Free The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus by Rene Salm

literature presents as “Hellenistic,” and have found that the little that in fact exists has invariably been misrepresented. We began with the Richmond oil lamps, considered the “Hellenistic nozzle,” the St. Joseph material, and finally the few remaining artefacts that Bagatti claimed belonged to the Hellenistic period. In each case we discovered that the Hellenistic claim was unfounded. Only in the case of one shard (C, above), was there not enough information to arrive at a conclusive opinion. But, given what we have learned in the foregoing discussion, it is all but certain that this shard, too, is not “Hellenistic.” It appears to be  yet another pretext to introduce that word into Bagatti’s book.
     We now come to a different class of assertion: those Hellenistic claims made by Bagatti and others that are not backed by any discrete evidence at all. Numerically, such abstract claims preponderate, for they are very easy to make. They are found in both the primary and secondary literature on Nazareth, and are particularly damaging for they are often eminently quotable. These empty “Hellenistic” claims are found in virtually all the reference works on the place, including Bagatti’s own reports. We now look at several such general declarations in Excavations . They are simply claims, not tied to any material evidence at all, and are prominent in the text, usually being found at the head of a section or in its closing summary.
     
    • D. On pages 29 and 32 of Excavations we read the following critical conclusion, which we have previously encountered:
 
Chronologically we have: tombs of the Middle Bronze Period; silos with ceramics of the Middle Iron Period; and then, uninterruptedly, ceramics and constructions of the Hellenistic Period down to modern times.
 
    This assertion was carefully analyzed in Chapter Two in reference to the doctrine of continuous habitation. [283] It mentions “ceramics and constructions of the Hellenistic Period,” but I wish to emphasize that nowhere does Bagatti discuss any actual “constructions” (wall foundations, tombs, agricultural installations) of that period. Had he done so, I would mention it now and would itemize those passages here. There are none. The only pre-Christian structural remains in the basin that Bagatti discusses are Bronze and Iron Age tombs and silos (Chapter One). In the next chapter we shall consider Roman and later structural evidence. Nowhere does Bagatti (or anyone else) discuss any actual “constructions” from the centuries of the Great Hiatus at Nazareth, i.e., c. 700 BCE– c . 100 CE.
    In light of this situation, the word “Hellenistic” in the above citation simply does not belong. Bagatti’s last phrase should read: “and then, ceramics and constructions of the Roman Period uninterruptedly down to modern times.”
    However, the statement as published had great effect. It helped establish the doctrine of continuous habitation (Chapter Two), and introduced the ‘certainty’ of Hellenistic evidence at Nazareth. It was requoted or paraphrased in the Encyclopedia Judaica and other reference works. [284] Even with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, a sentence such as the above can be especially damaging, for a scholar need only read it once in order to assure himself that the village of Nazareth existed in Hellenistic times. Indeed, that is why the statement was thus worded.
    An echo of the above citation begins the section in Excavations entitled, “Pottery of the Hellenistic [ sic !] Roman and Byzantine Periods”:
     
    In dealing with the excavations around the venerated Grotto we have treated also many shards because they served to suggest a date. As we have said, some shards belong to the Hellenistic period, others to the Roman and many to the Byzantine. [285]
     
    Direct paraphrases are found in NIDBA and in Jack Finegan’s The Archaeology of the New Testament . [286] Of course, we have systematically seen that the