Mark Gatt, a researcher and diver on the island of Malta, has also critiqued the latest video by Robert Corunke of the BASE Institute. Gatt authored a book entitled PAVLVS, The Shipwreck 60 AD (Allied Publications 2009) that described the possible implications of an anchor stock that he discovered off the coast of Malta a few years ago. In his analysis of Cornuke’s “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul” Gatt gives a local Maltese diver’s perspective of the issue. He says the video, like the book by the same title, is “so fraught with mistakes and manipulated facts” that he was compelled to write a refutation. The article entitled, “The Rape of Our Pauline Traditions,” was published in the “Malta Independent” on October 16, 2011 and is now on their website:

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=133772

Gatt adds some new information to the discussion. For example, he revealed a Public Question that was asked in the Maltese parliament of the Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi, as to why he sent an affidavit to the courts in Colorado for a lawsuit between the former US ambassador to Malta and Cornuke. The prime minister responded that it was “sent to safeguard the reputation of the Armed Forces of Malta and its officers because these have been misquoted in Bob Cornuke’s publication.”

If you have seen the video, or are thinking about watching it, this excellent and witty critique will be very informative and well worth your time.

For my critique, see: http://www.lifeandland.org/2011/09/1008/

Introduction
Several friends have sent me the eight pictures and map that have been circulating on the Internet, especially among Christians, of three or four giant human skeletons that were allegedly found in an archaeological excavation a few kilometers to the east of Mycenae in the Peloponnese of Greece. Usually the notes attached to the pictures have mentioned this as proof of the “giants” (ha-nephilim) of Genesis 6:4 and/or the Philistine champion, Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4). “Is there any truth to this rumor?”

The short and simple answer is: “There is no truth to the rumor and the pictures are bogus!”

PhotoShopped Pictures
The pictures are digitally altered photographs by an illustrator from Canada who calls himself “IronKite” on the Internet. The original “photographs” were entered in a photo-manipulation contest in 2002 where he placed third in the competition. If one of the criteria for judging this competition had been how much exposure it would get on the Internet, IronKite would have won the grand prize, hands down! I have received these pictures a number of times over 4 or 5 years!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/21432885.html

Think Outside the Box – Think Biblically
For Christians who believe in a universal, worldwide Flood during the days of Noah (Gen. 6-8), the buried articulated human skeletons should have raised a red flag immediately. The “giants” of Genesis 6:4 were pre-Flood and were wiped out by the worldwide, cataclysmic Flood. The ritual burials of any pre-Flood human being buried in mere topsoil would not have been articulated as seen in these photographs. Rather, the bones would have been disarticulated and scattered by the Flood which would have blasted the topsoil everywhere along with any buried skeletons or bodies.

The mention of Goliath should have also raised some red flags. First, Goliath was from Philistia in the Levant and not the Peloponnese of Greece where these skeletons was allegedly discovered and excavated. Second, the Philistines were in the Land of Philistia during the time of the Patriarchs many centuries after the Flood and the pre-Flood “giants” (Gen. 21:32; 26:1, 8, 14, 15, 18). They left Philistia, most likely at the same time that Jacob’s family did due to the severe famine in the Land of Canaan (Gen. 41:56-42:5; 46:1-34) and went to the island of Crete (ancient Caphtor). They returned to their homeland about the same time as the Israelite Exodus from Egypt (Amos 9:7). The Philistines were not on the Peloponnese where these skeletons were allegedly found.

The Apostle Paul commended the Jewish people in the synagogue of Berea for searching the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). This attitude, and desire to know the truth, should be instilled in every believer in the Lord Jesus who loves the Word of God. Rather than believe everything on the Internet, search the Scriptures daily, think outside the box – think Biblically, and do your homework in your search for the truth.

The Conclusion of the Matter
I have one rule-of-thumb when I get emails like these: “If it sounds too good and it was found on the Internet; be careful, it’s probably not true!” This unscientific rule-of-thumb has proven itself to be true again. The pictures of the skeletons of three “giants” are bogus. Please do not pass them on as “gospel truth”!

Introduction
Robert Cornuke, a retired police officer and now president of the BASE Institute, has recently released a video (August 2011) about his adventures on the island of Malta. In the video he located old divers and spear fisherman on the island who claimed they found four lead anchor stocks off the Munxar Reef of St. Thomas Bay in 90 feet of water during the 1960’s and 70’s. Cornuke surmises that these anchors were from the shipwreck mentioned in the Book of Acts (27:29, 40; Cornuke 2003), but these were found on the east side of Malta not the traditional sites on the north side. In fact, the cover of the video case said that this was: “Possibly the Biblical find of this century”!

In the video, Cornuke is bold enough to claim: “This evidence is just overwhelming, in fact, I believe you have to force feed your mind past reason and logic, not to accept this site. It’s like Luke was leaving us a treasure map for someone to follow.” Elsewhere he states: “So really, the only candidate that makes sense, this is Archaeology 101, that it should be the Munxar Reef on St. Thomas’ Bay. Clearly, clearly this is the place it should be according to all the facts the Bible gives us.”
In this critique, we will examine the “overwhelming evidence” that Cornuke presents and see if it stands the scrutiny of scientific examination and verification. Is it really the Biblical find of this century? Is this the only site that fits all the Biblical requirements?

I have personally visited Malta multiple times and am very familiar with the history, archaeology, and geography of this wonderful island, and will offer my on-the-scene assessment of the data in the video and its conclusions.

Cornuke’s Arguments for the Location of the Shipwreck
Cornuke enlists the services of a local Maltese, James Mulholland, identified in the video as an “amateur historian,” to defend his thesis that the Munxar Reef was where the shipwreck occurred and the beach in St. Thomas Bay was where the foundered passengers and crew came ashore. Mulholland attempts to set forth four arguments in defense of this idea and I will single out the third as the most important.

First, Mulholland correctly states that just off the Munxar Reef there is an area where the depth of the sea is 120 feet (20 fathoms) and 90 feet (15 fathoms) in accordance with the depth recorded by the sounding weights (Acts 27:28). Then he makes a very deceptive statement: “The west coast is out of the question, all [the depths] are over 200 feet. On the east coast is a must!” While it is certainly true that the depth off the coast of the west side of the island is over 200 feet, this is a straw man because nobody is claiming the shipwreck occurred on the west side of the island. On the other hand, there are several bays on the north side of the island where there is a 120/90 feet depth that would fit the Biblical requirement.

The second argument Mulholland sets forth is that St. Thomas Bay has the “bay with a beach” (Acts 27:39). He then identifies five bays on the island of Malta that might be candidates: Mellieha Bay, Salina Bay, Balluta Bay, St. George’s Bay [also known as Marsaslokk Bay], and St. Thomas’s Bay. There are three other bays that might have contained beaches in antiquity as well; St. Paul’s Bay, Marsamxett Bay within the Grand Harbor of Valletta, and Marsascala Bay. You see, St. Thomas Bay is not the only bay with a beach. On the north side of the island there are several bays that have beaches within them as well.

The third argument set forth by Mulholland and Cornuke, and I think the most important one, is that the sea captain and sailors did not recognize where they were when the dawn broke (Acts 27:39). Cornuke correctly states that Malta was like O’Hare Airport in Chicago and the island was well visited by sailors. However, unlike several bays on the north side of the island, he incorrectly claims that the south-east side of the island would be the part of the island that the Alexandrian grain ship sailors had never seen. Cornuke’s statement is factually inaccurate.

On the contrary, the south-eastern part of the island, between the Marsaslokk Bay and the Grand Harbor of Vallette would be the best known part of the island for any sea captain and seasoned sailors of an Alexandrian grain ship. This one point alone completely disproves Cornuke’s ideas.

Any ancient Mediterranean Sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of a ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta because Malta was the landmark for sailors traveling westward from Crete and about to turn north to Sicily. In essence, Malta was the “Turn Right to Sicily” sign in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea! The eastern end of the island would be what they saw first and it would be a welcomed sight.

There are two geological landmarks that the sea captains would be very familiar with on the eastern end of the island. The first would be the “conspicuous white cliffs” to the south of the Munxar Reef (British Admiralty chart 2628, Malta Island South East Portion) and the second, the Munxar Reef itself. Every sea captain would know the hazardous Munxar Reef because of its inherent maritime danger.

Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, states that the island of Malta had many harbors for safety in bad weather (Library of History 5:12:1-2; LCL 3: 129). Today, maritime archaeologists might sub-divide Diodorus’ “harbors” into ports, harbors, and anchorages. Recent scholarly archaeological research has shown that there were two Roman ports on the island of Malta. The first was in Marsaslokk Bay (south of St. Thomas Bay, also known as St. George’s Bay). The second was within the ancient Valletta harbor, much further inland in antiquity and called Marsa today. It is at the foot of Corradino Hill (Bonanno 1992: 25). Roman storehouses with amphorae were discovered in this region in 1766-68 (Ashby 1915: 27-30). When Alexandrian grain ships could not make it to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, they wintered on Malta (see Acts 28:11). They would offload their grain and store them in the storehouses of Marsa (Gambin 2005), and probably did the same thing in the port at Marsaslokk Bay, although the storehouses have not been found archaeologically because today there is a living town over the structures of the ancient port. Marsascala Bay, just to the north of St. Thomas Bay, had a Roman harbor that the sea captain would recognize if he were anchored off the Munxar Reef.

There was also a shallow harbor at Salina Bay on the north side of the island but this was for the local shipping of oil and wine, thus a deep-draft Alexandrian grain ship would not dock at this harbor and it would be unknown to those on such a ship.

But let us hypothetically assume for a minute that the 276 passengers and crew of the ill-fated grain ship did, in fact, make it safely to the beach on St. Thomas’ Bay. Where would they go? The Bible says they were taken to the estate of Publius, the leading citizen of the island (Acts 28:7). Cornuke has never ventured an identification for the location of Publius’ estate.

But if the sea captain, sailors, and Roman soldiers, were washed up on the beach in St. Thomas’ Bay, they would all know of the famous landmark just up the hill from the beach. It was the Punic/Roman period temple dedicated to one goddess known by different names by the various ethnic groups visiting the island. She was Tanit to the Phoenicians, Hera to the Greeks, Juno to the Romans, and Isis to the Egyptians (Trump 1997: 80, 81; Bonanno 1992: Plate 2 with a view of St. Thomas Bay in the background). They would have made a bee-line to this temple, today called the Tas-Silg temple, in order to get food, water, shelter, and warmth. But also to offer sacrifices to the deity for sparing their lives in the shipwreck! This temple is only a 10-15 minute walk from the St. Thomas Bay beach and well-known by sea captains and sailors.

The last argument that Mulholland sets forth concerns the place where two seas meet (Acts 27:41). He and Cornuke identify the place where the two seas meet as the Munxar Reef. While this location may fit this possible interpretation of this phrase, there are several other places on the north side of the island that would fit this description as well.

There is, however, a major problem with the Munxar Reef being the location of the shipwreck. The book of Acts records: “But striking a place where two seas meet, they ran the ship aground; and the prow struck fast and remained unmovable, but the stern was being broken up by the violence of the waves” (27:41). Notice, it is the prow (front) of the ship that does not break up, only the stern (back). If an Alexandrian grain ship hit the solid limestone of the Munxar Reef, the prow of the ship would have broken up. Thus, it could not be a reef that was struck. It is clear, the Munxar Reef cannot be reconciled with the Biblical account.

The Four Anchors Off the Munxar Reef
Cornuke found old divers and spear fishermen that claimed they brought up four lead anchor stocks from the depth of 90 feet just outside an underwater cave on the south side of the Munxar Reef. Based on Map 3 in Cornuke’s book (2003), the GPS for this location (calculated from the British Admiralty chart #2628, Malta Island / Southeast Portion) is:

“Dropped Anchors 15 Fathoms” point between “1″ and “5″ in the “15″
35*50′59.2878″ N      14*35′42.1061″ E      (dd*mm’ss.ssss”)
35.8498143594* N    14.5950300716* E    (dd.dddddddd*)
35*50.98886′ N         14*35.70180′ E         (dd*mm.mmmmm’)

In the video, the first anchor that is discussed is called “Tony’s anchor” in the book (2003:125). [This is actually anchor #2 in the book]. It is described by different people as a “large anchor stock” (2003: 106), a “huge anchor” (2003: 114), as a “large slab of lead” (2003: 126), and a “massive Roman anchor stock” (2003: 126).  Unfortunately, like the other anchor stocks shown in the video or pictured in the book, there are no measurements given for this one.  The only size indicators are the adjectives “large”, “huge”, and “massive.”

I have visited the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa on several occasions where “Tony’s anchor” is now prominently displayed along with other Roman anchors on the first floor of the museum. It is tagged “NMA Unp. #7/2 Q’mangia 19.11.2002.” This anchor stock came from the village of Q’mangia and was handed over to the museum on November 19, 2002.

The anchor stock was one of the smallest on display, measuring about 3 feet, 8 inches in length. Large Alexandrian grain ships would have had for the stern much larger anchors than this one. Cornuke’s lack of quantifiable measurements regarding the anchor stock keeps the viewer and reader uninformed about its actual size. As we shall see, this anchor stock is a lead toothpick compared to “huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors” that Cornuke surmised would be on the ship (Cornuke 2002: 15).

The curators of the museum had a keen sense of humor placing “Tony’s anchor” close to the largest anchor ever discovered in the Mediterranean Sea. This anchor stock measured 13 feet, 6 inches long, and weighed 2,500 kilograms, which is two and a half metric tons, and most likely came from an Alexandrian grain ship (Guillaumier 1992: 88; a picture of this anchor stock can be seen in Bonanno 1992: 158, plate 66). The size contrast between these two anchor stocks is striking!

The second anchor stock discussed in the video was also found by Tony Micallef-Borg, but was melted down to make lead weights. It was only half an anchor that was either “pulled apart like a piece of taffy” (2003: 121) or sawn in half with a hacksaw (2003: 231, footnote 18), depending on which eyewitness is most reliable. [This is actually anchor #1 in the book (2003: 101-105)]. Since it has been melted down, it cannot be examined. The third and fourth anchor stocks are not discussed in the video. But a clip of Cornuke examining the fourth anchor stock is given in the video. The third anchor stock is also prominently displayed in the Maritime Museum and the tag on the anchor says, “NMA Unp. # 7/1 Naxxar.”

Cornuke secured legal amnesty from prosecution, with the aid of the US ambassador, for any of the divers, or their families, that would turn their anchor stocks over to the Maritime Museum. Two of the three anchor stocks were turned over. As far as I am aware, the fourth anchor stock is still in a private collection and has not been turned over to the archaeological authorities, or confiscated by the police.

In November 2010, I met a young diver in St. Thomas Bay that said he brought up an anchor stock from just outside the cave off of the Munxar Reef, but it was confiscated by the police. This would be a fifth anchor stock found near the cave off the Munxar Reef. But the Bible clearly states that there were only four anchors that were left in the sea. The recent discoveries of more anchor stocks near the Munxar Reef at 90 feet would negate any of these being from the Alexandrian grain ship that Paul was sailing on in AD 60.

Two Maltese divers, independent of each other, informed me that there have been about 150 lead anchor stocks that were found around the island of Malta. Twenty-five to thirty anchor stocks are in the possession of the Malta Maritime Museum, but most anchor stocks are in private collections on the island. How many more anchor stocks were found off the Munxar Reef near the cave at 90 feet? It is known that there is at least one other anchor stock found in this area. Why would the four located by Cornuke be anything special? These four anchor stocks identified by Cornuke cannot be from the shipwreck of Paul and Luke off the coast of Malta around AD 60.

The Quality of the Video is Poor, the Content Inaccurate and Deceptive
This video does not have the quality of previous BASE videos. One gets the impression that this video was hastily thrown together under pressure. I found it odd that there was no FBI warning at the beginning of the video against duplicating it, and no credits or acknowledgements at the end of the video.

There are poor graphics. For example, a ship is seen sailing across the land on the island of Crete rather than on the water below the island.

There is poor editing. James Mulholland is cut off in mid sentence when he said there are two places on the island where “two seas meet together,” but the viewer is never told the location of the second place. “Ellena Micallefif [sic] Borg’s” name is misspelled.

There are historical mistakes. Paul’s journey to Rome and the shipwreck is dated in the video to AD 65. Most New Testament scholars would place the journey either in the year AD 59 or 60 (Bruce 1995: 475).

There are geographical mistakes. The Syrtis [Sands] (Acts 27:17) is labeled on the map as the desert on the eastern part of present day Libya and Cornuke points to the sands of North Africa on the computer monitor. Graham Hutt, does however, properly identify it as the Bay of Syrtis in the Mediterranean Sea. Also, the map of the bays on Malta misidentified Salina Bay with the arrow actually pointing to St. Paul’s Bay!

There are deceptive parts. The scene where an anchor stock is being raised with two oil drums was actually a recent reenactment, sometime between 2000 and 2003, yet the viewer is not informed of this (see Cornuke 2003: Plate 10 bottom). The anchor stock being used in the reenactment is much larger than the anchor being discussed. The footage is also made to look like vintage movie footage by computer software but the viewer is given a false impression that this was from the time the original anchor stock was being raised.

There are misleading parts as well. It is stated that the two anchors that were turned over to the museum are on display in a dusty corner of the Maritime Museum in Valletta. This is misleading because they are prominently displayed, as the video shows, on the first floor of the Malta Maritime Museum located in Vittoriosa, across the harbor from Valletta.

The video was produced by Vapor Digital Media in cooperation with the BASE Institute. When I tried to access the website (www.vapordigitalmedia.com) on September 5, 2011, I got a “godaddy.com” webpage!

The video does not give credit where credit is due. There is no acknowledgement of permission from the Maritime Museum to film the two scenes inside the museum. This is standard procedure with museums. Also, the scene where four anchors are dropped into water was done by The Bigger Picture on Malta, but there is no acknowledgment of this fact. In fact, there are no credits or acknowledgements at the end of the video, just the lists of the American and Maltese Advisory Teams.

It is surprising to see Tony Micallef-Borg’s name listed on the Malta Advisory Team at the end of the video. The viewer deserves an explanation for this inclusion. According to Cornuke, Tony was diver “numero uno [number one], he was the top guy” on Malta, but he died in 1978, long before Cornuke began any of his investigations on the island. Tony’s name does not even appear in the acknowledgement of Cornuke’s book (2003:225-227), so why is it listed on the advisory team in this video? It begs for an explanation!

The Conclusion of the Matter
This is a brief critique refuting the ideas set forth in this video that the ship Paul and Luke were on was wrecked on the Munxar Reef off the coast of St. Thomas Bay and that four anchors from this shipwreck have been located. For a thorough critique of the book, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (2003), and Cornuke’s appearance on the 700 Club on February 26, 2010, see the “Paul’s Shipwreck on Malta” section of my website: www.lifeandland.org

I have plans, after my next study trip to Malta, to co-author with a Maltese colleague, a lengthier, more detailed, and thoroughly documented critique of Cornuke’s adventures on Malta and his ideas on the shipwreck of Paul.

In summary, it has been observed that the depth of 120 feet and 90 feet recorded by the sounding weight, the bay with the beach, and the place where two seas meet is not unique to the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas Bay. There are several bays on the north of the island where these criteria are satisfied as well.

The most devastating argument against Conuke’s idea that the shipwreck was on the Munxar Reef is that the sea captain and crew of an Alexandrian grain ship would clearly recognize the eastern shore of the island of Malta and especially the Munxar Reef and the St. Thomas Bay area. This goes totally contrary to the Biblical account of which Cornuke claims to believe. Cornuke’s whole thesis collapses on this one point. This is the one point Cornuke has to defend, everything else is trivial.

It has been demonstrated that there were more than four anchor stocks found near the cave off the Munxar Reef at 90 feet. At least one of those anchor stocks would be too small to be from an Alexandrian grain ship.

The ideas found in this video have been found wanting. There is no need to “force feed your mind past reason or logic” to accept this thesis because the archaeological, geographical, and Biblical evidence dictates that the ideas in this video should be abandoned. These so-called discoveries are not the Biblical find of the 21st century.

Critique and Refutation of Other Cornuke Theories
For a thorough refutation of the other so-called discoveries by Mr. Cornuke, please visit the “Cracked Pot Archaeology” section of my website: www.lifeandland.org

Brackets
My additional comments within quotes are in brackets […].

Bibliography

Ashby, Thomas
1915    Roman Malta.  Journal of Roman Studies 5: 23-80.

Bonanno, Anthony
1992    Roman Malta.  The Archaeological Heritage of the Maltese Islands. Formia, Malta: Giuseppe Castelli and Charles Cini / Bank of Valletta.

Bruce, Frederick F.
1995    Paul. Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Cornuke, Robert
2002    Paul’s “Miracle on Malta.”  Personal Update (April) 14-16.

2003    The Lost Shipwreck of Paul. Bend, OR: Global Publishing Services.

Diodorus Siculus
1993    The Library of History.  Books IV.59-VIII. Vol. 3.  Translated by C. Oldfather.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 340.

Gambin, Timothy
2005    Ports and Port Structures for Ancient Malta.  Forthcoming.

Trump, David
1997    Malta: An Archaeological Guide.  Valetta, Malta: Progress.

About the Author
Gordon Franz is an archaeologist on the staff of the Associates for Biblical Research in Pennsylvania and has worked on numerous archaeological excavations in Israel over the past 32 years, including Ketef Hinnom and the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem, Ramat Rachel, Lachish, Jezreel, Kh Nisya (Ai), Hazor, and Tel Zayit. He has also visited Malta on a number of occasions doing research on the history, geography, and archaeology of the island, as well as the location of Paul’s shipwreck.

“Apostolic” Archaeology, a phrase that I have coined, is a sub-discipline of pseudo-archaeology. The practitioners of this discipline are usually adventurers, sometimes treasure hunters, and generally with neither field training in archaeological methodology nor academic credentials in Near East archaeology, but perhaps a superficial knowledge of the Bible. They claim to have discovered objects or places of great Biblical importance and declare it to be whatever they want it to be. They usually try to justify their pronouncements with a Bible verse. Their declarations are made as if they were speaking ex cathedra (i.e., with authority).

These self-declared experts have found from experience that the gullible masses will blindly accept the legitimacy of their claims and buy the goods that they are hawking in spite of scholarly academic testimony to the contrary (contra 1 Thess. 2:9-12). So buyers beware!

When someone dares to challenge or disagree with the conclusions drawn by those who practice apostolic archaeology, inquisitors and henchmen are dispatched to intimidate, malign, or even silence their critics, rather than to provide a reasoned rebuttal to those who disagree with them.

Such adventurers often find their practice to be richly rewarding. But on the day of His choosing, they will have to answer to the Lord for their deeds.

Christians, on the other hand, should inform themselves by being like those in the synagogue of Berea and search the Scriptures (as well as the archaeological data) daily to see whether these things are true (Acts 17:11). There are resources available to refute the claims of those engaged in Apostolic Archaeology. So seek, and ye shall find!

One such resource is a section on my website called “Cracked Pot Archaeology” with articles about popular, contemporary archaeological theories and ideas that, like cracked pots, hold no water! These articles are a review, scholarly analysis and critiques of theories and ideas that have been presented on the Internet or popular books, movies, DVD’s and videos (www.lifeandland.org).

Introduction
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici held a news conference in Jerusalem. In it, he claimed that two nails, excavated more than 20 years ago, were the ones hammered into the hands of Jesus at His crucifixion. The nails, which had “disappeared” soon after the excavations, were recently rediscovered in the labs of Tel Aviv University and are now in his possession. In an interview with Bloomberg News (April 12, 2011), he claimed: “Do I know 100 percent that these nails were used to crucify Jesus? No, I think we have a very compelling case to say: these are them.”

Jacobovici also believes that Caiaphas, the high priest responsible for turning Jesus over to the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, converted to the Judeo-Christian movement that believed Jesus was the messiah, but not God. After Caiaphas’ death, his family wanted the nails buried with him because they thought the nails possessed talismanic powers and would give him divine protection in the afterlife!

The show, “The Nails of the Cross” aired on the History Channel on Wednesday night, April 20, 2011. Did Simcha Jacobovici produce any compelling evidence for these sensational claims?

Who Is Simcha Jacobovici?
First, we need to ask the question, “Who is Simcha Jacobovici?” He is a very colorful movie producer and is famous for his sensationalist television program, The Naked Archaeologist. Having watched the program, I can attest to the fact that he does not appear naked in the show, and it is equally obvious that he is not an archaeologist! He should not be taken seriously, but because of his sensationalistic approach, the news media loves his programming.

In 2007, he released a video and book that alleged that the family tomb of Jesus was found in the East Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem and that the tomb included an ossuary containing the bones of Jesus. This program was a misguided attack on the deity of the Lord Jesus and His bodily resurrection. The allegations have been thoroughly refuted by a number of people.

http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/01/the-so-called-jesus-family-tomb-rediscovered-in-jerusalem/

The Tomb of the House of Caiaphas
Jacobovici’s current “discovery” concerns a burial cave that workmen accidently discovered while making a water park in the Peace Forest in the southern part of Jerusalem during November/December 1990. The burial cave was a simple, single burial chamber with four loculi (called kokhim in Hebrew) typical of the Second Temple period. Three kokhim were on the western wall of the cave (labeled Kokhim I, II, and III) and one was on the southern wall (labeled Kokh IV). There was a central depression that was filled with debris, including broken ossuaries (Greenhut 1991a: 6-12; 1991b: 140-141; 1992a: 63-71; 1992b: 28-36, 76; 1994: 219-222).

Six intact ossuaries (bone boxes used for secondary burial) were found in the burial cave. Two ossuaries (Ossuaries 5 and 6) were found in situ in Kokh IV. The other four ossuaries had been removed from their original positions in Kokhim I-III by the workmen. Six other broken ossuaries and three lids were found scattered throughout the cave (Greenhut 1992a: 67).

Five of the ossuaries had inscriptions on them, with two ossuaries having inscriptions relating to the House of Caiaphas (Reich 1991: 13-21; 1992a: 72-77; 1992b: 38-44, 76; 1994:223-225). Of these two: Ossuary 3 contained the skeletal remains of “five individuals – an adult female, a juvenile, two seven year old children and a newborn” (Zias 1992: 78-79). It is into this ossuary that Jacobovici suggests the bones of the high priest were placed. According to the anthropological report, however, there were no adult male bones in this ossuary. Thus, Jacobovici is incorrect in asserting that the high priest Caiaphas’ bones were placed in this ossuary.

Ossuary 6, a very ornate box, had the name “Joseph bar [son of] Caiaphas” on it twice (Reich 1991: 15-17; 1992a: 72-73, Figs. 5 and 6) and contained the partial skeletal “remains of six individuals, including a male c. 60 years old” (Zias 1992: 78-79). It is this 60-year-old male that some have suggested is the high priest who served in the Temple from AD 18-36 and is mentioned in the New Testament (Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6). Reich suggests that the name Caiaphas was a nickname and the inscription would mean “Joseph of the family of Caiaphas” (1991: 16; see also Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.35 and 95; LCL 9:31, 69). Scholarly debate continues as to whether the “Joseph bar Caiaphas” on Ossuary 6 was the high priest from the time of Jesus or his grandfather or grandson, as both would also have been named Joseph.

How Long Were the Nails?
At the press conference it was reported that the nails were about three inches long (8 centimeters). Unfortunately, there is no measuring scale next to the nails in the photographs that were released at the press conference (see the Ha’aretz website). Placing a scale next to an object is standard practice in archaeology. Due to the lack of a measuring scale, verification of this measurement is not possible.

Only one archaeological example of a man who was crucified has been found in Jerusalem. In June 1968, a burial cave was found in the Giv’at ha-Mivtar neighborhood of Jerusalem. An ossuary in the cave contained the bones of a man who had a large iron nail still pierced through his calcanei (heel) and into some wood (Tzaferis 1970: 18-32; Haas 1970: 42, 49-59). The nail was 11.5 centimeteers (4 ½ inches) long (Zias and Sekeles 1985: 23).

The nails that are in Jacobovici’s possession are 3 inches or less and, therefore, could not have held a man to a cross beam. The sheer weight of the man would have pulled the nails out of the wood. Thus, the nails in question could not have been used in any crucifixion, much less Jesus’!

Where Were the Nails Found?
The excavator, Zvi Greenhut, describes the two nails from the 1990 excavation in his final archaeological report. Unfortunately, he did not include a photograph of them so scholars are unable to compare the ones found in the Tomb of the House of Caiaphas with the ones that are in Jacobovici’s possession and to verify that they are the same nails. Greenhut reports: “Two iron nails were found in this cave. One was found inside one of the ossuaries and the other in Kokh IV. It is possible that these nails were used to inscribe the ossuaries after the bones had been deposited in them, possibly even after some of the ossuaries were placed inside the kokhim” (1992a: 68). Elsewhere, Greenhut identified Ossuary 1 as the ossuary in which the nail was found (Greenhut 1991:11).

Ossuary 1 is a nondescript bone box with a flat lid with no decorations or inscriptions (Greenhut 1992a: 67). The ossuary contained the “poorly preserved remains of four individuals – two adults and two children” (Zias 1992: 78-79). This ossuary was apparently from one of the kokhim on the western wall of the cave (Greenhut 1992a: 63). It is clear that at least one of the nails was found in an ossuary other than the ones with the name “Caiaphas” on them.

The Timeline of Jacobovici’s Nails
Anthropologist Joe Zias, formerly the curator of the Israel Antiquities Authority anthropology collection from 1972 to 1997 and one of the excavators of the House of Caiaphas Burial Cave, has stated definitively that the two nails that Jacobovici is showing did not come from the Caiaphas tomb.

Dr. Nicu Haas, professor of anatomy at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical Center, had the two nails that Jacobovici is showing in his laboratory collection prior to 1975 when he was in a tragic accident that left him in a coma for 13 years. Prior to his death in 1987, the hospital requested that the Israel Antiquities Authority remove all the anthropological material belonging to the State of Israel from Haas’ laboratory. Zias was the one who removed all the bones and the two collections of iron nails. One of those collections contained the two nails that Jacobovici is claiming came from the Tomb of Caiaphas.

Due to pressure from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Zias was forced to transfer the two collections of nails to the medical lab at Tel Aviv University sometime in the 1990s. The two nails presented by Jacobovici as allegedly coming from the House of Caiaphas Tomb, which was excavated in 1990, were known to have existed in the Haas collection as early as 1975. How these two nails came into Haas’ possession is not known. It is clear, however, that the nails Jacobovici is showing did not come from the House of Caiaphas Tomb.

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/joe-zias-more-amazing-dis-grace-the-jesus-nails-the-naked-truth-vs-the-naked-archaeologist/

What Were the Nails Used For?
Dr. Levi Rahmani (1994), an expert on Jewish ossuaries, has suggested two possible uses for nails found in tombs. The first use is fixing the lid of an ossuary to the bone box. Rahmani cites one example in which there were still traces of iron in the hole (1961: 102, no. 9). The second use is “scratching the name of the deceased on an ossuary” (1961: 100).

The excavator, Greenhut, states that the two nails found in the House of Caiaphas Tomb were used for scratching “the inscriptions on the ossuaries in the cave after the bones had been collected and placed in them and even after some of the ossuaries had been placed in their loculi. This is evident from the fact that some of the inscriptions were written perpendicularly, from the bottom to the top of the ossuary” (Greenhut 1992b: 36).

It is highly probable that the nail found in Kokh IV was used for scratching the two inscriptions on Ossuary 6 that referred to Caiaphas, but it is important to note that this nail was not found inside the ossuary of Caiaphas and thus was not used as a talisman as Jacobovici claimed.

According to the Mishnah, nails from a crucified person have healing powers. Tractate Shabbath 6:10 included nails among the items that could be carried on Shabbat. “Men may go out with a locust’s egg or a jackal’s tooth or with a nail of [the gallow of] one that was crucified, as a means of healing. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Even on ordinary days this is forbidden as following in the ways of the Amorites [heathen superstition].”

What Is Simcha Trying to Do?
I cannot presume to know Jacobovici’s heart or what his motives were for producing this “documentary.” But as has been clearly demonstrated in this article, the two nails Jacobovici is showing and claiming came from the Tomb of the House of Caiaphas did not come from this burial cave because those two nails were already in a known collection prior to 1990. So whatever ideas Jacobovici has about Caiaphas feeling remorseful or even converting to the Messianic Movement is irrelevant to the discussion.

After watching “The Nails of the Cross” on the History Channel, I could find no compelling evidence that the two nails Jacobovici was showing came from the Tomb of the House of Caiaphas. Nor is there any evidence the nails were used to crucify the Lord Jesus!

The news media, on the other hand, is always looking for something sensational to report during the Easter season as a quick glance at their track record will clearly demonstrate. In 1996, the BBC aired an Easter special that claimed that ossuaries from a burial cave in an East Talpiyot neighborhood had the names of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus on them and concluded that the ossuaries belonged to the “holy family.” In 2001 and 2002, right before Passover, Rabbi Wolpe from Los Angeles said that there was no archaeological evidence for the Exodus from Egypt. In 2003, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code was released. Three years later, in 2006, there was a double whammy with the released of two books: The Gospel of Judas and The Jesus Dynasty. In 2007, the “Naked Archaeologist” released his so-called The Jesus Family Tomb, which was a follow-up on the 1996 BBC Easter special. In 2008, the movie Bloodline alleged there was archaeological “proof” for The Da Vinci Code.

http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/02/bloodline-serious-documentary-or-hollywood-hoax/

Ho-hum, here we go again. The media should be ashamed of itself for promoting such nonsensical pseudo-archaeology. If they must circulate sensational stories, at least they owe it to their readers and viewers to investigate the claim by interviewing scholars in the field who can set the record straight.

Conclusion of the Matter
The Israel Antiquities Authority released this statement regarding the nails that Jacobovici claimed were from Caiaphas’ tomb: “There is no doubt that the talented director Simcha Jacobovici created an interesting film with a real archaeological find at its centre, but the interpretation presented in it has no basis in archaeological findings or research.”

I think Dr. Gabriel Barkay, the leading scholar on the archaeology of Jerusalem and a professor at Bar-Ilan University, sums it up best. He states: “There is no proof whatsoever that those nails came from the cave of Caiaphas. There is no proof that the nails are connected to any bones or any bone residue attached to the nails and no proof from textual data that Caiaphas had the nails for the crucifixion with him after the crucifixion took place and after Jesus was taken down from the cross.”

Case closed – end of discussion!

Bibliography

Danby, Herbert
1985    The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University.

Flusser, David
1991    … To Bury Caiaphas, Not to Praise Him. Jerusalem Perspective 4/4-5: 23-28.

1992    Caiaphas in the New Testament. ‘Atiqot 21: 81-87.

Greenhut, Zvi
1991a    Discovery of the Caiaphas Family Tomb. Jerusalem Perspective 4/4-5: 6-12.

1991b    Jerusalem, East Talpiyot (Ya’ar Hashalom). Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1991. 10: 140-141.

1992a    The ‘Caiaphas’ Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 21: 63-71.

1992b    Discovered in Jerusalem: Burial Cave of the Caiaphas Family. Biblical Archaeology Review 18/5: 28-36, 76.

1994    The Caiaphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem. Pp. 219-222 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Haas, N.
1970    Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal 20/1-2: 38-59.

Josephus
1981    Antiquities of the Jews. Books 18-19. Vol. 9. Trans. by L. H. Feldman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 433.

Rahmani, Levi
1961    Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 3: 93-120.

1994    A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

1986    Some Remarks on R. Hachlili’s and A. Killebrew’s “Jewish Funerary Customs.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 118: 96-100.

Reich, Ronny
1991    Ossuary Inscriptions from the Caiaphas Tomb. Jerusalem Perspective 4/4-5: 13-21.

1992a    Ossuary Inscriptions from the ‘Caiaphas’ Tomb. ‘Atiqot 21: 72-77.

1992b    Caiaphas Name Inscribed on Bone Boxes. Biblical Archaeology Review 18/5: 38-44, 76.

1994    Ossuary Inscriptions of the Caiaphas Family from Jerusalem. Pp. 223-225 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Tzaferis, V.
1970    Jewish Tombs at and near Giv’at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 20/1-2: 18-32.

Zias, Joseph
1992    Human Skeletal Remains from the ‘Caiaphas’ Tomb. ‘Atiqot 21: 78-80.

Zias, Joseph; and Sekeles, Eliezer
1985    The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal. Israel Exploration Journal 35/1: 22-27.

The discovery of Noah’s Ark was announced last Sunday (4/24/10) by a Chinese organization from Hong Kong (Noah’s Ark Ministries, International).  The problem with this is that it seems like the “discovery” of Noah’s Ark is getting to be almost an annual event.  What in the world is going on?  We think it’s a question that is easy to analyze.  Genesis 1-11 is the most attacked portion of Scripture for its historicity.  Finding an antediluvian artifact like Noah’s Ark could be the greatest archaeological discovery ever.  It evokes many wannabe Indiana Joneses to search for Noah’s Ark.  We see no problem with this quest, and would welcome such a discovery.  The problem is not in the finding of the Ark; but in its substantiation. Amateur archaeologists can and do find things that turn out to be fantastic discoveries.  Witness the treasure hunter, Terry Herbert, in Staffordshire, England who recently found a huge cache of Saxon gold artifacts that was reported in National Geographic.  However, to properly document a discovery, the proper scientific protocol must be followed.  Scientists are trained to gather and analyze evidence.  They then publish their research so that other scientists can test their results. These “Indiana Joneses” invariably do not do this.  They put the cart before the horse by holding a spectacular press conference declaring what they discovered rather than publishing their results in a scientific journal.  The news media, on the other hand, is all too eager to comply for what gets good ratings, and at the same time it usually puts evangelical Christians in a bad light.

This Hong Kong group claims they are 99.9 % sure that the wood they found belongs to the Ark of Noah.  Since we have spent a few thousand hours digging into the subject of the Noah’s Flood and the Ark, we have the following questions about the alleged discovery:

1.    When archaeologists make a discovery they must be able to prove exactly where they took their specimen out of the ground.  How do we know this video showing the rooms was filmed where they said it was?

2.     It is claimed that this discovery was found in an ice and rock cave on Agri Dagh, also known as Mt. Ararat.  It is a known fact among geologists that nearly all of the icecap on this mountain consists of moving ice, that is, glacier.  A glacier is a river of ice which flows down the mountain.  Any wooden structure inside this ice would be ground to bits from the glacial action.  In their news releases they have reported this site to be at 13,000 feet and in another report at around 14,000.  With these altitudes it would have to be on the ice cap or at the very edge.
3.     Most geologists believe this mountain was formed in relatively recent times, i.e., after the Flood.  It is a complex volcano with no clearly discernible layers of sedimentation that would have been laid down by flood waters.

4.  The group claims they have had the wood carbon dated by a lab in Iran with
the results being almost 5000 years old (with the Flood occurring about
3000 B.C.).  Why did they have the wood tested in Iran, we ask?   Will other
scientists have access to the lab results?  Are there any good labs in Iran
that can do this kind of testing?  Or, was the wood tested in Iran because
the lab results might be harder to trace by other scientists?  Why wasn’t a
lab in the United States or the United Kingdom used?  Just asking!

5.  Is this wood coated with pitch (bitumen)?  The Bible says God instructed Noah to treat the wood with pitch, either asphalt or pine pitch (Gen. 6:14).  At least some of this wood should test positive for this coating.  Also, has a botanist examined the wood to determine what kind of wood it is?

6.  What about motives?  Only God knows their true motives, but it sure makes one nervous when these groups looking for the Ark are planning a documentary video so early in the project before any truth claims are established.  One of the members of this Chinese group just happens to be a filmmaker.  Most readers interested in this subject probably notice about once a year a new docudrama about Noah’s Ark appears on one of the cable channels.  They would not keep doing this if they didn’t make money.  Hopefully, this group’s motives are other than financial.

7.  What are the plans to publish this material in scientific peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publication?  We would have hoped that this would have been primary to a news conference and videos.  True archaeology is not forwarded by this sequence, but we certainly understand their excitement and the desire to be the first to report such a discovery.

In addition to the above questions, we have some reasons to question the integrity of this discovery for the following reasons:
1.  This group had a local guide who is a known for his deceit and fraud. It is this guide who initially informed the Chinese group that he knew the location of the Ark in 2008.  However, since then he has led them to more than one location.  The first location was a cave at a low altitude, a small cave with a tree growing in front!  Apparently the current cave is at the 13,000 or 14,000 foot level on the icecap.
2.  The specimens taken from this first cave (at the lower altitude) were claimed to be petrified wood from the Ark. In actuality, they were nothing but volcanic tuff.

3.   In one of the photos of the rooms straw is seen on the floor and even a spider web in one of the corners.  Really!  Do spiders live at 13,000 or 14,000 feet?  Can they survive the freezing temperatures?

4.  There is a real problem with evangelists (which is what they claim to be) who use this kind of discovery to prove the Bible, and hence convince non-believers of its authority, when in fact the truthfulness of the discovery had not been established.  I [Bill Crouse] know firsthand of one “Indiana Jones” who spoke eloquently and emotionally about his adventures, and when he gave an invitation at the end of his presentation, many in the audience stood up to commit their lives to Christ.  When the speaker was confronted about the truthfulness of some of the stories he told that night, he replied:  “But look how many stood up to receive Christ.”  This becomes very problematic when at some point the convert learns the real truth.  They often become very embittered about all things Christian, and understandably so.

5.  There seems to be more than the usual gullibility here in that the Hong Kong group was warned about this local guide who has led others astray.  We say usual gullibility, because it seems to be a characteristic of other ark-hunters as well, in that they tend to believe all the local lore.  While many ark-hunters mean well, it seems that they want to believe every report seemingly at all costs; putting everything through a rational grid often is avoided as being too skeptical.

At this point we are skeptical of these new claims but would rejoice in the end if they proved to be true.  If this someday is the case we will be the first to apologize for our doubts. We would strongly urge the Hong Kong group to follow proper scholarly procedures and publish this material in scientific, peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publications so that the scholarly community can examine the material first hand and critique it in order to offer helpful, and constructive, criticism.  For the person in the pew, we caution you to not get too excited about something that is at best, unsubstantiated; and at worst, a fraud perpetrated by an enterprising local guide!

(The authors are both members of the Near East Archaeological Society and the Evangelical Theological Society.  We both believe that Noah was a real historical person and that the Flood was a literal event in space-time history.  In our own research we came to a different conclusion about the landing place of the Ark.  Nothing we have seen so far causes us to doubt of change our position.  If you care to read of our research in can be found here: www.rapidresponsereport.com )

On Friday morning, February 26, 2010, Chuck Holton reported on CBN’s 700 Club program of a man who believes he found an “amazing Biblical discovery” on Malta.  This nine-minute video segment featured Robert Cornuke presenting his theory about the location of the Apostle Paul’s shipwreck on the island of Malta.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/February/Searching-for-Pauls-Shipwreck-on-Malta/

Cornuke, in his persona as a “former Los Angeles crime scene investigator,” approached the account of the shipwreck of Paul in Acts 27 and 28 as a “crime scene.”  As he read the Biblical text, he concluded there were four “clues” that needed to be found in order to solve the “crime.”  He identified these as: (1) a bay with a beach; (2) a reef or sandbar where “two seas meet”; (3) a seafloor with a depth of 90 feet; and (4) a place the sailors would not have recognized.  Cornuke concludes that the shipwreck occurred on the eastern shore of Malta, not on the northern side of the island as most scholars believe.

Cornuke’s theory and investigations, as presented in this news segment, were already set forth in his 2003 book entitled, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (Bend, OR: Global Publishing Service).  In the book his view is that the Alexandrian grain ship containing the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke was shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef on the island’s eastern end.  Cornuke claims to have located, from among the local spear fishermen and divers, six anchor stocks which could have been from this shipwreck (cf. Acts 27:29, 40), four of which were located on the east side of the Munxar Reef in fifteen fathoms, or ninety feet of water (cf. Acts 27:28).  He identifies the “place where two seas meet” (cf. Acts 27:41) as the Munxar Reef and the “bay with the beach” as St. Thomas Bay (cf. Acts 27:39).  He concluded that neither the sea captain nor his crew would have recognized the eastern shoreline of the Maltese coast when it became light on the morning after they dropped anchor (cf. Acts 27:39).  Unfortunately Cornuke’s theory simply does not hold water.

Experts and Computer Models
Cornuke consulted Graham Hutt, an expert on Mediterranean storms, and Hutt concluded that the ship would have been driven by the winds to the southeast quadrant of the island, and that the more likely place of the shipwreck was the Bay of St. Thomas.

In the book, Cornuke described a visit to the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta (2003:184-193).  Here he watched a computer model that plotted the possible course of a ship caught in a windstorm from Crete to Malta.  The ship landed, after 14 days in a severe windstorm, in the St. Thomas Bay!

The limitations of storm experts and computer models were well illustrated by the recent Nor’easter that hit the Northeast United States on Feb. 25-26, 2010.  The storm was a prime example of what computer models and meteorologists could not predict.  The meteorologists on television said that this “monster storm” defied all the computer models and did not behave as any of the meteorologists predicted it should!

Bay with a beach
The beach in the St. Thomas Bay was identified as the “bay with the beach.”  The earliest maps of Malta show that the Munxar Reef, at one time, was actually a series of small islands.  Possibly in the first century AD, this location would have been a lengthy peninsula that has now eroded away.  If that is the case, the sea captain, in all probability, would not have been able to see the low-lying beach of St. Thomas Bay from the area where the four anchor stocks were found and almost certainly, he would not have dared to sail his ship through the dangerous islands or peninsula to reach the beach!  Thus, the Bay of St. Thomas could not be the beach that the captain saw or where the sailors and passengers swam to.

Reef or Sandbar where the “two seas meet”
Several times in the news segment the Munxar Reef is described as a “sandbar.”  A careful examination of a geological map would have identified the reef as being made of “Middle Globigerina Limestone.”  This soft limestone is rock not a sandbar.

The identification of the “two seas meet” is based on two Greek words, “topos dithalasson”, that are translated different ways in different translations.  Professor Mario Buhagiar, of the University of Malta, cautions that this term “does not offer any real help because it can have several meanings and the way it is used in Acts 27:41, does not facilitate an interpretation.  A place where two seas meet (Authorized and Revised versions) and a cross sea (Knox Version) are the normally accepted translations but any beach off a headland (Liddell and Scott) or an isthmus whose extremity is covered by the waves (Grimms and Thayer), as indeed most water channels, can qualify as the place where the boat grounded.  The truth is that the Acts do not give us sufficient clues to help in the identification of the site” (see link at bottom for full bibliography).

Anchors at 90 feet
Mr.Cornuke interviewed people, primarily divers and spear fishermen, who claimed to have located four anchors on the south side of the Munxar Reef at 15 fathoms, or 90 feet of water.  Two other anchors were allegedly found near the Munxar Reef in 10 meters (ca. 33 feet) of water.  Cornuke implied in his book that these two anchors were the ones put in the skiff when the sailors tried to escape (Acts 27:30).  These interviews are the author’s primary evidence for Paul’s shipwreck.

Unfortunately only two actual anchor stocks can be examined.  They are on display on the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa.  The other four, however, are not available for scholarly consideration.  One of the anchor stocks was melted down, another is in a private collection, and two were allegedly sold on the antiquities market.

Unfortunately the video clip of the anchors in the Malta Maritime Museum is very misleading.  It shows 6 or 7 anchors on display, but only two are from the Munxar Reef.  One of them, called “Tony’s anchor,” was one of the smallest of those on display.  It measured about 3 feet, 8 inches in length and would be too small for the stern of an Alexandrian grain ship.

On the other hand, Professor Mario Buhagiar examined the other anchor and gave a cautious analysis, “It could have belonged to a cargo ship, possibly a grain cargo ship, and possibly one from Alexandria” (2003: 183).  He went on to conjecture, “This anchor stock would fit very well within the era of St. Paul” (2003: 184).  Although this anchor could have been from an Alexandrian grain ship, suggesting that it was from Paul’s shipwreck certainly goes beyond the available evidence.

Did not recognize the land
In the 1st century AD, the island of Malta was, in essence, the “Turn Right to Sicily” sign in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.  Malta was the landmark for sailors sailing west from Crete who were about to turn north to Sicily.  The eastern end of the island was what they saw first and it was a welcomed and recognizable sight.

It seems that capable sea captains, piloting an Alexandrian grain ship between Egypt and Rome, would have recognized the landmarks on the eastern coastline of Malta, including the St. Thomas Bay and the hazardous Munxar Reef which every sea captain would know about because of its inherent maritime danger.
Dr. Luke, however, testifies the sailors did not recognize the land.  This suggests that the shipwreck occurred at a different place on the island.

Can We Know for Sure?
At the end of the 700 Club news segment, Holton stated that it was “impossible to know for sure if this is where the shipwreck occurred.”  I would strongly disagree with that statement because my work leads to the inevitable conclusion that the St. Thomas Bay theory is contrary to the Biblical and geographic evidence, the alleged anchors are not verifiable, and thus it is surely possible to know that Paul’s shipwreck did not occur on the Munxar Reef.  One must look elsewhere for this shipwreck.

For a detailed and documented critique of the St. Thomas Bay theory as presented in Cornuke’s book, see:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/26/Has-Pauls-Shipwreck-Been-Found.aspx

For another devastating critique by a Maltese diver based on his local knowledge of the waters around Malta, see pages 162-174 of the just released PAVLVS, The Shipwreck 60 A.D. by Mark Gatt (2010, Valletta, Malta: Allied Publications).

A Documentary Coming
On Tuesday, February 16, 2010, it was announced on Maltese television that Mr. Cornuke’s documentary about the location for the shipwreck of the Apostle Paul would be released by the BASE Institute in April, 2010.

If Cornuke has any new evidence that supports his theory and that responds to the significant problems that have been previously noted, his discussion is welcomed.  If it is merely another way to sensationalize an old theory that has already been refuted then this documentary will not be about an “amazing Biblical discovery.”

Introduction
Dr. Robert Cornuke, the founder of the BASE Institute, claimed at the 2007 Promise Keepers events to reveal what would be an astonishing archaeological discovery.  He has photographs of what he claims is an ancient stone artifact from Mount Sinai that is inscribed with the name of the LORD, “Yahweh,” on it!  If the inscription on this stone is what he claims it is, then the headline of every archaeological publication and newspaper should state: “YAHWEH INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED AT MOUNT SINAI!”  But has he really revealed a monumental discovery of biblical significance?

A concerned Christian contacted the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) and inquired as to the validity of this claim, which was forwarded to me for a response.  This individual had watched the six Promise Keepers video clips on the BASE Institute website.  On one of the videos, two pictures are shown of the stone object with the inscription (see line drawing below).  The discussion of the “Yahweh inscription” begins at 5:17 minutes into the video and goes for about a minute.  In order to find the video in question on the website, the duration of this video is labeled 6:16 minutes.

http://www.baseinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxyPGtq0bY&feature=player_embedded#

The Claim about the “Yahweh Inscription”
Here is what is stated on the video about this ancient stone artifact:  “This, this particular stone — now I have not shown this before publicly.  This is a, ah, this particular shot I mean.  This is – You see this stone here?  This is found around the mountain [Jebel al-Lawz].  Why is this important?  Because if this is the real Mount Sinai, we have these different letters inscribed on rocks over there.  And this particular rock, umm, has a very unique appearance to it.  You can see the front of it?  That’s a, ah, that’s a ‘Y’ ‘H’.  And in the back side has a ‘W’ ‘H’.  O.K., that spells Yahweh [YHWH].

This is an ancient stone with ‘Yahweh’ on the face.  What did Moses have when he came down from Mount Sinai?  The glory of God was on his face.  These stones are crying out today.  Can we prove this with DNA and fingerprints?  No.  But the evidence is starting to mount slowly.”

The claim, if I understand it correctly, is either that this is a portrait of Moses that is inscribed with the name of “Yahweh” on it in order to represent the “glory of God … on his face” (cf. Ex. 34:29-35), or it is the face of Yahweh.

Illustration: Line drawing of the “Yahweh Stone.”  The obverse side (left) has the face of Moses or Yahweh with two South Semitic letters on it.  On the reverse (right) there are two more South Semitic letters.  This drawing was traced from a screen capture of the stone with the inscription.

Critique and Analysis of this Claim
A vigorous critique and scholarly analysis of this discovery is in order.  First, there is no discussion of the initial discovery or provenance (where it was found) of the inscription.  Nor is the identity of the individual revealed who found this stone at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, the mountain that Cornuke believes to be Mount Sinai.  Did Cornuke himself find the stone, or did somebody else actually find it there?  If the latter is the case, we are not told if the actual stone was given to Cornuke or he just received the photographs of the stone.  Assuming the stone was given to Cornuke by somebody else, that individual is not identified, nor are we told how or where it was obtained by this other party.  Was the stone actually found at Jebel al-Lawz or somewhere else?

Second, little is said about the stone itself.  We have no idea from the picture how big or small this object is.  Was it a hand held stone, or a standing stele?  There was no scale in either picture.  What is the geological make-up of the stone?  Is it made of basalt or something else?
A word of caution is in order.  Unless an artifact is found in situ (in place in a controlled scientific archaeological excavation), there is always the possibility that it is a modern-day forgery, something that is very common in the Middle East these days.  Proper scientific protocol should be followed and this stone should be inspected by a professional epigraphist for authenticity and a public report from the epigraphist should be issued, as to whether it is authentic or not.

Third, where is the present location of this object?  Was it deposited with the Saudi Arabian Department of Antiquities, as required by Saudi law?  Or, was it bought on the antiquities market and now held in a private collection, or is it on display in a museum?  If so, which museum?  Also, when, and in what scientific journal will this inscription be published?

Fourth, and most importantly, how was this text deciphered and translated?  To my knowledge, Bob Cornuke has no training in Middle Eastern field archaeology or Semitic languages, so we are not told how he arrived at the identification of these letters.  Did he identify them and translate the word himself?  Or did somebody else identify the letters and translate them as a single word?  If somebody else did, who was that individual?
I am a field archaeologist and a Biblical geographer but not a Semitic language expert, so I contacted two Semitics scholars and an archaeologist who worked for the Saudi Department of Antiquities.  I shared with them contents of the video published on the Internet.

Michael Macdonald, a Semitics scholar, is a research associate at the Oriental Institute at the University of Oxford.  He has had over 30 years of field experience, recording and cataloging tens of thousands of inscriptions from Syria, Jordan and the Arabia Peninsula.  In other words, he is very familiar with ancient rock graffiti and with the forms of letters in ancient scripts.  He once published a comparative chart of South Semitic alphabetic scripts (1992: 3: 419).  Thus readers can now compare the script on the “Yahweh stone” with what is known from archaeological excavations and field research.  But note his words of caution when using the chart: “The stance and shape of many letters in Safaitic and Thamudic may vary considerably.”

The second Semitics scholar I consulted with was Dr. K. Lawson Younger Jr., Professor of Old Testament, Semitic Languages and Ancient Near Eastern History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  Both Semitics scholars, independently of each other, concluded that this unprovenanced sculpture is most likely a crude modern day forgery.  In personal correspondence with the author, Macdonald wrote: “I am almost certain that the sculpture is a fake. Quite a lot of these very crude carvings are appearing on the market nowadays but they bear no relation to the types of ancient Arabian sculptures found in scientific archaeological excavations.  The two letters [on the obverse side] have genuine shapes, but this is not a surprise since published script tables of the ancient scripts are widely distributed in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I have come across small boys in remote villages able to write their names in the ancient scripts!”

The third person consulted was Dr. Majeed Khan, an archaeologist retired from the Saudi Department of Antiquities.  He is a specialist in the rock art of Saudi Arabia and worked on the comprehensive archaeological survey of the Jebel al-Lawz region for the Saudi Department of Antiquities.  Dr. Khan also believes that the stone with the inscription is a recent forgery.  He says, “Such false stones are on sale in Yemen and Najran area [of Saudi Arabia].  You can buy many stones like these particularly in Yemen.  All are false and recently sculptured.”  Dr. Khan personally worked on the comprehensive survey of the Jebel al-Lawz area, where this sculpture is said to have come from, and he never saw anything like this sculptured rock.

It is claimed that the inscription has the Divine Name “Yahweh” (yhwh) on the rock.  Is this a valid claim?  The side with the face on it (the “obverse”) is presumably the beginning of the inscription.  As with many Semitic languages, South Semitic scripts included, the inscription should be read from right to left.  The first letter, to the right of the nose, is transliterated as a “w”, not a “y.”  The second letter, to the left of the nose, is an “h with a dot under it” (?).  Macdonald points out that this is an entirely different letter from the “h” in “Yahweh.”

On the reverse side of the stone are two more letters.  The letter on the right is transliterated as “h with a line under it” (?).  Macdonald observes that it is pronounced as a “kh” (like the last sound in Scottish “loch”).  This letter is not present in the name “Yahweh” and is not a “w.”  The last letter, to the left of the “?”, is a “y” and not an “h.”

If these letters did form a single word, which is highly unlikely, it would be spelled “w??y”, and not “yhwh.”  Macdonald points out that “the letters would make no sense as a single word or name in a Semitic language since the sounds ‘kh’ and ‘h with a dot’ cannot occur in the same word.”  Younger further comments: “This is an impossible word in any Semitic language which would never have these two gutturals in a row.”  He continues, “This is absolute proof that the inscription is a forgery!”  On a lighter note, Younger says, “It yields a word that could not be pronounced!  It would ruin someone’s throat trying!”

Younger sums it up this way: “I can say most emphatically this is not the Hebrew divine name Yahweh (yhwh).  There is an obvious wrongness to the order of the consonants, and the consonants themselves are wrong!”  Macdonald and Khan concur.

These are very important questions and serious objections that need to be answered by the BASE research team.  It is hoped that an answer will be posted to all these questions and objections, as well as a report from a professional epigraphist as to the stone’s authenticity in the very near future.  A good place to share the answers to these questions and objections would be under the “Investigations” category of the BASE Institute website.  There is no article in the “Inscriptions” file, except four short paragraphs.  The last one says: “Continue to check back here at the Institute for further information release.”  This statement has been up for about two years.  Now (October 2009), would be the time to add a report about the “Yahweh Inscription.”

Another important question raised is that the inscription was alleged to be found at a site other than a mountain in the Sinai Peninsula.  Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula according to all the biblical data, and not at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia where the discovery was allegedly made.  Ancient writers included the Sinai Peninsula within the province of Arabia in the first century AD.  The Apostle Paul was perfectly consistent with these ancient writers when he stated in Galatians 4:25, “Mount Sinai in [first century AD] Arabia.”  Mount Sinai is named in accordance with the Sinai Peninsula (not Arabia), and thus does not lie in the boundaries of modern Saudi Arabia, which excludes the Sinai Peninsula (Franz 2000: 101-113).

Conclusions
To sum up: the sculpture of the bearded man or deity is thus more than likely a modern-day forgery carved thousands of years after the Exodus.  It was also not written in genuine paleo-Hebrew and can not be translated “Yahweh.”  The facts surrounding the chronology and paleography of this inscription would negate this artifact as being clearly connected with the visit of the Children of Israel to Mount Sinai.
The men that attended the Promise Keepers events and heard this presentation, or those who view the video clip, should not share this information with others as proof that the Bible is true.  The Bible is true regardless of whether this discovery has any biblical significance.  The assertion that Mount Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia still lacks credible and verifiable historical, geographical, archaeological, or biblical evidence.

For further reading:

Bibliography

Franz, Gordon
2000    Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?  Bible and Spade 13/4: 101-113.

Macdonald, Michael
1992    Inscriptions, Safaitic.  Pp. 418-423 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 3.  Edited by D. N. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

By Gordon Franz

Book Review

Robert Cornuke, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (2003), Publisher: Global Publishing Service, Bend, OR, 232 pages.

Introduction

Mr. Robert Cornuke co-authored three books with David Halbrook and then authored a fourth book on his own in which he claimed to have used the Bible as a “treasure map” (2003: 78) in order to locate “lost” Biblical objects or places.

In the first book he co-authored, In Search of the Mountain of God: The Discovery of the Real Mt. Sinai (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000), he followed the ideas of the late Ron Wyatt and claims to have found the real Mt. Sinai at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia (ancient Midian).  Ron Wyatt was the originator of the idea and first explored the mountain with this hypothesis in mind, yet Wyatt is only mentioned in passing in Mr. Cornuke’s book (2000: 218).  The Bible clearly places Mt. Sinai outside the Land of Midian (Ex. 18:27; Num. 10:29, 30).  The archaeological finds observed by adventurers visiting the area were completely misidentified and misinterpreted.  The claims that Mt. Sinai is Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia have been carefully examined and refuted (Franz 2000: 101-113; Standish and Standish 1999).

See also:

www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html

www.ldolphin.org/franz-ellawz.html

www.ldolphin.org/cornukequestions.html

www.ldolphin.org/sinai.html

In the second book he co-authored, In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah: The Discovery of the Real Mts. Of Ararat (Cornuke and Halbrook 2001), he examines Ed Davis’s claim to have seen Noah’s Ark while he was stationed in Iran during World War II.  Mr. Cornuke concluded that Mr. Davis saw Noah’s Ark on Mt. Savalon in Iran based on the suggestion of his Iranian tour guide.  Mr. Cornuke visited the country several times in order to locate the ark, but has not seen, verified, or documented, the ark on any of his trips to Iran.  It seems that Mr. Cornuke has abandoned this idea and now is searching for the ark on Mount Suleiman in the Alborz Range of Iran.

See: www.noahsarksearch.com/iran.htm

In the third book he co-authored, In Search of the Lost Ark of the Covenant, (Cornuke and Halbrook 2002), he suggested that the Ark of the Covenant is located in the stone chapel of St. Mary of Zion Church in Aksum, Ethiopia.  This is a revisiting of Graham Hancock’s idea in the book, The Sign and the Seal (1992).  Professor Edward Ullendorff, formerly of the University of London, visited the church in 1941 and was given access to the “ark.”  As an eyewitness, he reported that it was an empty wooden box!  (Hiltzik 1992: 1H).  The claims that the ark is in Ethiopia have been examined and refuted by Dr. Randall Price (2005: 101-115, 167-177).

Mr. Cornuke has not set forth any credible historical, geographic, archaeological or Biblical evidence for the claims he makes in his first three books when one examines them closely.

Most recently, Mr. Cornuke has developed a new idea regarding the shipwreck of the Apostle Paul.  In his fourth book, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (2003), Mr. Cornuke claims to have found the only tangible remains from the shipwreck of the Apostle Paul on Malta, six lead anchor stocks.  Josh McDowell’s prominent endorsement on the dust jacket says, “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul is evidence that demands a verdict,” a play on the title of McDowell’s famous book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict.  This article will examine the claims set forth in the book and will render a verdict based on the evidence.

I began my research on Malta in January 1997 in preparation for a study tour with a graduate school.  Two follow-up trips were made in May 2001 and January 2005.  In addition to research visits, I have amassed a large collection of books, journal articles and maps over the past few years.  While on Malta, I was able to use several libraries for research.  I visited the St. Thomas Bay region on three occasions and examined the two anchor stocks discussed in the book.  These had been anchors that were turned over to the authorities, and displayed on the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa along with other anchor stocks that likewise were not from controlled archaeological excavations.

Malta – A Great Place to Visit!

Malta is an island, rich in archaeological remains, fascinating history, natural beauty, and has Biblical significance.  This island is a jewel of Europe and well worth a visit.  A tourist can still experience the “unusual kindness” and hospitality that Paul and Luke experienced when they unexpectedly visited the island in AD 59/60 (cf. Acts 28:2 NKJV).

Examining the Evidence for the Shipwreck on the Munxar Reef

Mr. Cornuke’s investigations on the island of Malta led to the conclusion that the shipwreck occurred on the eastern end of the island of Malta, rather than the traditional site at St. Paul’s Bay on the northern side of the island.  His view is that the Alexandrian grain ship containing the Apostle Paul and his traveling companion, Luke, was shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef near St. Thomas Bay on the eastern side of the island.  Mr. Cornuke claims that he located local spear fishermen and divers who told him about six anchor stocks that were located near or on the Munxar Reef.  Mr. Cornuke has suggested that these six anchor stocks came from the shipwreck of Paul (Acts 27:29, 40).  Four of the anchor stocks were found at fifteen fathoms, or ninety feet of water (Acts 27:28), these would have been the ones the crew threw over first.  The other two were found at a shallower depth and he thinks these were the anchors the sailors were pretending to put out from the prow (Acts 27:30).  He identifies the “place where two seas meet” (Acts 27:41) as the Munxar Reef and the “bay with the beach” as St. Thomas Bay (Acts 27:39).  He concluded that neither the sea captain, nor his crew, would have recognized the eastern shoreline of the Maltese coast.

Mr. Cornuke made four trips to Malta in order to develop this theory.  On his first trip in September 2000 (2003: 26-73), he scouted out the traditional site at St. Paul’s Bay and concluded that it did not line up with the Biblical account.  Then he investigated Marsaxlokk Bay and decided that it did not fit the description either.  He settled on the Munxar Reef as the place where the ship foundered and St. Thomas Bay as the beach where the people came ashore.

On his second trip in September 2001 (2003: 75-130), he took a team of people that included Jean Francois La Archevec, a diver; David Laddell, a sailing specialist; Mark Phillips, his liaison with the scholarly community; Mark’s wife; and Mitch Yellen (2003: 75, 76, plate 8, bottom).  On this trip, the group met Ray Ciancio, the owner of the Aqua Bubbles Diving School (2003: 77).  Mr. Ciancio told the research team that two anchors had been found off the outer Munxar Reef in front of a large underwater cave.  The team scuba dived to the cave and confirmed that the depth was 90 feet, or 15 fathoms.

The third trip to Malta in May of 2002 was prompted by a phone call from Mr. Ciancio claiming he located somebody who had brought up a third anchor (2003: 163-200).  This time the research / film team consisted of Jim and Jay Fitzgerald, Edgar, Yvonne and Jeremy Miles, Jerry and Gail Nordskog, Bryan Boorujy, David Stotts and Darrell Scott (2003: Plate 12 top).  They met Charles Grech, a (now) retired restaurant owner, who found the third anchor in front of the same underwater cave.  Mr. Grech led them to a fourth anchor that might have been found off the Munxar Reef, but this was not certain.  Prof. Anthony Bonanno, of the University of Malta, examined the third anchor stock in Mr. Grech’s home.  The team also visited the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta and watched a computer program plot the course of a ship caught in a windstorm from Crete to Malta.  Mr. Nordskog recounted his adventures and made the first official announcement of the new theory in a magazine that he published (2002: 4, 113).

A fourth trip to Malta was in November 2002 (2003: 201-220).  Mr. Cornuke teamed up with Ray Ardizzone to meet Wilfred Perotta, the “grandfather of Malta divers.”  Mr. Perotta was able to confirm that the fourth anchor was found off the Munxar Reef and introduced the author to a mystery man who informed him of a fifth anchor and a sixth anchor found off the Munxar Reef.

After his investigations, the author had a problem.  He had no tangible proof of the anchor stocks to show the world.  The first of the anchor stocks was melted down; the second, third and fourth were in private collections; and the fifth and six had been sold.  According to the Maltese antiquities law, it was illegal for the private citizens to have the anchor stocks in their possession, a fear expressed by each diver/family that told their stories about the anchor stocks in his or its possession (Cornuke 2003: 108, 112, 126).  A strategy, however, was devised that would get those who possessed the anchor stocks to reveal them to the public.  The aid of the US ambassador to Malta, Kathy Proffitt, was enlisted to convince the President and Prime Minister of Malta to offer an amnesty to anyone who would turn over antiquities found off the Munxar Reef (2003: 221-223).  The pardons were issued on September 23, 2002.  This resulted in two anchor stocks being turned over to the authorities.  Now the book could be written.

Thorough Research?

When I first read the book, I was disappointed to find that Mr. Cornuke does not interact with, or mention, some very important works on the subject of Paul’s shipwreck; nor are they listed in his bibliography.  The classic work on this subject is James Smith’s The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. In fact, the noted New Testament and classical scholar, F. F. Bruce said this book was “an indispensable handbook to the study of this chapter [Acts 27]” (1981: 499), and elsewhere, “This work remains of unsurpassed value for its stage-by-stage annotation of the narrative of the voyage” (1995: 370, footnote 9).  Yet nowhere in his book does Mr. Cornuke mention Smith’s work or even discuss the information contained therein.  Nor is there any mention of George Musgrave’s, Friendly Refuge (1979), or W. Burridge’s, Seeking the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck (1952).  There are some scholars who do not believe Paul even was shipwrecked on the island of Malta.  Nowhere in Mr. Cornukes’ “Lost Shipwreck” is there an acknowledgment or even a discussion of the Dalmatia or Greek sites.

James Smith identifies the place of landing as St. Paul’s Bay; others suggest different beaches within the bay.  Musgrave suggested the landing was at Qawra Point at the entrance to Salina Bay.  Burridge places the shipwreck in Mellieha Bay.  Those who reject the island of Malta as the place of the shipwreck point out that the Book of Acts uses the Greek word “Melite” (Acts 28:1).  There were two “Melite’s” in the Roman world: Melite Africana, the modern island of Malta, and Melite Illyrica, an island in the Adriatic Sea called Mljet in Dalmatia (Meinardus 1976: 145-147).  A recent suggestion for the shipwreck was the island of Cephallenia in Greece (Warnecke and Schirrmacher 1992).

Did the sea captain and crew recognize the land? (Acts 27:39)

Luke states, “When it was day, they did not recognize the land; but they observed a bay with a beach” (Acts 27:39a).  The sea captain and the sailors could see the shoreline, but did not recognize the shoreline and where they were.  It was only after they had gotten to land that they found out they were on the island of Malta (Acts 28:1).

Lionel Casson, one of the world’s leading experts on ancient nautical archaeology and seafaring, describes the route of the Alexandrian grain ships from Alexandria in Egypt to Rome.  In a careful study of the wind patterns on the Mediterranean Sea and the account of Lucian’s Navigation that gives the account of the voyage of the grain ship Isis, he has demonstrated that the ship left Alexandria and headed in a northward direction.  It went to the west of Cyprus and then along the southern coast of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and headed for Knidos or Rhodes.  The normal route was under (south of) the island of Crete and then west toward Malta.  Thus the eastern shoreline of Malta was the recognizable landmark for them to turn north and head for Syracuse, Sicily and on to Puteoli or Rome (1950: 43-51; Lucian, The Ship or the Wishes; LCL 6: 431-487).

Mr. Cornuke correctly states: “Malta itself was well visited as a hub of trade during the time of the Roman occupation and would have been known to any seasoned sailor plying the Mediterranean” (2003: 31).  Any seasoned sailor coming from Alexandria would clearly recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta.

He also properly identified two of the many ancient harbors on Malta as being at Valletta and Salina Bay (2003: 32).  The ancient Valletta harbor was much further inland in antiquity and is called Marsa today, and is at the foot of Corradino Hill (Bonanno 1992: 25).  Roman storehouses with amphorae were discovered in this region in 1766-68 (Ashby 1915: 27-30).  When Alexandrian grain ships could not make it to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, they wintered on Malta (see Acts 28:11).  They would off load their grain and store them in the storehouses of Marsa (Gambin 2005).  Sea captains coming from Alexandria would be very familiar with the eastern shoreline of Malta before they entered the harbor of Valletta.

The city of Melite was the only major city on Roman Malta, there were however, villas and temples scattered throughout the countryside.  Today Melite lies under the modern city of Mdina / Rabat.  The main harbor for Melite was Marsa, not Salina Bay (Said-Zammit 1997: 43,44,132; Said 1992: 1-22).

Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, states regarding Malta: “For off the south of Sicily three islands lie out in the sea, and each of them possesses a city and harbours which can offer safety to ships which are in stress of weather.  The first one is that called Melite [Malta], which lies about eight hundred stades from Syracuse, and it possesses many harbours which offer exceptional advantages.” (Library of History 5:12:1-2; LCL 3: 129).  Note his description, “many harbors.”  Many includes more than just two; so where are the rest?

Knowledge of Arabic can give us a clue.  The word “marsa” is the Arabic word for harbor (Busuttil 1971: 305-307).  There are at least three more harbors that can be added to the list.  The Marsamxett harbor within the Grand Harbor of Valletta; Marsascala Bay just north of St. Thomas Bay; and Marsaxlokk Bay in the southeast portion of Malta all would be Roman harbors.  The last bay was a major Roman harbor / port that served the famous Temple of Juno on the hill above it and was also a place for ships to winter.

Any ancient Mediterranean Sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of a ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta with these Roman harbors and anchorages.  Malta was the landmark for sailors traveling from Crete and about to turn north to Sicily.  The eastern end of the island would be what they saw first and it would be a welcome sight.

There are at least four recognizable points that could be seen from the outer Munxar Reef had this been the exact spot of the shipwreck of Paul as Mr. Cornuke argues.  The first was the entrance to Marsaxlokk Bay where a Roman harbor / port was, the second, the entrance to Marsascala Bay where another Roman harbor was located.  The third point would be the dangerous Munxar Reef (or small islands or peninsula in the 1^st century AD) that any sea captain worth his salt would recognize because of its inherent danger.  The final point, and most important, was the site known today as Tas-Silg.  This was a famous temple from the Punic / Roman period dedicated to one goddess known by different names by the various ethnic groups visiting the island.  She was Tanit to the Phoenicians, Hera to the Greeks, Juno to the Romans, and Isis to the Egyptians (Trump 1997: 80, 81; Bonanno 1992: Plate 2 with a view of St. Thomas Bay in the background).

In preparation for my January 2005 trip to Malta I studied this important temple.  It was a landmark for sailors coming from the east.  Could this temple be seen from the outer Munxar Reef?  On the first day I arrived in Malta, Tuesday, January 11, a fellow traveler and I went to visit the excavations.  Unfortunately they were closed, but we could get a clear feel for the terrain around the excavations.  Near the enclosure for the excavations was the Church of Tas-Silg, a very prominent building in the region.  On Friday, January 14, we walked around the point where St. Thomas Tower is located and then along the edge of the low cliffs to St. Thomas Bay.  There was no wind so the sea was flat and no waves were breaking on the Munxar Reef.  On Sunday, January 16, however, a very strong windstorm hit Malta.  I returned to St. Thomas Bay and walked out to the point overlooking the Munxar Reef.  The waves clearly indicated the line of the Munxar Reef.  After watching the waves, I turned around to observe the terrain behind me.  Up the slopes of the hill the Church of Tas-Silg and the enclosure wall of the Tas-Silg excavations were clearly visible.  Just to confirm the visibility from Tas-Silg, I walked along dirt paths and through fields up to the enclosure wall.  As I stood on the outside of the wall, just opposite the Roman temple, I looked down and could see the waves breaking on the Munxar Reef.  There was eye contact between the outer Munxar Reef and this important shrine with no apparent obstruction in the line of view.  If I could see the Munxar Reef then someone at the Munxar Reef could have seen me and the elevated terrain landmarks around me such as the prominent Temple of Juno.

If the Apostle Paul’s ship was anchored near the Munxar Reef, when it was morning, the sea captain and the sailors immediately would have recognized where they were.  Luke, who was on board the ship, testifies that they did not recognize where they were (Acts 27:39).  Thus the Munxar Reef does not meet the Biblical criteria for the shipwreck of Paul.

Is the “Meeting of two seas” at the Munxar Reef? (Acts 27:41)

When the sea captain gave the orders for the ropes of the four anchors to be cut, Luke says they struck “a place where two seas meet” (Acts 27:41).  The Greek words for “two seas meet” is transliterated, “topon dithalasson.“  The meaning of these two Greek words, “two seas meet,” has been translated in the book as “place of two seas” (2003: 71), “a place where two seas meet” (2003: 217), “two seas meet” (2003: 29, 73, 194), and “a place between waters” (2003: 29).

Mr. Cornuke gives three possible meanings for this Greek phrase on page 82 of his book and footnotes it as his #16.  Footnote 16 is page 148 of Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1893).  When one examines Thayer’s definition of topon dithalasson, he gives more definitions than Mr. Cornuke gives in his book.  Thayer starts off by saying it means, “resembling [or forming] two seas.”  Also “lying between two seas, i.e. washed by the sea on both sides … an isthmus.”  If we take these omitted meanings into consideration, it opens up other possibilities on the island for the location of the shipwreck.

There have been other studies done on the Greek phrase topon dithalasson which appears only once in the Greek New Testament (Gilchrist 1996: 42-46).  Professor Mario Buhagiar, of the University of Malta, cautions that this term “does not offer any real help because it can have several meanings and the way it is used in Acts 27:41, does not facilitate an interpretation.  A place where two seas meet (Authorized and Revised versions) and a cross sea (Knox Version) are the normally accepted translations but any beach off a headland (Liddell and Scott) or an isthmus whose extremity is covered by the waves (Grimms and Thayer), as indeed most water channels, can qualify as the place where the boat grounded.  The truth is that the Acts do not give us sufficient clues to help in the identification of the site” (Buhagiar 1997: 200).

There are other locations on the island that fit the description of the lying between two seas and an isthmus.

Is the “bay with a beach” at St. Thomas Bay? (Acts 27:39)

In introducing this passage, Mr. Cornuke remarks, “The Bible states that sailors aboard Paul’s ship, having anchored off the coast of Malta in a near hurricane, peered out at the horizon at midnight on the fourteenth night, and … observed a bay with a beach” (2003: 27).  Actually, verse 39 states, “Now when it was day …” (NKJV), “And when day came …” (NASB), “And when it was day…” (KJV).  It was not midnight as stated in the book.  If it were at midnight, and especially during a gragale, it would be pitch black and they would not have been able to see anything.

There is a second problem with Mr. Cornuke’s identification.  According to Map 3, the ship was anchored on the south side of the Munxar Reef before the ropes were cut.  More than likely in the First Century AD, the sea captain would not have been able to see the low-level beach of St. Thomas Bay from where he was anchored though the elevated landmarks would have been visible and recognizable.

Geographers who study land forms are well aware that coastlines change over time.  This could be a result of silting, as in the case of Marsa and the Marsascala Bay.  Erosion by the sea is always going on.  Seismic activity could change coastlines as well.  Malta has many fault lines on or around it that could move land mass up, down or sideways.  A certain depth in the sea, or elevation on land, today might not necessarily be what it was 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.  Tsunamis are known in the Mediterranean Sea, and several have been recorded in the history of Malta.  In 1693 a tsunami hit the island of Gozo.  The water receded a mile and then returned with a vengeance (Azzopardi 2002: 60).  Shifting sand moved by a tsunami could have changed the contour of the seabed.

A careful look at Map 2 with a magnifying glass reveals that the Munxar Reef is above the waterline and has what appeared to be three small islands.  Unfortunately this map is not identified; nor is there a date given for when or by whom it was produced.

The D’Aleccio map of the siege of Malta in 1565 was produced and published in 1582.  On that map, the Munxar Reef appears as a series of small islands or a peninsula (Ganado 1984: Plate 18).

An Internet search revealed the Boisgelin Map of Malta produced in 1805, but I have not examined this map first hand.  The Munxar Reef looked like the horn of a unicorn.  Geographically, it could be a peninsula or a series of small islands.

The earliest known map of Malta was produced in 1536 (Vella 1980).  Map 2 must be later than this one, as are the D’Aleccio and Boisgelin maps.  They tell us that at least in the 16^th century there were three small islands, or a peninsula, above the Munxar Reef.  The question is, what was the reef like in the First Century AD?  According to the “Geological Map of the Maltese Islands” (Map 1, 1993) the cliff overlooking the Munxar Reef is made of Middle Globigerina Limestone.  It is described as “a planktonic foraminifera-rich sequence of massive, white, soft carbonate mudstones locally passing into pale-grey marly mudstone.”  Assuming the small islands and/or peninsula were made of the same material, over 2,000 years this soft limestone would have eroded away by the constant wave action and occasional tsunamis.  If this is the case, it raises some interesting questions: Were the small islands bigger, or was it a peninsula in the First Century AD?  If so, how high was the land and how far out did it go?  If it were higher than the grain ship, then it would lead to serious questions as to whether the captain could see the beach at all.  It might have even been impossible to cross over it by sea in order to reach the beach.

The Six Anchors (Acts 27: 28-30, 40)

Mr. Cornuke interviewed people, primarily old divers and spear fishermen, who claimed to have located four anchors on the south side of the Munxar Reef at 15 fathoms, or 90 feet of water.  These interviews are the author’s prime evidence for Paul’s shipwreck.  To be more precise, Mr. Cornuke located four anchor stocks, a stock being one part of a whole anchor.

Before discussing the six anchor stocks that allegedly were discovered, a description of a wooden Roman anchor is necessary.  Roman anchors were made of wood and lead, as opposed to stone anchors of earlier periods.  Douglas Haldane, a nautical archaeologist, has divided the wooden-anchor stocks into eight types (Haldane 1984: 1-13; 1990: 19-24, see diagram on page 21).  Five of the types were used in the first century AD, Type IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, IVA and IVB  (Haldane 1984: 3,13).

The Type III anchors are made up of five parts (for pictures, see Bonanno 1992: Plate 67; Cornuke 2003: Plate 7, bottom).  The main part is the wooden shank, usually made of oak, which has a lead stock across the upper part.  Haldane subdivides the Type III anchors into three parts based on the design of lead stock.  Type IIIA is made of “solid lead with no internal junction with the shank.”  Type IIIB is made of “solid lead with lead tenon through [the] shank.”  Type IIIC is made of “lead with [a] wooden core” (1984: 3).  This core of wood, called a “soul,” goes though the shank in order to pin the stock to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 51).  On the bottom of the anchor are two wooden flukes, sometimes tipped with metal (usually copper and called a “tooth”), perpendicular to the anchor stock.  A “collar” made of lead, sometimes called an “assembly piece,” secures the flukes to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 52; Cornuke 2003: Plate 6, bottom; in the picture the collar is below the anchor stock).

When an anchor is dropped into the sea, the heavy lead stock brings the anchor to the bottom of the sea.  One fluke then digs into the sea bottom.  The stock also keeps “the anchor cable pulling at the correct angle to the fluke” (Throckmorton 1972: 78).

Mr. Cornuke concluded from his research that the anchors from an Alexandrian grain ship “would have been huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors common on huge freighters like the one Paul sailed on” (2002: 15).

Nautical archaeologists and divers generally find only the anchor stocks and the collars and not the wooden parts because the wood rots in the sea.  However, that is not always the case.  Sometimes the wooden core, or “soul” still is found inside the stock.  Wood can also be found in the collar (Kapitan 1969-71: 51, 53).  In some cases the wood does not disintegrate.  A case in point is the wooden anchor from a 2,400 year-old shipwreck off the coast of Ma’agan Mikhael in Israel (Rosloff 2003: 140-146).

Sometimes lead anchor stocks have inscriptions or symbols on them.  Symbols may be of “good luck (dolphins, caduceus), or related to the sea (shells) or apotropaic (Medusa head).”  Also are found “numbers, names of divinities (= names of ships), e.g. Isis, Hera, Hercules, and rarely, names of men … [that] may provide evidence for senatorial involvement in trade” (Gianfrotta 1980: 103, English abstract).

One of the reasons antiquities laws are so tough is to prevent divers from looting sunken ships and removing, forever, valuable information such as the wood which could be used to carbon date the anchor and identify the type of wood used for making anchors.  Some Israeli nautical archaeologists have begun to use carbon dating to date some of their shipwrecks (Kahanov and Royal 2001: 257; Nor 2002-2003: 15-17; 2004: 23).  Archaeologists also work to maintain any inscriptional evidence on the anchor stock.

For a brief survey of the recent developments in the maritime heritage of Malta, see Bonanno 1995: 105-110.

The first anchor (#1) described in Mr. Cornuke’s book was found by Tony Micallef-Borg and Ray Ciancio in front of a big cave in the outer Munxar Reef at about 90 feet below the surface (2003: 101-105).  When it was discovered in the early 1970’s, it was only half an anchor that was either “pulled apart like a piece of taffy” (2003: 121) or sawn in half with a hacksaw (2003: 231, footnote 18), depending on which eyewitness is most reliable.  The recollection is that it was three or four feet long, with a large section cut off (2003: 102).  The discoverers melted it down for lead weights not knowing its historical and archaeological value.  One diver, Oliver Navarro, had two small weights with “MT” stamped on them for Tony Micallef-Borg.  (Actually “MT” is the reverse image of Tony’s initials, see Plate 6, top).  There is a drawing of the anchor at the top of Plate 7.

Unfortunately, #1 was melted down.  If it had been found in a controlled archaeological excavation and it contained an inscription, it would have been helpful in identifying the ship or its date.

In a reconstruction of how the anchor stock was ripped apart, the author surmises that this was the first anchor thrown from the Apostle Paul’s ship and then “ravaged by the reef and the waves” (2003: 122, 123).  The problem with this scenario is that a fluke goes into the seabed where it would serve to slow down the ship, not the anchor stock.  If anything had been torn apart like taffy it would have been the collar, not the anchor stock, assuming the wooden fluke did not break first.  More than likely, the anchor stock was sawn in half by means of a hacksaw by some unknown person in modern times..

The second anchor (#2) was also found in the early 70’s and was a whole anchor stock found near anchor #1 (2003: 105-110).  It was brought to shore by Tony Micallef-Borg, Ray Ciancio, Joe Navarro and David Inglott and taken to Cresta Quay (Cornuke 2003: 105, 106).  It eventually came to rest in the courtyard of Tony Micallef-Borg’s villa.

“Tony’s anchor” (2003: 125) is described by different people as a “large anchor stock” (2003: 106), a “huge anchor” (2003: 114), as a “large slab of lead” (2003: 126), and a “massive Roman anchor stock” (2003: 126).  Unfortunately, unlike anchor stocks #1, #3, and #4, there are no measurements given in the book for this one.  The only size indicators are the adjectives “large”, “huge”, and “massive.”

The reader viewing the photographs of anchors #2 and #3 on Plate 5 might get the impression that anchor #2 (bottom) was much larger than anchor #3 (top).  The bottom picture was taken with the anchor on a bed sheet with nothing to indicate the actual size.  Anchor #3 has three men squatting behind the anchor to give some perspective of size.  The impression the reader would get is that anchor #2 is almost twice the size of anchor #3.  If these anchors were published in a proper excavation report both anchors would have the same scale in front of them and the photograph of each anchor would be published to the same scale.  It then would be seen that anchor #2 is considerably smaller than anchor #3.

On Friday, January 14, 2005 and Monday, January 17, 2005 I visited the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa.  “Tony’s anchor” was tagged “NMA Unp. #7/2 Q’mangia 19.11.2002.”  This anchor stock came from the village of Q’mangia and was handed over to the museum on November 19, 2002, only four days before the amnesty expired (2003: 223).

The anchor stock was one of the smallest on display, measuring about 3 feet, 8 inches in length.  Large Alexandrian grain ships would have had for the stern much larger anchors than this one.  The author’s lack of quantifiable measurements regarding the anchor stock keeps the reader uninformed about its actual size.  This anchor stock is a lead toothpick compared to “huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors” that Mr. Cornuke surmised would be on the ship (Cornuke 2002: 15).

The “Museum Archaeological Report” for 1963 describes an anchor stock found off the coast of Malta.  It was an “enormous Roman anchor stock lying on the sea bed 120 feet below the surface 300 yards off Qawra Point … its dimensions, 13 feet 6 inches long, were confirmed. … On the same occasion part of the same or another anchor, a collar of lead 84 cms. long, was retrieved from 25 feet away from the stock” (MAR 1963: 7; Fig. 6; Plate 3).  It weighed 2,500 kg, which is two and a half metric tons! (Guillaumier 1992: 88).  This anchor stock is the largest anchor stock ever found in the Mediterranean Sea and most likely came from an Alexandrian grain ship.  It is in storage in the National Archaeological Museum in Valletta.  A picture of it can be seen in Bonanno 1992: 158, plate 66.

This anchor would be a Type IIIC anchor according to Haldane’s classification.   He dates this type of stock from the second half of the second century BC to the middle of the first century AD based on two secure archaeological contexts (1984: 8).

If this anchor stock had been recovered in a controlled archaeological excavation there might have been some wood found in the “soul.”  If so, this could have been used for carbon dating and given us a clearer date for the casting of the anchor stock.

According to Mr. Cornuke, on two occasions Professor Anthony Bonanno was shown a video of this anchor stock.  The first was during dinner with Mr. Cornuke, Dr. Phillips and his wife on their second trip to Malta.  Professor Bonanno was shown it on the screen of a tiny video (2003: 128).  The professor concluded, “Anchor stocks such as the one you are showing me in this video were used from approximately 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.  It could have come from any period within that range” (2003: 129).  The video was again shown to him on Mr. Cornuke’s third trip to Malta.  Again, it was viewed on the screen of a small video camera.  The professor states, “From what I can tell from these videos – again without the benefit of physical examination – these other two anchors also appear to be typical Roman anchor stocks, appropriate to the era of St. Paul’s shipwreck in Malta” (2003: 184).  Professor Bonanno qualifies his observation because he has not physically examined the anchor stock in person.  It is difficult to evaluate an archaeological find on a small video screen.  There is no mention in the book of the professor making a “physical examination” of this anchor stock in the Nautical Museum.

The third anchor (#3) was found by Charles Grech and Tony Micallef-Borg on Feb. 10, 1972, the feast of St. Paul and Charles’ 33^rd birthday.  It was found in front of the big cave at the Munxar Reef and brought up with the help of Tony Micallef-Borg soon after he had found the first two anchors.  Anchor #3 measured “a little over five feet long” (2003: 164).  It was taken to Charles’ house where it resided until he turned it over to the national museum.  The tag on the anchor says, “NMA unp # 7/1 Naxxar.”  A picture of it can be seen at the top of Plate 5.   From my observation of this anchor, it had the lead tenon through the shank, thus making it a Type IIIB anchor.  Haldane dates this type anchor stock from the mid-second-century BC to the mid-first century BC.  Recently, however, Roman legionary anchors were discovered that date to about AD 70 (Haldane 1984: 8).

Professor Anthony Bonanno examined this anchor and very cautiously said, “It could have belonged to a cargo ship, possibly a grain cargo ship, and possibly one from Alexandria” (2003: 183, emphasis by the reviewer).  He went on to conjecture, “This anchor stock would fit very well within the era of St. Paul” (2003: 184).

The fourth anchor (#4) was found by “Mario” (a pseudonym) in the late 60’s (2003: 176, 204) and was over 5 feet long (2003: 171).  It was taken to “Mario’s” house where it resides in his courtyard.  A picture of it can be seen at the bottom of Plate 6.  One can observe the lead tenon, making this a Type IIIB anchor as well.

His widow was not sure whether it was found off the Munxar Reef or Camino, the island between Malta and Gozo (2003: 178).  Wilfred Perotta, however, was able to confirm that the anchor was found off the Munxar Reef (2003: 204).

Anchor #4 supposedly is in a private collection and the holders are having “meaningful dialogue” with the authorities (Cornuke 2003: 221).  “Meaningful dialogue” is an interesting description as the antiquity laws are clear; all ancient artifacts must be turned over to the proper authorities.  A general amnesty was issued and the deadline passed.

The other two anchors (#5 and #6), were found by a mystery diver who did not want his identity revealed (2003: 212).  In an account that reads like a cloak and dagger mystery, the author relates his conversation with this individual (2003: 210-215).  The diver claims he found the two anchors in 1994 in front of the “Munxar Pass” in about 10 meters (ca. 33 feet) of water (2003: 213).  The mystery man claims to have sold them (2003: 214).  The whereabouts of these two anchors are unknown.  There is no description of these anchors so the type cannot be determined.

Mr. Cornuke implies that these are the anchors the sailors on the Alexandrian grain ship were trying to let down right before they were shipwrecked (2003: 208-210, see Acts 27:29,30).

Computer model

On his third trip to Malta, Mr. Cornuke gained access to a sophisticated computer at the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta with hope that it would “objectively speak to us across the millennia and trace the, until now, uncertain path of the biblical event of Paul’s journey from Crete to Malta” (2003:184).  Computer models are only as good as the information put into the program.

The information put into the computer program included: (1) the “general parameters of a grain freighter,” (2) the type of wood from the wooden hull, (3) the “veering characteristics of a northeaster,” (4) the “leeway of time,” and (5) the currents during the fall season for that part of the Mediterranean Sea (2003: 188).  Unfortunately, the specific information that was put into the computer was not given in the book, perhaps to maintain a less technical approach for a popular-level book.  Researchers, however, who would like to follow up on this exercise, would need the specific information.

It should be pointed out that “the precise appearance of great grain ships like those mentioned in the Book of Acts and the writings of Lucian” are unknown (Fitzgerald 1990: 31).  Was it a two-mast or a three-mast grain ship?  How much did it actually weigh?  How did the drag of the windsock, or sea anchors affect the speed and direction of the ship (Acts 27:17 NASB)?  What time did they leave Fair Haven on Crete?  Was it morning or mid-day?  Exactly what time did the wind begin to blow?  These are unknown variables that cannot be put into the computer calculations and would affect the outcome of the computer model.  Of course, the biggest unknown factor would be the sovereign Hand of God controlling the speed and direction of the wind.

It is not accurate to conclude that “the computer program confirmed that the ship must have had [sic] come from the south and that its drift had completely eliminated St. Paul’s Bay and other bays closely associated with it as the possible landing site” (Cornuke 2003: 192).  To use a baseball analogy, the computer model can put you into the ballpark (Malta in fourteen days), but it cannot guarantee a hit, much less a home run (St. Thomas Bay)!

Syrtis – Sandy beach or Shallow Bays with Sand bar?

The reader should be cautious with some of the geographical positions taken in the book that are, at worst, not accurate and that at best, needing more discussion.  A case in point is that of the Syrtis mentioned in Acts 27:17.  The author identifies it as “an inescapable vast wasteland of sun-scorched sand where they would certainly suffer a slow, waterless death” (Cornuke 2003: 42).  According to the book, this sand was on the northern coast of Africa (2003: 190 and map 1).  Unfortunately we have no idea where this idea came from because it is not footnoted or documented.

In actuality, the Syrtis was not dry desert but two bodies of water, the “name of two dangerous, shallow gulfs off the coast of North Africa” (Olson 1992:4: 286).

Strabo, a Greek geographer, describes the location and dimensions of the Greater and Lesser Syrtis in his Geography (2:5:20; LCL 1: 473,745).  Elsewhere he describes these two bodies of water in these terms: “The difficulty with both [the Greater] Syrtis and the Little Syrtis is that in many places their deep waters contain shallows, and the result is, at the ebb and the flow of the tides, that sailors sometimes fall into the shallows and stick there, and that the safe escape of a boat is rare.  On this account sailors keep at a distance when voyaging along the coast, taking precautions not to be caught off their guard and driven by winds into these gulfs” (Geography 17:3:20; LCL 8: 197).  No wonder the sailors on the ship the Apostle Paul was on were in fear of the Syrtis, there was no escape (Acts 27:17).

Dio Chrysostom describes the Syrtis in these terms: “The Syrtis is an arm of the Mediterranean extending far inland, a three days’ voyage, they say, for a boat unhindered in its course.  But for those who have once sailed into it find egress impossible; for shoals, cross-currents, and long sand-bars extending a great distance out make the sea utterly impassable or troublesome.  For the bed of the sea in these parts is not clean, but as the bottom is porous and sandy it lets the sea seep in, there being no solidity to it.  This, I presume, explains the existence there of the great sand-bars and dunes, which remind one of the similar condition created inland by the winds, though here, of course, it is due to the surf” (Discourse 5:8-10; LCL I: 239).

Strabo was a geographer from Pontus who lived at the end of the First Century BC and beginning of the First Century AD.  Dio Chrysostom was a rhetorician and traveler who lived about AD 40 – ca. AD 120.  Both would be considered near contemporaries with Luke and the Book of Acts.  Luke was sandwiched between these two and his understanding of the Syrtis would have been the same as Strabos’ and Dio Chrysostoms’ understanding.  Today, the Greater Syrtis is the Gulf of Sirte off the coast of Libya.  The Lesser Syrtis is the Gulf of Gabes off the coast of Tunisia (Talbert 2000: I: 552-557, maps 1, 35, 37).

The Syrtis is two bodies of water in the Mediterranean Sea, and not a “vast wasteland of sun-scorched sand” on the sandy beaches of North Africa.

Rendering a Verdict

Josh McDowell gives a prominent endorsement on the dust jacket of this book, “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul is evidence that demands a verdict.”  If the case of the six anchor stocks were brought before a court, how would an impartial jury reason the case as they evaluate the evidence and render a verdict?

The first bit of evidence to be examined is the clear statement of the Book of Acts that the captain and his crew did not recognize the land when it became light (Acts 27:39).  If the ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, the captain and crew would have recognized the eastern shore of Malta because it was a familiar landmark for them.  Mr. Cornuke’s theory goes contrary to the clear statement in the Book of Acts.

The next issue to consider is the “topon dithalasson,” the place where two seas meet (Acts 27:41).  We would concur with Prof. Buhagiar that the evidence here is inconclusive and that other sites on Malta are just as likely.

The third issue to consider is the “bay with a beach” (Acts 27:39).  When confronted with the evidence from the maps of Malta from the last 500 years, we can recognize that more than likely the ship’s captain would not have seen the low-lying beach of St. Thomas’s Bay because the Munxar Reef was actually a series of small islands or a peninsula in the First Century AD which would have blocked their view of the beach.  Yet the Bible says the crew of Paul’s shipwreck saw a “bay with a beach.”

The last bit of evidence is the anchors.  There are only two actual anchor stocks to consider, anchor stock #2 and anchor stock #3.  Anchor stocks #1, #4, #5, #6 cannot be produced and examined.  Anchor stock #1 was melted down, #4 is in a private collection, and #5 and #6 were sold on the antiquities market.

One could conclude that anchor stock #2 could not belong to a large Alexandrian grain ship because it was too small to be used as an anchor in the stern of the ship.  The only anchor stock that might possibly be from a grain ship is #3.

The “case” record here shows that credible historical, archaeological, geographic, and Biblical evidence contradict the claim that the anchors found off the Munxar Reef were from Paul’s shipwreck and that the landing took place at St. Thomas Bay.  The evidence demands a dismissal of this case!

Bibliography

Ashby, Thomas

1915   Roman Malta.  Journal of Roman Studies 5: 23-80.

Azzopardi, Anton

2002      A New Geography of the Maltese Islands.  Second Edition.  Valletta, Malta: Progress Press.

Bonanno, Anthony

1992    Roman Malta.  The Archaeological Heritage of the Maltese Islands.  Formia, Malta: Giuseppe Castelli and Charles Cini / Bank of Valletta.

1995    Underwater Archaeology: A New Turning-Point in Maltese Archaeology.  Hyphen.  A Journal of Melitensia and the Humanities.  7: 105-110.

Bruce, F. F.

1981   The Book of the Acts (NICNT).  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

1995   Paul.  Apostle of the Heart Set Free.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Buhagiar, Mario

1997    The St. Paul Shipwreck Controversy.  An Assessment of the Source Material.  Pp. 181-213 in Proceedings of History Week 1993.  Edited by K. Sciberras.  Malta: Malta Historical Society.

Burridge, W.

1952    Seeking the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck.  Valletta, Malta: Progress Press.

Busuttil, J.

1971   Maltese Harbours in Antiquity.  Melita Historica 4: 305-307.

Casson, Lionel

1950    The Isis and Her Voyage.  Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 81: 43-56.

Cornuke, Robert

2002   Paul’s “Miracle on Malta.”  Personal Update (April) 14-16.

2003   The Lost Shipwreck of Paul.  Bend, OR: Global Publishing Services.

Cornuke, Robert, and Halbrook, David

2000    In Search of the Mountain of God.  The Discovery of the Real Mt. Sinai.  Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

2001    In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah.  The Discovery of the Real Mts. Of Ararat.  Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

2002   In Search of the Lost Ark of the Covenant.  Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Dio Chrysostom

1971    Discourses I – IX. Vol. 1.  Translated by J. W. Cohoon.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

Diodorus Siculus

1993   The Library of History.  Books IV.59-VIII.  Vol. 3.  Translated by C. Oldfather.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

Fitzgerald, Michael

1990    The Ship of Saint Paul.  Comparative Archaeology.  Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 31-39.

Franz, Gordon

2000   Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?  Bible and Spade 13/4: 101-113.

Gambin, Timothy

2005    Ports and Port Structures for Ancient Malta.  Forthcoming.

Ganado, Albert

1984    Matteo Perez d’Aleccio’s Engraving of the Siege of Malta 1565.  Pp. 125-161 in Proceedings of History Week 1983.  Malta: Malta Historical Society.

Gianfrotta, Piero

1980    Ancore “Romane”.  Nuovi Materiali Per Lo Studio Dei Traffici Marittime.  Pp. 103-116 in The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History.  Edited by J. H. D’Arms and E. C. Kopff.  Rome: American Academy in Rome.

Gilchrist, J. M.

1996    The Historicity of Paul’s Shipwreck.  Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61: 29-51.

Guillaumier, Paul

1992    New Perspectives on the Historicity of St. Paul’s Shipwreck on Melite.  Pp. 53-97 in St. Paul in Malta.  Edited by M. Gaiea and J. Ciario.  Malta: Veritas.

Haldane, Douglas

1984    The Wooden Anchor.  Unpublished MA thesis.  Texas A & M University.  College Station, TX.

1990   Anchors in Antiquity.  Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 19-24.

Hancock, Graham

1992    The Sign and the Seal.  The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant.  New York: Crown.

Hiltzik, Michael

1992   Does Trail to Ark of Covenant End Behind Aksum Curtain?  A British Author Believes the Long-Lost Religious Object May Actually Be Inside a Stone Chapel in Ethiopia.  Los Angeles Times June 9, page 1H.

Kahanov, Ya’acov, and Royal, Jeffery G.

2001    Analysis of Hull Remains of the Dor D Vessel, Tantura Lagood, Israel.  The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30: 257-265.

Kapitan, Gerhard

1969-71             Ancient Anchors and Lead Plummets.  Pp. 51-61 in Sefunim (Bulletin).  Haifa: Israel Maritime League.

Lucian

1999    Lucian.  Vol. 6.  Translated by K. Kilburn.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

M. A. R.

1963   Underwater Archaeology.  Report on the Working of the Museum Department.  Malta: Department of Information.

Meinardus, Otto

1976    St. Paul Shipwrecked in Dalmatia.  Biblical Archaeologist 39/4: 145-147.

Musgrave, George

1979   Friendly Refuge.  Heathfield, Sussex.  Heathfield.

Nor, Hades

2002-2003       The Dor (Tantura) 2001/1 Shipwreck.  A Preliminary Report.  R. I. M. S. News.  Report 29: 15-17.

2004   Dor 2001/1: Excavation Report, Second Season.  R. I. M. S. News.  Report 30: 22,23.

Nordskog, Gerald

2002   One Memorable Ride.  Powerboat 34/10 (October) 4, 113.

Olson, Mark

1992    Syrtis.  P. 286 in Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 6.  Edited by D. Freedman.  New York: Doubleday.

Price, Randall

2005    Searching for the Ark of the Covenant.  Eugene, OR: Harvest House.

Rosloff, Jay

2003   The Anchor.  Pp. 140-146 in The Ma’agan Mikhael Ship.  The

Recovery of a 2400-Year-Old Merchantman. Vol. 1.  Edited by E. Black.  Jerusalem and Haifa: Israel Exploration Society and University of Haifa.

Said, George

1992   Paola: Another Punico-Roman Settlement?  Hyphen 7/1: 1-22.

Said-Zammit, George

1997    Population, Land Use and Settlement on Punic Malta.  A Contextual Analysis of the Burial Evidence. Oxford: Archaeopress.  BAR International Series 682.

Smith, James

1978    The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.  Grand Rapids: Baker. Reprint from the 1880 edition.

Standish, Russell, and Standish, Colin

1999    Holy Relics or Revelation.  Recent Astonishing Archaeological Claims Evaluated. Rapidan, VA: Hartland.

Strabo

1989    The Geography of Strabo.  Vol. 1.  Translated by H. L. Jones.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

1982    The Geography of Strabo.  Vol. 8.  Translated by H. L. Jones.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

Thayer, Joseph

1893    A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.  New York: Harper and Brothers.

Talbert, Richard, ed.

2000    Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. 2 volumes and atlas.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Throckmorton, Peter

1972    Romans on the Sea.  Pp. 66-78 in A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater Archaeology.  Edited by G. Bass.  New York: Walker.

1987    The Sea Remembers.  Shipwrecks and Archaeology. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Trump, David

1997    Malta: An Archaeological Guide.  Valetta, Malta: Progress.

Vella, Horatio C. R.

1980    The Earliest Description of Malta (Lyons 1536) by Jean Quintin d’Autun.  Sliema, Malta: DeBono Enterpriese.

Warnecke, Heinz, and Schirrmacher, Thomas

1992   War Paulus wirklick auf Malta? Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler-Verlag.

]]> http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/does-the-%e2%80%9cthe-lost-shipwreck-of-paul%e2%80%9d-hold-water-or-have-the-anchors-from-the-apostle-paul%e2%80%99s-shipwreck-been-discovered-on-malta/feed/ 0 http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia/ http://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia/#comments Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:10:34 +0000 sherri http://www.lifeandland.org/?p=250 By Gordon Franz

The last ten years has witnessed the proliferation of books, videos, websites and television programs that have proposed a new site for Mt. Sinai – Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.  They also told about underwater searches for Pharaoh’s chariots and weapons from the Egyptian army.  This paper examines three aspects of the identification of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.  First, the paper questions the credibility of the claims.  Second, the paper disputes the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.  Third, the paper examines the archaeological evidence.

This paper discusses the first two aspects briefly because they have already been dealt with in the Fall 2000 issue of Bible and Spade (Franz 2000:101-113).  I have given you a copy of that article.  You have my permission, as well as the editor, Dr. Bryant Wood, to make copies and pass along to those who might be interested.  The article is also posted on Lambert Dolphin’s website.  (www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html).  A revised form of this paper will appear as an article in Bible and Spade.

The paper discusses the third aspect, the archaeological evidence, in more detail.  The questions dealt with include, 1) Are the archaeological remains that were observed by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz credible?  And 2) Does the remains match the Biblical text?  The final section of this paper deals with the location of the Red Sea crossing.  Was it in the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat or the Gulf of Suez?

I believe that this paper, along with the Bible and Spade article, will conclusively demonstrate that there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence to support the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

The Proponents of Jebel al-Lawz as Mt. Sinai

Ron Wyatt first proposed the idea that Mt. Sinai was at Jebel al-Lawz.  Whatever one may think of Ron Wyatt’s “discoveries”, he should be given full credit for this discovery.  However, I would like to call your attention to a recent book examining the claims of Ron Wyatt.  It is entitled Holy Relics or Revelation, by two SDA researchers, Russell and Colin Standish.  (Hartland Publications, Box 1, Rapidan, VA 22733.  1-800-774-3566).  This book is a careful, meticulous, in-depth study of Ron Wyatt’s claims.  These researchers “speak the truth in love” but state that Ron Wyatt has not been truthful in his claims.

During the course of writing the first article, other proponents of Jebel al-Lawz requested that I not mention Ron Wyatt.  Their stated concern to me was that my mentioning of him would “dignify him” and they consider him a “con man”.  They feared that mentioning them in the same paragraph as Wyatt would result in “guilt by associations”!  I pointed out to them that when publishing research results one must begin with a discussion of the history of research and include a review of the literature on the subject.  Ron Wyatt is the key player in this discovery.  Both sets of proponents of this view used the same archaeological evidence to prove their points.  The only difference between the views is their proposed route from Egypt to the Red Sea and the placing of the Red Sea crossing.

Ron Wyatt went to Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia with his two sons in 1984.  They were arrested for entering Saudi Arabia illegally and expelled after 78 days.  Eleven months later, Wyatt returned with David Fasold and his “molecular frequency generator” to look for the “gold of the Exodus.”  Again they were expelled and made to promise that they would not return to Saudi Arabia or talk or write about their findings.

Fasold told Jim Irwin, the Apollo 15 astronaut, of their discoveries.  Irwin, in turn, made contact with Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams who eventually went to Saudi Arabia at least twice in order to ascertain whether Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz.  Both returned home and wrote books about their adventures.  Others have since gone and taken video footage of the sites that are now in videos and television programs.  The most recent is a video entitled “The Exodus Revealed” by Lennart Moller.  He also has a book entitled The Exodus Case.  He basically uses Ron Wyatt’s material and follows his ideas.

Problems with the Jebel al-Lawz location view

The biggest problem with the identification of Jebel al-Lawz as Mt. Sinai is that it does not meet the Biblical criteria for the site.  In my Bible and Spade article I point out three questionable assumptions made by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.

The first questionable assumption that the proponents make is that the Sinai Peninsula was considered part of the “Land of Egypt” (Franz 2000: 103-105).  The Bible says that when the Israelites left Succoth they were “out of Egypt” (Ex. 13:8-20).  The Land of Goshen was the eastern limits of Egypt.  Apparently the line of fortresses on the eastern frontier canal was the border between Egypt and Sinai (Hoffmeier 1997: 164-175).

Nadav Na’aman, a professor of Bible geography at Tel Aviv University, made an important point in an article on the “Brook of Egypt”. He states, “Traditionally, in the eyes of the Egyptians the Nile or the Isthmus fringes were considered to be their northern boundary, the Sinai peninsula being regarded as part of Asia.  This view is diametrically opposite to the northern point of view, according to which the southern limits of Gaza, the southernmost city along the coast of Philistia, and the edges of the urban settlements on its eastern side were thought of as the southern border of Canaan, the intervening desert of Sinai being regarded by the northerners as part of Egypt.  In the Late Bronze Age, as the Egyptians came into closer contact with the north, they also became aware of the fact that the Sinai desert was not part of Canaan.  Thus, when their scribes were concerned with the southern coastal area exclusively, they considered its border to be the southernmost limits of the urban settlements in this region, Sinai having the status of a kind of ‘no-man’s land’.”  (Italics his; 1979:74).  Moses never arrived in Canaan so he wrote from an Egyptian, not a Canaanite perspective.  Also note that part of northeastern Sinai was Amalakite territory (Mattingly 1992).

The second inaccurate assumption is the claim that Mt. Sinai is in the Land of Midian (Franz 2000:105,106).  Most scholars would agree that Midian is in the area of northwest Saudi Arabia, and even part of southern Jordan.  The proponents of Jebel al-Lawz often point to the interview of Prof. Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University in Bible Review as their authority on this point (Shanks 1992: 32).  However, they fail to point out that one of the reasons Cross and “Continental scholars” hold to this view is their adherence to the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP).  See Cross 1998:53-70.  I also have a letter from Prof. Cross, which states his rejection of the evidence of the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz even thought he still believes Mt. Sinai is still in Midian (Letter from Cross, May 21, 2001).

Two Biblical passages clearly place Mt. Sinai outside the Land of Midian.  In Exodus 18, Moses and the Israelites are camped at “the Mountain of God” (Mt. Sinai) when Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, visits them.  Verse 27 says, “Then Moses let his father-in-law depart [from Mt. Sinai], and he went his way to his own land [Midian].”  Jethro departs from Mt. Sinai to return to the Land of Midian.  According to Mandelkern Biblical Concordance, the phrase “his own land” (third person singular possessive) is used 30 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ex. 18:27; Num. 21:24,26,34,35; Deut. 2:24,31; 3:2; 4:47; 11:3; 29:1 [29:2 Eng.]; 33:13; 34:11; Josh. 8:1; I Kings 22:36; II Kings 18:33; Isa. 2:7,8; 13:14; 18:2,7; 36:18; 37:7; Jer. 2:15; 27:7; 50:18; Prov. 8:31; Dan. 11:19,28; Neh. 9:10; Mandelkern 1896:153).  In the Pentateuch the phrase is use 13 times.  Each time it is used of a specific geo-political entity, a kingdom, nation or tribal area.  It is used of the Kingdom of the Amorites (Num. 21:24,26; Deut. 2:24,31; 4:47), with the borders clearly delineated as going from the Arnon to the Jabbok (Num. 21:24).  The Kingdom of Bashan (Num. 21:34,35; Deut. 3:2; 4:47), which is implied as going from the Jabbok to Mt. Hermon (Deut. 4:48).  The nation of Egypt (Deut. 11:3; 29:1 [29:2 Eng.]; 34:11) as well as the tribal territory of Joseph (Deut. 33:13).  Joshua gives the delineation of the tribal territory of Ephraim and Manasseh which make up the tribes of Joseph (Deut. 33:17; Josh. 13:29-33; 16:1-10; 17:1-18).  If Moses is consistent with his use of the word, and I think he is, the context suggests Jethro returned to the country of Midian, not to a plot of ground that he controlled as the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz contend.

Ken Durham, a research assistant for Bob Cornuke and the BASE Institute, interpret the phrase “his own land” as an “actual, physical tract of land under the control of a person mentioned in the text- not to an arbitrary political/geographical designation” or “land under ones jurisdiction”  (Letter to Bryant Wood, April 12, 2001).  There does not appear to be lexical support or Hebrew dictionary references that support this use of the term.

The second passage that places Mt. Sinai outside the land of Midian is Numbers 10:30.  It states, “I [Hobab] will not go, but I will depart [from Mt. Sinai] to my own land [Midian] and to my kinsmen.”  Hobab is returning to Midian where his kinsmen live from Mt. Sinai.

The third questionable assumption made by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz is that Galatians 4:25 says that Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia (Franz 2000: 106,107).  One proponent affirms this conclusion when he writes, “The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, informs us that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.  Not Egypt!” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000: 17).  The Bible does not say Saudi Arabia, it only says Arabia.

One can easily argue that the Apostle Paul used the First Century AD Roman concept of Arabia in this passage.  In the first century AD, based on the prior use by Herodotus, Pliny and Strabo, Arabia extended from the Persian Gulf to the Nile Delta, thus including the Sinai Peninsula in Arabia.  Paul would be perfectly correct in placing Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula because the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia of his day.

I also interacted in this section with Prof. Cross and Mike Heiser’s suggestion (made at the NEAS meeting in 1998) that Mt. Sinai was outside the Sinai Peninsula based on three passages from the Bible, Deut. 33:2; Judges 5:4; and Habakkuk 3:3 (Franz 2000: 107).  Cross (1998) and Heiser suggest that Seir, Mt. Paran and Teman are located in present day Jordan or even Saudi Arabia.  In my article, I suggested that Teman was at or near Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Mt. Paran is situated in the area of Kadesh Barnea (Num. 13:26) and Seir (Biblical Edom) included the area of the Central Negev Highlands, the area to the west of the Aravah.

When my article came out, I realized that I had not adequately documented the thesis that Edom is also on the west side of the Aravah.  My assertion initially came 20 years ago from a friend and fellow student at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, Bruce Crew.  This assertion was part of his MA thesis.  At my request, Bruce wrote a follow-up article for Bible and Spade on why Edom was also west of the Aravah.  He produced an excellent article demonstrating the case, which will appear in a forthcoming issue of Bible and Spade.  In the course of his writing, I was able to supply him with some articles to help update his material.  I was surprised at the number of archaeologists that had come to this same position based on the Biblical text as well as the topography and archaeological considerations.  Perhaps some day Biblical scholars might catch up with the archaeological world!

The Archaeological and Geographical Evidence

There are at least eight pieces of archaeological or geographical evidence that the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz use to support their idea.

• A land bridge that goes across the Strait of Tiran from the southern tip of Sinai to Saudi Arabia, or the other view has a land bridge that crosses the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat from Nuweiba.
• A set of bitter wells that they identify as Marah.
• Twelve springs of al-Bad’ that they identify as Elim.
• The caves of Moses and Jethro at al-Bad’.
• An altar for the golden calf with petroglyphs of bovine.
• The altar of Moses and the twelve pillars.
• The blackened rock on top of Jebel al-Lawz.
• The “split rock of Horeb”.

I examined the archaeological evidence in my article in Bible and Spade and found that this evidence did not line up with the Biblical record (Franz 2000:107-111).   One Saudi archaeologist was very helpful in explaining what the archaeological sites actually were.  I stated in my article that Biblical scholarship ought to wait for an archaeological publication of the material.  I am pleased to announce that an archaeological report of the surveys and excavations in the al-Bad’ area, with a special chapter on Jebel al-Lawz, is “in press” and will be out “shortly”.  My Saudi friend promised me the first copy off the press!

My original article elicited an interesting exchange of letters with the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.  One proponent considered the evidence I put forth as the “Muslim position / interpretation” (Letter from Cornuke, May 30, 2001).  Another proponent “discounted the Saudi archaeologists’ objectivity” because they were Moslems (Letter from Durham, Sept. 7, 2001, p. 20, see also pp. 1-5).  These proponents want to take the archaeological evidence out of the realm of science and scientific investigation and placing it in the realm of religion.  One went so far as to suggest that if the Saudis found anything that might relate to the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites they would follow the example of the Talibans in Afghanistan and destroy the evidence!  (Letter from Durham, Sept. 7, 2001, p. 2).  I was shocked and appalled that he would even suggest such a thing.  Saudi Arabia is a member of ICOMOS, the International Council of Monuments and Sites.  This is an “international non-governmental organization of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of [the] world’s historic monuments and sites.”   Afghanistan is not a member.  If the Saudis found anything of interest, they would do what they have done to over 300 other sites in Saudi Arabia. They would fence them in to protect them, not destroy them!  A Saudi archaeologist recently took an Australian archaeologist to the rock art site of Jubbah in northern Saudi Arabia where they had fenced in the site with 5 km of fence.  The Australian was surprised to see this fence and commented that no other country has gone to such great length to fence in an area!

While I agree with the stated view of the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz that the Bible should interpret the archaeological finds, my conclusion is that in some instances, it is obvious they have not followed their own principles.  For example, the so-called “altar of the golden calf” is made up of huge boulders.  The Bible clearly states that Aaron built the altar (Ex. 32:5).  Yet the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz reconstruct an elaborate scenario whereby the Israelites lifted these heavy boulders into place because they had done heavy manual labor in Egypt.  This scenario goes contrary to the Scriptures; Aaron built the altar, not the Israelites.  These boulders contain petroglyphs of bovine which the proponents claim is the Egyptian deities Hathor or Apis.  Jeff Harrison reports in the video of the proponents that he saw other kinds of animals as well (www.totheends.com).  If that is the case, then an explanation for why they are there must be given.  An ibex can be clearly seen in a picture in one of their books (Williams 1990: plate 14).  Yet more telling is the fact that Moses destroyed the golden calf because it was an idol.  If this was the altar, why didn’t he remove the petroglyphs as well, after all, they represent graven images!  A Saudi archaeologist who did his doctoral dissertation on the petroglyphs in Saudi Arabia informed me that the bovine dated to the Neolithic period, considerably earlier than the Exodus and Wilderness Wanderings.  The archaeological evidence goes contrary to the Biblical records and must be rejected.

One claim I have heard from people who have heard the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz is that this “altar” with the bovine petroglyphs is the only one in the area.  I was informed by the Saudi archaeologist who did the survey of the area that there were about 300 rock art sites in the northwest Saudi Arabia and about 50 rock art sites with bovine in the al-Bad’ / Jebel al-Lawz area.  If they were drawn by Israelites, then Hebrew graffiti artists drew them as they roamed the desert drawing what the Lord had forbidden them to make!

The proponents of Jebel al-Lawz might discount the objectivity of the Saudi archaeologists, but they must consider the archaeological remains.  The so-called “Cave of Moses” is clearly a First Century AD Nabatean tomb.  A British archaeologist who worked on the survey of those tombs explained to me how he could date them so precisely.  He said the paleography of an inscription in an al-Bad’ tomb is identical with the paleography of another tomb at another site nearby.  This tomb had an inscription with the name of the decease as well as a date of his death.  It is safe to say the style of those tombs is Nabatean and not earlier.

The archaeology of the so-called “altar of Moses and the 12 pillars” is also clear.  I was informed by a Saudi archaeologist that the pottery is purely, and only, Nabatean.  There is nothing earlier.  One may debate the function of the building, but the dating is clear.  It is considerably later than the Exodus.

The proponents of Jebel al-Lawz rejected a Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula because of lack of archaeological evidence.  They also objected to my suggestion that one would not expect to find any because they were nomadic people dwelling in tents.  A leading American archaeologist, William Dever, said, “we would still find no remains of their ephemeral camps in the desert.”  He goes on to say that any attempts to make maps tracing the route of the Exodus was “doomed to failure” (1997:72).  K. A. Kitchen, a British Egyptologist, concurs with him on the first statement when he says, “That we should find no trace of ever-moving camps in the Sinai desert is entirely correct” (1998:107).  But he goes on to chide Dever about not being able to trace the route.

The proponents also claim they have other archaeological evidence (Letter from Durham, Sept. 7, 2001, p. 2), but that their evidence awaits publication.  Hopefully it will appear in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal.

I have asked a British archaeologist to review the soon to be released excavation and survey report of the al-Bad’ area and Jebel al-Lawz for Bible and Spade.  He is a non-Moslem archaeologist who has worked on the survey of the area as well as an expert on Midianite and Nabatean archaeology.  His approach to reviewing the excavation report for the article will include the following steps.  First, he will discuss each of the archaeological sites cited by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz.  Second, he will deal with how they interpreted the archaeological data.  Third, he will include what the Saudis excavated or surveyed and how they interpreted the finds.  His final step will be his assessment of the different interpretations.  The archaeologist will be well qualified to bring the discussion back to an archaeological debate and not a religious one, as the proponents would like to make it.

MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA – part 2