work?
Remaining material represented as Hellenistic
In the preceding pages we have reviewed the three principal cases in which Nazareth evidence was labeled Hellenistic in the primary literature. These cases are notable because the conclusions based upon them have been enormous, though the shards themselves are sometimes very slight.
We now turn our attention to the few remaining Hellenistic claims of specific material in the ground.
• A. On page 183 of Bagatti’s Excavations in Nazareth, we read:
We give (figs. 144–5) the principal pieces of pottery found in the earth over the Grotto. Evidently they appertain to different periods, and from the oldest shards we can establish with certainty the presence of life there several centuries before Christ . (Emphasis added.)
This eminently quotable and self-assured statement places us squarely in the evidentiary gap following the Iron Age, the gap that I have termed the Great Hiatus (Chapter Two). In the last sentence Bagatti insists upon the incontrovertible existence of evidence from (presumably) the Hellenistic period. Of what does that certain evidence consist?
The archaeologist himself eliminates from contention ten of the eleven shards in the accompanying photo (p. 184), for in the itemization and discussion we read that Nos. 1–7 are from the Iron Period; No. 11 is Byzantine; while Nos. 9 and 10 are unspecified. This means that shard no. 8 bears the full weight of Bagatti’s certainty regarding “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ.” It is a triangular shard, approximately three inches long (no scale is given). The description reads:
8: Fragment of vase, exterior view, with white colour below and black above. On the inside (5 mm. thick) it is black, although the outside is leather coloured.
Remarkably, on the immediately following page the archaeologist admits that he is not certain whether the shard is early at all. In contrast to his previous conviction, he now mildly suggests that it may be Roman or Hellenistic:
“The black varnish given to No. 8 reminds us of the custom in such products during Hellenistic-Roman times.” (P. 185).
Of course, black varnish was used in many epochs. Though Bagatti appears to be suggesting “Hellenistic-Roman times” for the shard, his statement is a monument of ambiguity which may refer only to the varnish. In any case, the archaeologist is merely offering a suggestion, not a rigorous typological comparison—the varnish simply “reminds” him of a custom during Hellenistic-Roman times, that is, between 330 BCE and 330 CE, a period of no less than six and one-half centuries! The word “Hellenistic” appears entirely gratuitous. There is nothing uniquely Hellenistic about the shard, and the Italian offers no parallels in a footnote. We must conclude that his certainty regarding the “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ” has no material basis.
Judging from the context, no. 8 is probably not a Hellenistic outlier, but comes from the Iron Age or possibly from Roman times, as Bagatti himself intimates. There is no reason at all to consider it Hellenistic.
Bagatti’s modus operandi is transparent. On the one hand an archaeological statement is made with conviction, a statement which is eminently quotable and which establishes the Church’s position regarding Nazareth. Such statements are amenable to citation in the secondary literature. Then, however—in the ‘fine print’ as it were—the former conviction is modified, reduced, or even annulled. In every case involving Hellenistic evidence, inadequate (or no) substantiation is given for the prior certainty.
As regards the St. Joseph’s shard, Bagatti’s self-contradictory presentation suggests that he has merely engineered an opportunity to introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his tome. It had the desired effect. For example, in reference to this very passage from
Remaining material represented as Hellenistic
In the preceding pages we have reviewed the three principal cases in which Nazareth evidence was labeled Hellenistic in the primary literature. These cases are notable because the conclusions based upon them have been enormous, though the shards themselves are sometimes very slight.
We now turn our attention to the few remaining Hellenistic claims of specific material in the ground.
• A. On page 183 of Bagatti’s Excavations in Nazareth, we read:
We give (figs. 144–5) the principal pieces of pottery found in the earth over the Grotto. Evidently they appertain to different periods, and from the oldest shards we can establish with certainty the presence of life there several centuries before Christ . (Emphasis added.)
This eminently quotable and self-assured statement places us squarely in the evidentiary gap following the Iron Age, the gap that I have termed the Great Hiatus (Chapter Two). In the last sentence Bagatti insists upon the incontrovertible existence of evidence from (presumably) the Hellenistic period. Of what does that certain evidence consist?
The archaeologist himself eliminates from contention ten of the eleven shards in the accompanying photo (p. 184), for in the itemization and discussion we read that Nos. 1–7 are from the Iron Period; No. 11 is Byzantine; while Nos. 9 and 10 are unspecified. This means that shard no. 8 bears the full weight of Bagatti’s certainty regarding “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ.” It is a triangular shard, approximately three inches long (no scale is given). The description reads:
8: Fragment of vase, exterior view, with white colour below and black above. On the inside (5 mm. thick) it is black, although the outside is leather coloured.
Remarkably, on the immediately following page the archaeologist admits that he is not certain whether the shard is early at all. In contrast to his previous conviction, he now mildly suggests that it may be Roman or Hellenistic:
“The black varnish given to No. 8 reminds us of the custom in such products during Hellenistic-Roman times.” (P. 185).
Of course, black varnish was used in many epochs. Though Bagatti appears to be suggesting “Hellenistic-Roman times” for the shard, his statement is a monument of ambiguity which may refer only to the varnish. In any case, the archaeologist is merely offering a suggestion, not a rigorous typological comparison—the varnish simply “reminds” him of a custom during Hellenistic-Roman times, that is, between 330 BCE and 330 CE, a period of no less than six and one-half centuries! The word “Hellenistic” appears entirely gratuitous. There is nothing uniquely Hellenistic about the shard, and the Italian offers no parallels in a footnote. We must conclude that his certainty regarding the “the presence of life there several centuries before Christ” has no material basis.
Judging from the context, no. 8 is probably not a Hellenistic outlier, but comes from the Iron Age or possibly from Roman times, as Bagatti himself intimates. There is no reason at all to consider it Hellenistic.
Bagatti’s modus operandi is transparent. On the one hand an archaeological statement is made with conviction, a statement which is eminently quotable and which establishes the Church’s position regarding Nazareth. Such statements are amenable to citation in the secondary literature. Then, however—in the ‘fine print’ as it were—the former conviction is modified, reduced, or even annulled. In every case involving Hellenistic evidence, inadequate (or no) substantiation is given for the prior certainty.
As regards the St. Joseph’s shard, Bagatti’s self-contradictory presentation suggests that he has merely engineered an opportunity to introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his tome. It had the desired effect. For example, in reference to this very passage from
Similar Books
