The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus Read Online Free PDF Page A

Ages and not subsequent periods (something neither implied nor obvious from the citation). Thus, both Finegan’s and NIDBA’s statements are incorrect in one sense and misleading in another. They ignore the possibility of a hiatus in settlement.
     
    – “This is evidenced by the ancient skull found near the town as well as by Middle Bronze-Age pottery from burial caves in the upper part of the city. Also, near the Church of the Annunciation there have been  found grain silos of the type that were as early as the Chalcolithic Age but in which the earliest pottery was of Iron II…” (emphasis added). Comment: The “earliest pottery” claim is now familiar from our dissection of Finegan’s article above (pp. 28–30), and this sentence also appears to be borrowed from that source. [179] The final clause is a restatement of the Bagatti-Finegan insinuation of continuous habitation, namely, that evidence at Nazareth postdates the Iron period.
     
    – “Other pottery there consisted of a little from the Hellenistic period, more from the Roman and most from the Byzantine period.” Comment : As mentioned above, there is no pottery from the Nazareth basin dating to the Hellenistic period. This will be shown in Chapter Three. The lack of Hellenistic evidence at Nazareth effectively doubles the hiatus in settlement from four to eight centuries.
     
    – “Of the twenty-three tombs found c . 450 m (500 yd.) from the church most were of the kokim type ( i.e. , horizontal shafts or niches off a central chamber) known in Palestine from c . 200 BC and which became the standard Jewish type.” Comment : We will take up the subject of tombs later. Though the kokim ( kokh , pl. kokhim ) type of tomb was “known in Palestine from c . 200 BC,” at Nazareth use of this type of tomb begins much later, as will be proven by the artefacts found in them. They date the kokh tombs to Middle Roman and later times (see next point).
     
    – “Two tombs had in them artifacts (lamps, etc .) to be dated from the first to fourth centuries A.D.” Comment : The Roman tomb evidence is datable to the second century of our era and thereafter. We shall see that most of it is III–IV century CE. The earliest Roman artefacts may date to later first century CE.
     
    – “Four tombs sealed with rolling stones typical of the late Jewish period testify to a considerable Jewish community there in the Roman period.” Comment : Rolling stones are not found in Palestine before 70 CE. The only exceptions are rare monumental examples in Jerusalem ( e.g ., the tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene). [180]
     
    Thus, every sentence of the above passage has inaccuracies, some egregious. The cumulative effect of all these errors, large and small, is an entirely false history of the site.
     
    In a sense, Kopp’s prewar moving Nazareth hypothesis was safer for the Church than the continuous habitation doctrine first promulgated by Bagatti in 1955. The former was complex and difficult to comprehend – indeed, incomprehensible. Yet, an incomprehensible position is not immediately testable by evidence at hand. Since mid-century, the Church’s position has been verifiable, largely through evidence that Bagatti himself unearthed. The archaeologist rejected complexity, and chose to take the bull by the horns, as it were. He opted for the simple, direct solution, and for the grand line: Nazareth has existed since the dawn of history.
    Taking the bull by the horns is a most precarious maneuver, and the slightest error often proves fatal. Yet, the Church’s position rests on not one, but twin horns, both dangerous to its interests. One horn is the evidence in the ground – or rather, the lack thereof – during the centuries following the Assyrian conquest. Bagatti himself must have recognized the sheer impossibility of the doctrine of continuous habitation the very year he first announced it. That was in 1955, the year he also dug the stratigraphic trench.
    The second