The Archaeology of Nazareth: An Example of Pious Fraud? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Archeology, Bart Ehrman, and the Nazareth of “Jesus”
This is the third incarnation of an article originally published in the compilation book "Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" (F. Zindler, editor, 2013 chapter 12). The article appeared again with minor changes in my recent book, "NazarethGate: Quack Archeology, Holy Hoaxes, and the Invented Town of Jesus" (American Atheist Press, December 2015, chapter 9). The piece is now made digitally available here to those interested. It responds to Dr. Bart Ehrman’s published statements regarding the archaeology of Nazareth, beginning with his book "Did Jesus Exist?" (2012, pp. 191–97). I critique Ehrman’s factually incorrect statements regarding the material record, his modus operandi of resorting to hearsay instead of evidence in the ground, his reflexive appeal to reputation and majority opinion, and a certain sloppiness that characterizes his writing, e.g. confusing “Bronze” with “Iron” Age and conflating “Jesus” with “Christ.”
There are certain areas of academia, in this particular case Biblical Archaeology, where sometimes individuals, or a group of individuals, fit evidence to a narrative instead of critically analysing whether the available evidence actually does support an initial understanding or narrative. I will show here that, unfortunately, that forcing of evidence to fit a narrative is the case concerning recent published reports that detail the archaeological remains in the area known today as Nazareth.
For the past 200 years, Archaeology has uncovered artifacts that have provided plausible evidence to many events outlined in the Bible. This particular subset, biblical archaeology, has demonstrated the ability to bridge biblical accounts of history with secular history. However, there must be a methodological approach to determine what artifacts should be used as an apologetic for the faith, while others are classified into various strata to aid both the archaeologist and the apologist in their respective arenas. This task begins with defining the terms as they will be used in this research, outlining a proposed methodology to classify archaeological finds, and providing examples from both the Old Testament and New Testament. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate, through the process outlined above, that biblical archaeology provides a vital bridge between artifacts, secular history, and the biblical narrative. Therefore, this work will defend the position that biblical archaeology can be used as a defense (i.e. an apologia) for the historicity of biblical accounts. Biblical archaeology can greatly enhance our understanding of the Scripture by affirming the historical records of the Bible and broadening understanding of the cultural and spiritual background of God’s Word and the development of an apologia; this view is referred to as maximalism. Maximalism scholars include Randall Price, Titus Kennedy, and Craig Evans. Evans argues, “the writings of the Bible speak of real people, real places and real events. Many of these things can be corroborated by archaeological discoveries and by other ancient sources.” However, one must be cautious as to which artifacts of biblical archaeology to include in their defense of the biblical history as many critics will describe the use of many artifacts for an apologia as nothing more than circular arguments by biased Christians. John Walton and Andrew Hill argue that archaeology, at best, provides “limited” apologetic usefulness, explaining that Ancient Near Eastern artifacts cannot prove God’s providence over history. They further note, “Archaeology can authenticate history, but it cannot authenticate theology, and from a biblical perspective, history devoid of theology is meaningless.” Many Christian scholars hold the position that biblical archaeology can add a better understanding of the context of the Scriptures, but it cannot be used to provide proof for biblical history. David Graves would be a proponent of this position implying biblical archaeology should not be classified as an apologetic, but rather a “hermeneutics” tool. This view stills demonstrates the benefit biblical archaeology can have on understanding the Bible and the cultures represented by its narrative. Other scholars argue that archaeology adds no benefit for Christianity because it is a matter of “faith,” not proof. Finally, many archaeologists not only argue against archaeology on grounds of faith, but rather suggest biblical archaeology undermines the faith by disproving the narratives of the Bible. Israel Finkelstein is one such scholar who argues that archaeology proves that ancient Israel, a described by the Scriptures, did not exist. This view, detailed later in this work, is referred to as minimalism. Ultimately, the question at the heart of this work is whether the Bible’s historical narrative should be considered reliable, and if biblical archaeology can be employed to show its reliability. If yes, biblical archaeology can effectively aid the believer in apologetic endeavors.
A Critique of Yardenna Alexandre's article, "The Settlement History of Nazareth"
A Critique of Yardenna Alexandre’s article, “The Settlement History of Nazareth”, 2021
In 2020 the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) published an extensive article in its journal 'Atiqot authored by one of its archaeologists, Dr. Yardenna Alexandre, a name familiar to readers of my books and to those interested in the archaeological history of Nazareth, Israel. The IAA article goes far beyond a standard excavation report and functions also as an updated history of Nazareth. I point out that many of the structural features that Alexandre claims were walls of a "house" do not exist in the material remains, and that claims to have found a large quantity of Hellenistic pottery shards at the Mary of Nazareth Center site are improbable and in some cases impossible. The archaeologist has nevertheless used these dubious ceramic claims to date the alleged dwelling to "the time of Jesus."
A "House from the Time of Jesus"? Dr. Y. Alexandre's false claim at Nazareth
On winter solstice, 2009, four days before Christmas and twenty months after publication of my first book, The Myth of Nazareth (http://www.nazarethmyth.info/) archeologist Yardenna of the Israel Antiquities Authority gave a press conference in Nazareth, Israel, at newly excavated ground across the street from the Church of the Annunciation. International news agencies were present, including AP, UPI, Reuters, and Agence France Presse. Enigmatic advance notices had already alerted the general public that news of major religious significance was imminent. When Dr. Alexandre stepped up to the microphone on that blustery morning, she announced that incontrovertible evidence of a village from “the time of Jesus” had been found for the very first time. The evidence, she explained, was in front of their eyes: remains of a dwelling which—in all likelihood—Jesus himself knew as a child. But the claim is bogus, as this chapter from my recent second book NazarethGate (http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2015/11/15/the-book-nazarethgate/) shows. The site was obviously a wine producing complex beginning in the Byzantine era, with clear remains of low walls, a sloping treading floor, collecting vat, and storage cellars.