FLASHBACK: The archaeology of Nazareth: A history of pious fraud?

Good morning. This presentation will be divided into two parts. The first part will consist of a brief survey of the most significant material finds from the Nazareth basin as they relate to the possible existence of a settlement there at the turn of the era. The second part will briefly discuss the question of "pious fraud" as this may relate to the history of Nazareth archaeology.

First, however, I would like to preface these remarks with a little background on myself and on some false assumptions regarding my work.

You may be aware that I wrote a book called The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. It was published in 2008 by American Atheist Press. The book required eight years of research and has over 800 footnotes, seven appendices, and a bibliography that extends to hundreds of works. It's major thesis has since met violent and sustained opposition from scholars of virtually every stripe. The evidence in the book, however, has not yet been contradicted.

Not being an archaeologist myself, I am often asked: "How can you date evidence, Mr. Salm?" or: "How can you presume to correct professional archaeologists?" or: "How can you have any opinion on these matters?" However, there is a misunderstanding inherent in these questions, for I have never dated anything at all. I have simply identified the relevant archaeological experts and quoted their published datings: Hans-Peter Kuhnen on kokhim tombs, Varda Sussman on bow-spouted oil lamps, Roland Deines on Jewish stone vessels, Amos Kloner on circular blocking stones, and so on. The case regarding Nazareth does not rest on my opinion at all. Anyone who disagrees with The Myth of Nazareth is not disagreeing with me but is taking issue with the leading archaeological experts in the world. As we shall see, this is fatal for traditional conclusions regarding Nazareth.

I. A brief survey of the most significant material finds from the Nazareth basin as they relate to the existence of a settlement there at the turn of the era

The demonstrable material record shows that the settlement that eventually came to be called Nazareth did not come into existence until after the First Jewish War, that is, after 70 CE. We should first agree on what constitutes the "demonstrable material record." All can agree that it is found in scholarly publications. Note my inclusion here of the word "scholarly." Many opinions are now current on the Internet and in the popular press which claim, for example, the existence of a house in Nazareth from the time of Jesus, the existence of coins dating to Hasmonaean times, and even that a bath-house in Nazareth existed at the turn of the era—one in which Jesus himself may have bathed. However, these popular claims do not meet scholarly standards of publication, description, context, itemization, parallels, etc. That is, they do not allow other scholars to verify the nature of the evidence and hence to weigh the claims themselves. These non-academic press reports—quite frequent these days—are not what one can term "diagnostic." Until the evidence is itemized and described in a scientific way, such claims are the equivalent of unfounded opinion, hearsay, and innuendo.

The Bronze and Iron Age settlement

surveys the material from the Stone Age to Later Roman times. It shows that there was indeed a settlement of considerable size in that locality in the Bronze and Iron ages. The material evidence is congruent with the thesis, presented in my book, that this settlement was in fact Biblical "Japhia" and, furthermore, that the Assyrians destroyed this important town in the later eight century BCE. A complete and total lack of material evidence in the Nazareth basin for the ensuing 800 years (from roughly 700 BCE to 100 CE) is systematically demonstrated in The Myth of Nazareth. I term those eight centuries the "Great Hiatus."

Alleged evidence from the Hellenistic era

The traditional Catholic view is that Nazareth has existed in continuity since the Bronze Age. However, this view has become increasingly untenable, partly as a result of the appearance of my book. An alternate view, now gaining currency, is that Nazareth came into existence in Hellenistic times. However, the critical evidence to substantiate this view cannot be found in the published scientific literature. I show that all the specific evidence relative to the Hellenistic era claimed by Bagatti and other archaeologists to date simply does not exist. Those Hellenistic claims reduce to eleven pieces of movable evidence, including pottery and some oil lamps. In every case the evidence has been redated by specialists to later times, and in one case to the Iron Age (MoN:135). In short, there is no Hellenistic material evidence from the Nazareth basin at all.

Read the rest of the article here (PDF)