding, Executive Director

As regards Mr. Hedding, he is a South African-born anti-apartheid activist, theologian, and evangelical minister. From 1991 to 2000 Hedding served as Chairman of Christian Action for Israel, a “biblical Zionist organization” based in Geneva. He is also associated with a certain “King of Kings Community Jerusalem” and says “that the Palestinians remain committed to Israel’s destruction.” Hedding has several books to his credit.

None of the above should surprise us. A revealing article entitled Israel’s Evangelical Approach appeared in the Washington Post already a decade ago (Jan. 26, 2002). Authored by Mark O’Keefe, it is subtitled U.S. Christian Zionists Nurtured as Political, Tourism Force. The piece is still valuable today, for it attests to the long-standing strategic cooperation between Israeli and Christian interests, a cooperation which is now bearing considerable fruit in Nazareth. The article begins:

In an effort to solidify its relationship with American evangelicals, the government of Israel has launched initiatives that include expense-paid trips to the Holy Land and strategy sessions with the Christian Coalition and other conservative groups. The objectives: to revive Israel’s sagging tourism industry and strengthen grass-roots support in the United States. The target audience is the estimated 98 million U.S. evangelicals, but especially a subset of that group, Christian Zionists.

The Israeli government hired an American PR firm and approved a “multimillion-dollar marketing plan… with certain aspects dependent on funding by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.” So, Christian conservatives, Zionists, and Israeli tourism interests are now all solidly united in celebrating the alleged hometown of Jesus… Of course, that combined juggernaut has little interest in the proposition that the town of Nazareth did not even exist in the time of ‘Jesus.’ Most inconvenient! If only the facts of archeology and history would go away. Alas, those facts are becoming clearer by the day, as doubts continue to grow that ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ himself did not exist—and now (dare we mention it?) that perhaps even ‘King David’ did not exist…

The Annunciation is such a nice story. In a way, it’s melancholy that the beloved Christian fable most of us grew up with is giving way to the inexorable march of science, and that it must soon be generally acknowledged as but a childish myth. Today tourists stream into Nazareth, yet one can only wonder how the accumulating facts of history must impact them tomorrow—and hence impact the Christian conservatives, Zionists, and Israeli tourism interests so supportive of those precious tourists.—RS

Admin · Guru

1

Christianity at the crossroads—Nazareth in the crosshairs By Rene Salm

A few days ago I had lunch with my neighbors. Ben is a retired financial analyst, a practical, intelligent man with a dry wit and little patience for superstition.

His wife Karen works as a psychiatric nurse and had the day off. As we ate, the TV was on in the background, tuned to CNN. This was Holy Week, the time of year when Christ's death and resurrection are celebrated, and when the Christian world is more than usually interested in topics religious. This year those topics were spicier than usual, for the breaking news was the Catholic Church's sex scandal.

Perhaps catering to America's insatiable appetite for the salacious, the top story on CNN that day was pedophile priests. Our table talk was a commentary on the increasingly lurid revelations which now threatened to implicate even the pope.

Over coffee and dessert, Ben (my neighbor, that is, not the pope) muttered in disgust, "Why does anyone still go to church?"

Karen shook her head in silence. "There are still a lot of believers," I answered with a sigh.

The three of us were raised Roman Catholic but, in a perhaps revealing statistic, not one of us remains a believer today.

"Does anybody," Ben continued, "really think that the wine turns into Jesus'blood, and the bread into his body? Isn't this the twentyTfirst century?"

"It is, but they're still teaching those things in catechism class," I said.

"Cannibals!" Ben retorted, taking a bite of pie.

The TV droned on: ". . . molested two hundred children. . . difficult to prove the pope's direct involvement. . . Vatican very angry with the New York times. . .thousands of cases now surfacing in Germany. . . Bavarian Catholics leaving theChurch in droves. . ."

I glanced at my watch and turned to Karen. "That was a great lunch," I said,standing up to leave.

"More pie and ice cream?" she offered.

"Wish I could stay longer, Karen, but I need to write an article this afternoon.

It's for American Atheist magazine."

"Maybe you can include something about these scandals," she said.

"That's a good idea. But the article is about the bogus archaeology of

Nazareth a long time ago. Is there a tieTin?"

"Yes," Ben interjected, rising from the table to get my jacket. "The latest sex scandals are just the most recent form of hypocrisy, aren't they? I mean, the Church didn't become this rotten overnight. It must have gone wrong some time ago. . . A long time ago—maybe even at the very beginning. That's where Nazareth comes in."

My neighbor is absolutely right. The hypocrisy now surfacing in the Catholic church has a long and sickening pedigree. Today's pedophile priest, yesterday's holierTthanTthou inquisitor, and the grand dissemblers who led western civilization astray two thousand years ago with a ****TandTbull Jesus story all have one thing in

common: a pathological betrayal of trust.2

A house "from the time of Jesus"?

On December 20 of last year, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) notified major wire services as well as journalists from leading newspapers around the world of breaking news about to take place in Nazareth. I read the following notice on my computer in Eugene, Oregon:

This morning the IAA Spokesperson circulated a notice to journalists inviting them to a Press Conference to be held tomorrow morning, December 21, at which ! the IAA will Reveal a New Archeological find in Nazareth. The meeting point will be behind the Church of the Annunciation, next to the upper entrance to the old school of Saint Joseph at 10:20 AM.

I found the timing predictable, even suspicious, as the Catholic Church has a penchant for announcing convenient 'news' on or about the winter solstice and just a few days before Christmas. That is peak piety season when the congregation is, presumably, at peak receptivity.

TTTTTTTTT [Sidebar]TTTTTTTTTT

(Excerpt from "Glimpse into Jesus' time," FOX news video, Dec. 22, 2009)

Bill Hemmer (FOX news interviewer): It's such a wonderful time of the year to have such a great discovery. . .James Hamilton Charlesworth (noted academic at Princeton Theological Seminary, professor and Methodist minister): I almost said at the beginning, 'Let's be cynical.' You know, this is the time of year when nonsense hits!because it's Christmas. But wait a minute. . . This is not nonsense. This is REAL stuff, from Jesus' Nazareth, from Jesus' time!

Bill Hemmer: Wait a minute. . . You don't need to be cynical, you can be skeptical.

You don't necessarily have to be cynical!

James Hamilton Charlesworth: [Somewhat taken aback.] That's a good correction.

Yeah. . .

TTTTTTTTT [End!sidebar]TTTTTTTTTT

On winter solstice morning a veritable gaggle of international media

representatives were assembled on Franciscan property in Nazareth, Israel, for thepromised news. They stood outside the Church of the Annunciation, a few yards from the fabled spot where the fourteenTyear old Virgin Mary received the assignation from the archangel Gabriel that she would be bearing God, or the Son of God, or God with Us ("Emmanuel," Mt 1:23)!Christian theologians have long

Admin · Guru

Nazareth, Faith, and the Dark Option—an Update
(American Atheist, January 2009. Used with permission.)

By René Salm

American Atheist has always championed the no-nonsense view of religion, and readers may note with a certain pride that this magazine has now emerged as a leading—if not the leading—advocate for the wholesale revision of Christian beginnings. Atheists have never shirked the challenge to take on the goliath of establishment Christianity, and today that challenge must include the controversial archaeology of Nazareth, which Frank Zindler has called “the Achilles’ heel of a popular god.” Readers will recall two articles in previous American Atheist issues on this topic [1], articles which preview and alert readers to my recent book, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (American Atheist Press, March 2008). The opposition has now responded with the literary equivalent of a scream, and I’d like readers to know that the popular Christian god is in a heap of trouble and may be teetering.

The organ of this brouhaha is an obscure journal with a small distribution but long name: The Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society. Mercifully, the annual publication has a catchy abbreviation: BAIAS (no pun intended). Concerned scholars must have been properly miffed at the various writings on Nazareth coming from the Atheist camp, for they contribute no less than 47 pages (a third of the issue) to five rebuttals. Wow. Apparently we have indeed struck the Achilles’ heel, or at least a very raw nerve.

Much of the BAIAS material deals with an ambitious commercial enterprise presently underway in Nazareth to recreate Jesus’ hometown. The resort is known as “Nazareth Village.” When complete, the project will contain streets and several dozen stone houses “inhabited by actors and storytellers in authentic garb, [who] will illuminate the life and teachings of Jesus. A Parable Walk, museum, study center and restaurant are also planned…” [2] I don’t have recent figures, but as of 1999 an international consortium of Christian groups (called the Miracle of Nazareth International Foundation) had raised a whopping $60 million for the project. Contributors in the U.S. include former President Jimmy Carter, Pat Boone, and Rev. Reggie White, the former Green Bay Packer football star. (Gulp…)

In the interests of full disclosure, perhaps I should say that I’ve got nothing against Pat Boone. I also greatly admire Jimmy Carter’s advocating for free and fair elections, think his work with Habitat for Humanity is wonderful, and wish my teeth were half as shiny as his. The problem has to do with Nazareth, and specifically with the fact that certain scholars associated with the Nazareth Village project claim to have found evidence there for a town at the time of Jesus, that is, for a settlement before the First Jewish War (70 CE). One of the main thrusts of my book is to carefully show that the scholarly Nazareth literature is littered with previous claims of this ilk, and that they are all bogus, inevitably resulting from misdating, mislabeling, misinterpreting—or even from pure invention. Now, in the 11th hour, as it were, the world is being confronted with the possibility that a small group of scholars, intimately associated with a mega-resort, has ‘found’ all-important Jesus-evidence that has somehow eluded archaeologists digging for the last hundred years. Furthermore, they claim this evidence was just lying around on the surface of the site. I, for one, am skeptical!

The Nazareth Village resort lies on a 15-acre plot of land called the Nazareth Village Farm (NVF). The scholars under discussion (Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano) surveyed the farm, dug on it, and published a lengthy report in the 2007 issue of BAIAS (pp. 19–79). The report appeared too late for inclusion in my book, but I had little difficulty showing that their Jesus-evidence does not exist. It consists of eleven small pieces of pottery—shards to which the NVF scholars assign an early date but which the standard textbook dates as late as the second century CE. In other words, the NVF scholars were choosing arbitrarily early dates for a few objects, and resting their Jesus-case on what amounts to mere preference. Significantly, in my book I show that the rest of the material from the Nazareth basin dates after the time of Jesus. So, an early dating for the NVF objects in question is not consistent with the evidentiary profile for the area.

Perhaps more embarrassing for the authors of the NVF report are a number of flagrant double-datings in their pottery report. Unbelievable as it may sound, they dated certain artefacts one way in certain passages, and another way in other passages. One can only conclude that either the NVF authors were very sloppy, or they were capable of looking at the same piece twice and coming up with different dates for it.

Since The Myth of Nazareth had already appeared when this was published, I wrote a 15-page “Response” to the long NVF report and sent it to BAIAS, challenging them to publish it in their next (2008) issue. That issue has now appeared and is the subject of the rest of this article. In the Response I spell out the above confidence-sapping errors, with chapter and verse. I also made sure that a few copies of the book got into their hands.

Well, all this confrontational material was too much, I guess, because the good scholars on the other end apparently went ballistic. Not only was my “Response” published in the next BAIAS, but a wholesale correction of the previous pottery report also appeared—one now three times as long as the original, under the title “Amendment.” The scholars in question averred that there was, in fact, no incompetent ‘double-dating.’ It was simply, they explained, a minor (!) difficulty of “misnumbering”…two numbering schemes that apparently were not harmonized. Uh-huh.

A clever proposal?

Professor Ken Dark, a British archaeologist not affiliated with the Nazareth Village Farm, has also been digging in and around Nazareth for the last several years. He wrote a review of The Myth of Nazareth which appeared in BAIAS along with the material mentioned above. As expected, the review is hostile. It is also, in my opinion, fairly weak simply because it evades the main thesis of my book, which is that there is no demonstrable evidence from the Nazareth basin dating to the time of Jesus and to Hellenistic times. Prof. Dark’s review does not acknowledge the shoddy history of scholarship relating to Nazareth, nor does it note the 800-year lacuna in evidence from the Nazareth basin (ca. 730 BCE–ca. 70 CE), nor even the post-Jesus dating for the all-important oil lamps. These are mainstays of my book’s argument. It is as if evidence simply doesn’t matter to the tradition. And, in fact, it doesn’t (see below). At least, Prof. Dark admits that the earliest evidence from Nazareth is “ambiguous.” That is a tacit admission that the case for Nazareth in the time of Jesus is not certain. Folks, an admission of uncertainty is probably the most we’re going to get from the tradition!

For the standard scenario of Christian beginnings, the existence of tombs directly under the Church of the Annunciation at Nazareth is a particularly distressing issue, one emphasized in my book. That massive church (the largest Christian structure in the Middle East) is a prime destination of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. There, the Blessed Virgin allegedly received the annunciation from the Archangel Gabriel. For the faithful, tombs have no place under that structure because, according to Jewish religious law (Torah), Jews could not live in the vicinity of tombs, which are a prime source of ritual impurity. So, the Mishna (an ancient commentary on Jewish law) mandated that tombs must be located outside the village proper. Thus, tombs under the house of Mary have largely been denied by the tradition.

However, The Myth of Nazareth (Chapter Five) devotes many pages to various tombs under the Church of the Annunciation, and notes that several of them have not been denied by a number of archaeologists. Ken Dark also seems to appreciate that the tombs are undeniable. So, in the 2008 BAIAS, he offers a new twist on Nazareth history, one which cleverly accommodates both the tombs in the Venerated Area and the presence of the Holy Family. He suggests that early Nazareth was a two-stage affair. The first stage (Nazareth at the time of Jesus) was an agricultural village, apparently lacking tombs. Then, in the second century CE, the Nazarenes began to construct tombs on the hillside. Thus, the tombs detectable under the Church of the Annunciation do not affect the story of Mary—those tombs didn’t yet exist when she lived.

At first it seems like a clever scenario, but a little thought shows that Prof. Dark is hardly doing the tradition a favor by advocating this line of thinking. On the contrary, by insisting that the Nazareth tombs came later, Dark also dates the wealth of artefacts found in those tombs to post-Jesus times. If anything, his line supports the view argued in my book, for I demonstrate that the post-Iron Age tombs at Nazareth are post-Jesus (i.e., Middle Roman and later), and that the wealth of pottery found in them is also later. Thus, Dark strongly supports a case for Nazareth in post-Jesus times, while impoverishing a case for Nazareth in the time of Jesus by excluding from consideration all the evidence found in the tombs. Hey, with enemies like Dark, who needs friends?

A Dark Option

There is, unfortunately, another option which is rather dark (pun intended). The tradition’s case—and the British archaeologist’s scenario—can only be established by the verification of Hellenistic–I CE finds in the Nazareth basin. My book has pretty convincingly removed all prior claims of such evidence. Thus, the only chance for the tradition to exonerate itself is if new evidence comes to light, evidence which directly and incontrovertibly supports a settlement at the turn of the era. Presumably, such finds would be non-funerary, for both Dark and myself seem to agree that the tombs at Nazareth date to post-Jesus times.

Undoubtedly there is great pressure on the tradition now to discover such telling evidence from Nazareth. Continuing pilgrimage depends on it. The incipient Nazareth Village depends on it. Perhaps the entire Jesus-story depends on it. This is the time for stalwart defenders of the tradition to exercise their resourcefulness and acumen in defense of the Christian story and to prevent a wound to the Achilles’ heel from festering and becoming fatal. Let’s not be too surprised if remarkable new ‘finds’ at Nazareth conveniently appear in the next few years—finds substantiating a settlement there at the time of Christ. To fit the demands of the tradition that are now in print, the forthcoming material will have to be early and non-funereal.

Well, guess what? According to the NVF report, a cache of Hellenistic and Early Roman coins has recently been ‘found’ at Mary’s Well (at the Northern end of the Nazareth basin). Wow. Nothing remotely similar has ever been found in the Nazareth basin. The earliest coin found there dates to about 350 CE. A cache of Hellenistic and Early Roman coins is exactly the sort of evidence which the tradition needs in order to decide the matter in its favor.

My scepticism is increased by the fact that I possess a pre-publication report (dated 2006) from the Israel Antiquities Authority signed by the archaeologist who dug at Mary’s Well. In it she mentions no early coins at all. The only datable coins she signals were from the 14th–15th centuries CE. Hmm… What’s going on here?

All of a sudden, claims of Jesus-era evidence are being made at Nazareth. Putative turn-of-the-era evidence is popping up all over the place—on the surface at the Nazareth Village Farm (see above), at Mary’s Well… Where next?

It’s all too late. Archaeologists have been digging at Nazareth for over a hundred years and, as my book attempts to show, all the recovered finds include not a single artefact that can with certainty be dated before 100 CE. In other words, no demonstrable evidence dating either to the time of Jesus or to earlier Hellenistic times has been found. This is quite sufficient to decide the issue against the traditional view of Nazareth. The case is closed! No one, of course, is opposed to ongoing research at Nazareth, but that research will inform us about the nature of the Late Roman-Byzantine village, not about a mythical settlement at the turn of the era. That question has already been answered, and answered convincingly.

We should all look with great suspicion on new evidence ‘coming to light’ which conflicts with the evidentiary profile of the last hundred years, new evidence which astonishingly reopens the case for settlement in the time of Christ. Given the revelations documented in my book, and the lengthy history of duplicity associated with Nazareth archaeology, we have every right to insist that any new evidence be rigorously documented as to findspot, circumstances of discovery, and description (preferably accompanied by photo or diagram). Any claim of new, pre-70 CE evidence, should raise an alarum red flag. Such a claim tells us more about the persons making it than about Nazareth.

Fact versus Faith

When it comes to the archaeology of Nazareth, there are now two camps, each capable of looking at the same evidence and reaching radically different conclusions. One camp I have called the tradition. It continues to claim the existence of Nazareth in the time of ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (whose historicity is now increasingly questioned) and insists that the town was there, even as the gospels say, regardless of the facts in the ground.

For generations, the tradition has been defending itself by demanding, “Prove me wrong.” So, empiricists come up with the required facts, only to discover that the facts don’t seem to matter to some people. Unfortunately, there’s simply no way to disprove a myth. After all, neither you nor I can prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. We can go to the North Pole, can dig up there (under water and ice!) all we want, and can find absolutely no evidence for his gift-packing facility nor for his team of flying reindeer. But to a believer, we can’t prove those don’t exist. All the believer has to say is, “Well, you didn’t look in the right places,” “He’s hiding,” or even “He’s invisible.” Unfortunately, common myths involving Jesus are every bit as weird.

Empiricists need not waste their lives endlessly fact-checking, double-checking, and triple-checking, while faith-based morons sit back and watch the comedy. In other words, we needn’t waste our time trying to convince unreasoning people. Those who want to believe in Santa Claus, and want to believe the Christian myth, certainly have that right. On the other hand, we have every right not to partake of such mindless delusions, and to see the world as clearly as our senses and reason permit.

Nazareth is a case in point, where facts are critical to one side and irrelevant to the other. Empiricists are good at collecting and analyzing facts. They bring them to believers, perhaps thinking “This will convince them,” and watch while the other side changes the rules or moves the goal posts. Theoretically, there’s no end to the impossible demands of faith. People have been digging in Nazareth for generations, and no evidence from the time of Jesus has been forthcoming. That’s good enough for empiricists, who sensibly conclude: a settlement at Nazareth didn’t exist at the turn of the era. But the tradition can still stubbornly maintain that Nazareth existed in those parts of the basin where we haven’t yet dug. That’s like kicking the can down the road. Even a trained archaeologist like Ken Dark continues this false pattern, as demonstrated in his book review of The Myth of Nazareth:

The initial question must be whether the stated aims of the book are archaeologically achievable. It would, hypothetically, be archaeologically possible to show that there was no Second Temple period [i.e. Persian/Hellenistic–I AD] settlement evidence on any of the sites so far excavated in Nazareth. But it is not possible to show archaeologically on the basis of available data that Nazareth did not exist in the Second Temple period (or at any other period), because the focus of activity at any period may be outside the still few excavated and surveyed areas. Hypothetically, it is possible that Late Roman pilgrims and church-builders were incorrect when they took the present site of Nazareth as its New Testament counterpart, and that New Testament period Nazareth was elsewhere. [3]

Elsewhere? That’s kicking the can down the road. After all, there’s no way we can dig everywhere, and there’s absolutely no reason why we should engage in the endless and futile effort of humoring the irrational wishes of theists. No. There comes a time when evidence (and its lack) must speak.

The two camps—rationalist and faith-based—are coalescing around many religious issues today, including the archaeology of Nazareth. The traditional camp now has an extensive Nazareth literature upon which to draw for future citations and authority—the writings of generations of hidebound archaeologists and scholars (Viaud, Kopp, Bagatti, Strange, now Dark). It is a self perpetuating culture which can (and probably will) go on ad infinitum, as the tradition cites false facts and skewed information, seeking only to appease the many who don’t care to think, anyway.

Then there’s the rationalist camp, which on this issue is represented by a small but growing literature on Nazareth (Cheyne, Zindler, Salm). There may now exist the critical mass needed for this view to also become a self-perpetuating alternative to the traditional, bogus position. I certainly hope that’s the case, and that we do not lose our initiative regarding this Achilles’ heel of Christianity. It may be that the rationalist and faith-based camps are speaking past each other, and probably always will. But our side needs to assert itself when the opportunity presents, if only because none of us wants mankind to suffer through another Dark Ages ruled by faith and unreason.

Endnotes

1. “Why the Truth About Nazareth Is Important” (American Atheist, Nov-Dec 2006, pp. 14–19); “The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus: Does it really matter?” (American Atheist March, 2007, pp. 13–14).
2. Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. 25, May–June 1999, p. 16. At the time of this writing (December 2008) the website for the Nazareth Village was http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/.
3. The Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 2008:141–42.

Editor’s Note

In all the disputation over coins and tombs and pottery shards—and now the claim that ‘Nazareth’ may have been located somewhere else—we must not lose sight of the fact that the so-called Venerated Sites at which the various Franciscan pseudoarchaeologists have been digging for the last century or so were situated where they are out of a necessity to make them fit the requirements of the Gospels’ descriptions as much as possible. Even so, the tradition has failed miserably in fitting the Venerated Sites into the picture painted by the Gospel accounts.

According to Luke 4:16–30, for example, there should be a synagogue at the top of Nazareth hill and a “brow of the hill” (cliff) over which the Jews once tried to cast Jesus down to his death. No such cliff exists, nor is there any reasonable place where such a cliff could have existed during the last hundred-thousand years. Of course, no synagogue remains have ever been found atop the Nazareth hill’or anywhere in the vicinity. In fact, no evidence of buildings of any kind dating to the turn of the era has ever been found at the Venerated Sites.

René Salm has presented exhaustive proof to show that the Gospel story cannot possibly be true if the Venerated Sites are, in fact, ‘Nazareth.’ Any archaeologist who claims some other site is the true Nazareth must either show that it better fits the Gospel descriptions or state publicly, plainly, and loudly: “The Gospels are in error!”—Frank R. Zindler

New Indian-Chennai News + more

The Myth of Nazareth:
The Invented Town of Jesus

by René Salm
Edited by Frank Zindler
American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey. 2008
375 pages. $20. ISBN 978-1-57884-003-8

Review by Robert M. Price, PhD, ThD

“A joy to read.”
— Prof. J. L. Falvey, Univ. of Cambridge (U.K.)

Available from www.americanatheist.org , amazon.com
and now at 25% discount from the author.

The compromised archaeology of Nazareth

The background

A flawed record

Where did Jesus come from?

This timely and thoroughly-researched exposé
is sure to significantly impact the traditional view of Christian beginnings.

Scandal 1
The (unacknowledged) tombs under the Church of the Annunciation

(By René Salm, author of The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus)

Scandal 2
The dishonest shell game with the Nazareth evidence

Scandal 3
Alleged “Hellenistic” evidence

Scandal 4
“Herodian” and the misdating of Nazareth evidence