• Cracked Pot Archaeology Comments Off on QUESTIONS ABOUT CORNUKE’S PH.D.
    QUESTIONS ABOUT CORNUKE’S PH.D.
    Gordon Franz
    Is Robert Cornuke’s Ph.D. at an Unaccredited School Based on an Unoriginal Dissertation Partly Written By Others?
    Introduction
    Robert Cornuke has gained a wide following as a Biblical archaeologist and a “Christian Indiana Jones.” His claims include finding the real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, the real mountains of Ararat in Iran with what he believes might be Noah’s Ark, the real anchor stocks from Paul’s shipwreck on Malta, and the real Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia. He also promotes an object he claims bears the name of the Lord, “Yahweh,” which he claims comes from Jebel al-Lawz (Saudi Arabia) where he locates Mount Sinai.  (The object later turned out to be a modern-day forgery; see link below.)  One expects solid credentials to back these bigger-than-life claims, and Cornuke indeed claims academic credentials but they are not what they seem to be.
    Cornuke claims to have an earned Ph.D. degree. But investigation shows his doctorate comes from an unaccredited school, Louisiana Baptist University, and is based on a doctoral dissertation so unoriginal that it is partly or wholly written by someone else and copied verbatim from already published work.  In reputable scholarship, dissertations are supposed to be original and not previously published. His dissertation asserts some of his claimed archaeological “discoveries” but does not satisfy minimal standards for academic research, even according to the unaccredited school’s own rules.
    People have questioned why there seems to be no record that Cornuke has an undergraduate degree. The degrees attributed to him are a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies and a Ph.D. in Bible and Theology, both from Louisiana Baptist University in Baton Rouge. Normally one needs an undergraduate degree to enter graduate school. Larry Williams, his co-adventurer on his Saudi Arabian expeditions, said Cornuke was a “stocky former college football star” but does not identify which college he attended and whether he graduated from it or not (Williams 1990: 138).
    While a degree from an unaccredited institution may be questionable, there is an even more basic issue, and the main point of this article:  That is whether Cornuke’s Ph.D. dissertation was legitimate, scholarly, and fulfilled the requirements of Louisiana Baptist University dissertation guide.
    Is the Cornuke Dissertation Proper Scholarship?
    According to academic norms, a Ph.D. dissertation is an “original contribution to the field or major modification of known work.” The dissertation by Robert Cornuke is neither, because his thesis on locating Mount Sinai at Jebel al-Lawz was originally asserted by Ron Wyatt (Franz 2000) and the location of the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia was a thesis originally espoused by Graham Hancock in a bestselling book (1992). Nor does the dissertation meet minimum levels of scholarly competency for several additional reasons as will be demonstrated below.
    Ordinarily a requirement of doctoral programs in North America is to publish the dissertation through UMI Dissertation Publishing so that the research is available to other scholars. The first clue that this dissertation does not pass scholarly muster is that it is not available to scholars. The Louisiana Baptist University Library refused to send me, and other libraries, a copy of the dissertation it when we requested it via inter-library loan. I also requested a copy of the dissertation directly from Cornuke in December 2005, and he did not respond to that request.
    Despite these obstacles, I have obtained a copy of Cornuke’s dissertation. It is entitled “Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and Mount Sinai in History and Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana Baptist University, May 2005, 399 pages).
    As I will document below, the Cornuke dissertation is essentially a word-for-word “cut and paste” of the three popular adventure books he co-authored with David Halbrook, and published with Broadman-Holman, except for one book that was “cut and pasted” in part (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000, 2001, 2002). There is very little scholarship in these superficial adventure books.
    Unfortunately, where Cornuke does interact with scholarly material he does not understand the issues, is selective in what he reports, and ignores material that refutes his claims. Adventure books are not scholarship. I invite the reader to read the articles at the links below that critique Cornuke’s shallow scholarship and lack of research skills. In none of his books that make up his dissertation has he produced any credible historical, geographical, geological, archaeological, or Biblical evidence to support any of his claims.
    When the respected evangelical Egyptologist Professor James Hoffmeier critiqued Cornuke’s “Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia” theory, he stated that Cornuke was an “amateur” and “dilettante” whose work “lacks academic credibility.” Hoffmeier’s criticism was published in his Oxford Press book Ancient Israel in Sinai (2005: 132-136), and has not been refuted by Cornuke. Dr. Hoffmeier then proceeded to itemize the “monumental blunders” that “Cornuke and his colleagues” have made that “trained archaeologists and biblical scholars would not make.” After cataloging the criticism of Cornuke theories, Dr. Hoffmeier concluded:
    “I concur with Gordon Franz’s devastating critique of Cornuke’s theory and his conclusions that ‘Mt. Sinai should be located in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it, not in Saudi Arabia.’ ”
    Is the Cornuke Dissertation Legitimately Original?
    As an ethical matter, it is very unlikely that the faculty at any accredited graduate school would view Cornuke’s dissertation as original research given that the authorship was shared by David Halbrook. Candidates for a Ph.D. cannot hire someone else to do their work for them, take tests for them, or write material for them, even if they are acknowledged by name and thanked.
    In fact, Halbrook’s co-authorship is nowhere mentioned in the text of the dissertation. In the acknowledgements of his dissertation, Cornuke states:
    “Two individuals deserve special acknowledgement for their contribution in research and inpute [sic] in the compilation of this dissertation. I would like to offer these men the enormous credit they are both entitled and would also wish to extend my deepest appreciation for their kind and valued work. Thank you David Halbrook and Kenneth Durham as I would not have been able to accomplish this dissertation as completed without you” (2005: 3, emphasis added).
    Although Mr. Cornuke credits these two for their “research” contributions, nevertheless he does not state that David Halbrook was in effect the co-author of this dissertation.
    The dissertation is taken directly from Cornuke’s three adventure books, co-authored with Halbrook. Proof of this cut-and-paste method is embarrassingly apparent in some of the dissertation’s endnotes or footnotes that come from chapters of one book not included in the dissertation so they don’t actually “footnote” anything in the dissertation! These footnotes (endnotes) are orphaned.
    In the section on Noah’s Ark, several chapters have been omitted from the previously published Cornuke-Halbrook book, In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah. No reason is given for this omission and it leaves those orphan endnotes. Missing from the dissertation are the Cornuke-Halbrook book’s acknowledgment (Cornuke and Halbrook 2001: ix), prelude (2001: 5-12), and chapters seven (2001: 58-63), eight (2001: 64-69), and thirteen (2001: 102-107).
    In the Noah’s Ark book Acknowledgment, which was left out of the dissertation, Mr. Cornuke profusely thanked his co-author Halbrook:
    “An extra special word of acknowledgment and appreciation goes to … David Halbrook, whose monumental effort, skilled literary abilities, and cherished friendship have made the writing of this book both an extreme pleasure and a blessing, which could never be adequately conveyed with mere words” (2001: ix).
    The phrases “monumental effort” and “literary abilities” suggest that Halbrook did the major portion of the writing – of work that was later copied by Cornuke into Cornuke’s dissertation as if it was Cornuke’s own work.
    Honorary vs. Earned Doctorates
    Completed dissertations often find their way into published follow-up books by the scholars. But dissertation requirements do not allow for the reverse to take place – for the author’s already published books, especially books that are co-authored, to make their way, verbatim, into the author’s dissertation.
    Previously published work, even if written by the same author, is not “original.” And here, it is not even clear what was written by Cornuke and what was written by Halbrook, and what possibly may have been written by still other individuals (for example, Durham). Previously published work may merit honorary degrees such as honorary doctorates (D. Litt. – Doctor of Literature, often honorary), but not earned doctorates. If the Louisiana Baptist University doctorate had been merely honorary then we would not have the major problem that we have, but in fact it is assertedly an earned doctorate so it must adhere to the standards for earned versus honorary degrees.
    Does Cornuke Fulfill the Requirements of the Dissertation Guide?
    I invite the reader to decide, based on the evidence cited previously and in the linked articles (below), if Robert Cornuke’s dissertation fulfills the requirements of the Louisiana Baptist University “Doctoral Dissertation Requirements.” In my opinion and that of other scholars, this dissertation does not “exhibit originality and thoroughness of research”, and it was not “an exhaustive treatment of the subject chosen”; therefore it does not the meet the standards of “high quality of research and knowledge expected of doctoral projects” (quotes from the LBU Doctoral Dissertation Requirement guide, emphasis added).
    For links to my critiques of the scholarship, or lack thereof, in Cornuke’s books that were copied directly into the Mount Sinai and Noah’s Ark sections of his dissertation, see:
    Mount Sinai is not at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia
    Part 1
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia/
    Part 2
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-2/
    Part 3
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/mt-sinai-is-not-at-jebel-el-lawz-in-saudi-arabia-part-3/
    Yahweh Inscription Discovered at Mount Sinai!
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/10/yahweh-inscription-discovered-at-mount-sinai/
    Did the BASE Institute Discover Noah’s Ark in Iran?
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2009/04/did-the-base-institute-discover-noah%e2%80%99s-ark-in-iran/
    The Conclusion of the Matter
    Cornuke is promoted as having an earned Ph.D. degree to back his extravagant claims of archaeological “discoveries.” Despite his claims, an investigation into his Ph.D. dissertation reveals that he does not have the respectable academic credentials one would expect and there appear to be ethical problems in submitting a dissertation that is not solely his own work. To award a “Ph.D.” for an unscholarly, academically questionable dissertation of dubious authorship cheapens the high standards of legitimate scholarly Ph.D.’s. These are earned by putting years into university research and library work, learning ancient and modern languages, writing and re-writing countless pages of original, scholarly research to hone a work into one of academic excellence.
    For links to other critiques of Cornuke’s ideas, see:
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2012/06/how-accurate-are-bob-cornuke%e2%80%99s-claims-2/
    Bibliography
    Cornuke, Robert
    2005 “Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and Mount Sinai in History and Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana Baptist University, May 2005).
    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.
    Franz, Gordon
    2000 Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia? Bible and Spade 13/4: 101-113.
    Hancock, Graham
    1992 The Sign and the Seal.  The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant.  New York: Crown.
    Hoffmeier, James
    2005 Ancient Israel in Sinai.  New York and London: Oxford University
    Press.
    Williams, Larry
    1990 The Mountain of Moses. The Discovery of Mount Sinai. New York: Wynwood.
    About the author
    Gordon Franz is a Bible teacher who holds an MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary, SC. Since 1978, he has engaged in extensive research in archaeology and participated in excavations in and around Jerusalem, including Ketef Hinnom and Ramat Rachel; as well as the excavations at Lachish, Jezreel, Hazor, and Tel Zayit. He has taught the geography of the Bible and led field trips in Israel for the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, the Institute of Holy Land Studies, and the IBEX program of The Master’s College. He also co-teaches the Talbot School of Theology’s Bible Lands Program. Gordon is on the staff of the Associates for Biblical Research.

    by Gordon Franz

    Is Robert Cornuke’s Ph.D. at an Unaccredited School Based on an Unoriginal Dissertation Partly Written By Others?

    Introduction
    Robert Cornuke has gained a wide following as a Biblical archaeologist and a “Christian Indiana Jones.” His claims include finding the real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, the real mountains of Ararat in Iran with what he believes might be Noah’s Ark, the real anchor stocks from Paul’s shipwreck on Malta, and the real Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia. He also promotes an object he claims bears the name of the Lord, “Yahweh,” which he claims comes from Jebel al-Lawz (Saudi Arabia) where he locates Mount Sinai.  (The object later turned out to be a modern-day forgery; see link below.)  One expects solid credentials to back these bigger-than-life claims, and Cornuke indeed claims academic credentials but they are not what they seem to be.

    Cornuke claims to have an earned Ph.D. degree. But investigation shows his doctorate comes from an unaccredited school, Louisiana Baptist University, and is based on a doctoral dissertation so unoriginal that it is partly or wholly written by someone else and copied verbatim from already published work.  In reputable scholarship, dissertations are supposed to be original and not previously published. His dissertation asserts some of his claimed archaeological “discoveries” but does not satisfy minimal standards for academic research, even according to the unaccredited school’s own rules.

    People have questioned why there seems to be no record that Cornuke has an undergraduate degree. The degrees attributed to him are a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies and a Ph.D. in Bible and Theology, both from Louisiana Baptist University in Shreveport. Normally one needs an undergraduate degree to enter graduate school. Larry Williams, his co-adventurer on his Saudi Arabian expeditions, said Cornuke was a “stocky former college football star” but does not identify which college he attended and whether he graduated from it or not (Williams 1990: 138).

    While a degree from an unaccredited institution may be questionable, there is an even more basic issue, and the main point of this article:  That is whether Cornuke’s Ph.D. dissertation was legitimate, scholarly, and fulfilled the requirements of Louisiana Baptist University dissertation guide.

    Is the Cornuke Dissertation Proper Scholarship?
    According to academic norms, a Ph.D. dissertation is an “original contribution to the field or major modification of known work.” The dissertation by Robert Cornuke is neither, because his thesis on locating Mount Sinai at Jebel al-Lawz was originally asserted by Ron Wyatt (Franz 2000) and the location of the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia was a thesis originally espoused by Graham Hancock in a bestselling book (1992). Nor does the dissertation meet minimum levels of scholarly competency for several additional reasons as will be demonstrated below.

    Ordinarily a requirement of doctoral programs in North America is to publish the dissertation through UMI Dissertation Publishing so that the research is available to other scholars. The first clue that this dissertation does not pass scholarly muster is that it is not available to scholars. The Louisiana Baptist University Library refused to send me, and other libraries, a copy of the dissertation when we requested it via inter-library loan. I also requested a copy of the dissertation directly from Cornuke in December 2005, and he did not respond to that request.

    Despite these obstacles, I have obtained a copy of Cornuke’s dissertation. It is entitled “Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and Mount Sinai in History and Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana Baptist University, May 2005, 399 pages).

    As I will document below, the Cornuke dissertation is essentially a word-for-word “cut and paste” of the three popular adventure books he co-authored with David Halbrook, and published with Broadman-Holman, except for one book that was “cut and pasted” in part (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000, 2001, 2002). There is very little scholarship in these superficial adventure books.

    Unfortunately, where Cornuke does interact with scholarly material he does not understand the issues, is selective in what he reports, and ignores material that refutes his claims. Adventure books are not scholarship. I invite the reader to read the articles at the links below that critique Cornuke’s shallow scholarship and lack of research skills. In none of his books that make up his dissertation has he produced any credible historical, geographical, geological, archaeological, or Biblical evidence to support any of his claims.

    When the respected evangelical Egyptologist Professor James Hoffmeier critiqued Cornuke’s “Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia” theory, he stated that Cornuke was an “amateur” and “dilettante” whose work “lacks academic credibility.” Hoffmeier’s criticism was published in his Oxford Press book Ancient Israel in Sinai (2005: 132-136), and has not been refuted by Cornuke. Dr. Hoffmeier then proceeded to itemize the “monumental blunders” that “Cornuke and his colleagues” have made that “trained archaeologists and biblical scholars would not make.” After cataloging the criticism of Cornuke theories, Dr. Hoffmeier concluded:

    “I concur with Gordon Franz’s devastating critique of Cornuke’s theory and his conclusions that ‘Mt. Sinai should be located in the Sinai Peninsula right where the Bible places it, not in Saudi Arabia.’ ”

    Is the Cornuke Dissertation Legitimately Original?

    As an ethical matter, it is very unlikely that the faculty at any accredited graduate school would view Cornuke’s dissertation as original research given that the authorship was shared by David Halbrook. Candidates for a Ph.D. cannot hire someone else to do their work for them, take tests for them, or write material for them, even if they are acknowledged by name and thanked.

    In fact, Halbrook’s co-authorship is nowhere mentioned in the text of the dissertation. In the acknowledgements of his dissertation, Cornuke states:

    “Two individuals deserve special acknowledgement for their contribution in research and inpute [sic] in the compilation of this dissertation. I would like to offer these men the enormous credit they are both entitled and would also wish to extend my deepest appreciation for their kind and valued work. Thank you David Halbrook and Kenneth Durham as I would not have been able to accomplish this dissertation as completed without you” (2005: 3, emphasis added).

    Although Mr. Cornuke credits these two for their “research” contributions, nevertheless he does not state that David Halbrook was in effect the co-author of this dissertation.

    The dissertation is taken directly from Cornuke’s three adventure books, co-authored with Halbrook. Proof of this cut-and-paste method is embarrassingly apparent in some of the dissertation’s endnotes or footnotes that come from chapters of one book not included in the dissertation so they don’t actually “footnote” anything in the dissertation! These footnotes (endnotes) are orphaned.

    In the section on Noah’s Ark, several chapters have been omitted from the previously published Cornuke-Halbrook book, In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah. No reason is given for this omission and it leaves those orphan endnotes. Missing from the dissertation are the Cornuke-Halbrook book’s acknowledgment (Cornuke and Halbrook 2001: ix), prelude (2001: 5-12), and chapters seven (2001: 58-63), eight (2001: 64-69), and thirteen (2001: 102-107).

    In the Noah’s Ark book Acknowledgment, which was left out of the dissertation, Mr. Cornuke profusely thanked his co-author Halbrook:

    “An extra special word of acknowledgment and appreciation goes to … David Halbrook, whose monumental effort, skilled literary abilities, and cherished friendship have made the writing of this book both an extreme pleasure and a blessing, which could never be adequately conveyed with mere words” (2001: ix).

    The phrases “monumental effort” and “literary abilities” suggest that Halbrook did the major portion of the writing – of work that was later copied by Cornuke into Cornuke’s dissertation as if it was Cornuke’s own work.

    Honorary vs. Earned Doctorates

    Completed dissertations often find their way into published follow-up books by the scholars. But dissertation requirements do not allow for the reverse to take place – for the author’s already published books, especially books that are co-authored, to make their way, verbatim, into the author’s dissertation.

    Previously published work, even if written by the same author, is not “original.” And here, it is not even clear what was written by Cornuke and what was written by Halbrook, and what possibly may have been written by still other individuals (for example, Durham). Previously published work may merit honorary degrees such as honorary doctorates (D. Litt. – Doctor of Literature, often honorary), but not earned doctorates. If the Louisiana Baptist University doctorate had been merely honorary then we would not have the major problem that we have, but in fact it is assertedly an earned doctorate so it must adhere to the standards for earned versus honorary degrees.

    Does Cornuke Fulfill the Requirements of the Dissertation Guide?

    I invite the reader to decide, based on the evidence cited previously and in the linked articles (below), if Robert Cornuke’s dissertation fulfills the requirements of the Louisiana Baptist University “Doctoral Dissertation Requirements.” In my opinion and that of other scholars, this dissertation does not “exhibit originality and thoroughness of research”, and it was not “an exhaustive treatment of the subject chosen”; therefore it does not the meet the standards of “high quality of research and knowledge expected of doctoral projects” (quotes from the LBU Doctoral Dissertation Requirement guide, emphasis added).

    For links to my critiques of the scholarship, or lack thereof, in Cornuke’s books that were copied directly into the Mount Sinai and Noah’s Ark sections of his dissertation, see:

    Mount Sinai is not at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia Part 1

    Mount Sinai is not at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia Part 2

    Mount Sinai is not at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia Part 3

    Yahweh Inscription Discovered at Mount Sinai!

    Did the BASE Institute Discover Noah’s Ark in Iran?

    The Conclusion of the Matter
    Cornuke is promoted as having an earned Ph.D. degree to back his extravagant claims of archaeological “discoveries.” Despite his claims, an investigation into his Ph.D. dissertation reveals that he does not have the respectable academic credentials one would expect and there appear to be ethical problems in submitting a dissertation that is not solely his own work. To award a “Ph.D.” for an unscholarly, academically questionable dissertation of dubious authorship cheapens the high standards of legitimate scholarly Ph.D.’s. These are earned by putting years into university research and library work, learning ancient and modern languages, writing and re-writing countless pages of original, scholarly research to hone a work into one of academic excellence.

    For links to other critiques of Cornuke’s ideas, see:

    How Accurate Are Bob Cornuke’s Claims?

    Bibliography

    Cornuke, Robert
    2005 “Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and Mount Sinai in History and Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana Baptist University,            May 2005).

    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.

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

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

    Hoffmeier, James
    2005 Ancient Israel in Sinai.  New York and London: Oxford University Press.

    Williams, Larry
    1990 The Mountain of Moses. The Discovery of Mount Sinai. New York: Wynwood.

    About the author
    Gordon Franz is a Bible teacher who holds an MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary, SC. Since 1978, he has engaged in extensive research in archaeology and participated in excavations in and around Jerusalem, including Ketef Hinnom and Ramat Rachel; as well as the excavations at Lachish, Jezreel, Hazor, and Tel Zayit. He has taught the geography of the Bible and led field trips in Israel for the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, the Institute of Holy Land Studies, and the IBEX program of The Master’s College. He also co-teaches the Talbot School of Theology’s Bible Lands Program. Gordon is on the staff of the Associates for Biblical Research.

    Tags: , , ,

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology Comments Off on WHY THE SHIPWRECK OF PAUL WAS NOT ON THE MUNXAR REEF ON MALTA
    WHY THE SHIPWRECK OF PAUL WAS NOT ON THE MUNXAR REEF ON MALTA
    Gordon Franz
    Reasons Why the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke Were Not Shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef off Malta
    Introduction
    An article on the BASE website (accessed on May 30, 2012) described the reasons Robert Cornuke concluded that the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef on the eastern end of the island of Malta and the people on the ship swam to the beach of St. Thomas Bay. Unfortunately this article contains factual errors and his theory remains disproved.
    Would a Roman Sea Captain Recognize St. Thomas Bay as Cornuke’s Claims?
    The most glaring error Cornuke made in this article was claiming that the sea captain and sailors would not have recognized the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas Bay when the dawn broke (cf. Acts 27: 39).
    Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, stated 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 harbors and anchorages. Recent scholarly archaeological research has shown that there were 32 anchorages and 7 harbors on the island of Malta (Gambin 2005:259-284).
    Cornuke claims that only the Valletta Bay is the “only bay suitable for large ships” on the eastern end of the island. However, recent research has shown that there are four Roman harbor/ports: Marsaxlokk, Marsascala, Marsamxett (Lazaretto Creek), and Marsa (within the Grand Harbor Complex of Valletta Bay), all able to accommodate large ships on the eastern end of the island. It is known that at least the latter port had facilities for storing grain during the winter and also transshipment (Gambin 2005:122-132; cf. Acts 28:1-11).
    The Roman harbor in Marsaslokk Bay is located south of the Munxar Reef, and the harbor that was in the inner reaches of the Marsascala Bay is located just to the north of St. Thomas Bay. Thus, the south-eastern part of the island, between Marsaslokk Bay and the entrance to the Grand Harbor of Valletta would be the best known part of the island for any sea captain and seasoned sailors of an Alexandrian grain ship. This point alone completely disproves Cornuke’s ideas.
    Any ancient Mediterranean sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of an Alexandrian grain ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the south-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 Starboard (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 and known sight.
    Besides the harbors, there are two geological landmarks that the sea captains would be very familiar with on the south-eastern end of the island as well. The first would be the “conspicuous white cliffs” immediately to the south of the Munxar Reef (British Admiralty chart 2628, Malta Island South East Portion; the wording is barely visible on Map 3 of Cornuke’s book, 2003: Plate 3); and second, the Munxar Reef itself. Every sea captain would know the hazardous Munxar Reef because of its inherent maritime danger.
    Cornuke also incorrectly states that: “sailors traveling from Valletta to Rome, as was the customary route at the time, would have regularly sailed past St. Paul’s Bay and all other bays on that side of the island; thus, these bays would have been easily recognized by the sailors on Paul’s ship.” This is factually incorrect for three reasons. First, the Alexandrian grain ship sea captain would not have stopped at Malta unless the sea lanes closed for the winter and he sought refuge on the island as did the grain ship Paul and Luke took to Rome (Acts 28:11). Second, if he was not stopping, he would have made a starboard (right-hand) turn for Sicily and Rome east of, right before they got to, Malta and not sail past the St. Paul’s Bay on the northern shore of Malta. Third, when going from Valletta harbor to Syracuse on the eastern side of Sicily the ship goes due north out of the harbor and does not pass St. Paul’s Bay and the other bays which are to the northwest of the Valletta Harbor.
    Several years ago I was visiting Malta and I took the one-day excursion ferry to Sicily. The ferry followed the same direction, due north, that the ship the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were on would have followed when they left Valletta harbor (Acts 28:11-12). As we departed the harbor, I viewed the shoreline from the port side (left side) of the ferry and could not see the beaches in the bays around the St. Paul’s Bay area.
    Wrong Cargo and Wrong Origin or Destination
    On December 8, 2011, Cornuke was interviewed on the “Prophecy in the News” television program. On the show, he claims that in the 1960’s the Italians found a shipwreck on the Munxar Reef with tiles, amphoras, and other objects that are well catalogued from a shipwreck from “about” the 1st century (19 minutes, 30-50 seconds at http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/tv-program-the-lost-shipwreck-of-paul/)
    Actually the Italians did not discover this shipwreck. It was reported in a publication of the Italian Archaeological Mission by a Maltese diver, Commodore Scicluna. I made some inquires with a Maltese nautical archaeologist, as well as the curator of the Roman collection at Malta Heritage and neither of them could located any of the records or material from this wreckage, except Scicluna’s very brief published report (1965), so this wreck is not well cataloged!
    What little is known about this wreck was summarized by Professor A. J. Parker, in his monumental catalogue of ancient shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea. He reported that one of over 1250 shipwrecks that were documented in the Mediterranean was found “in the vicinity of the Munxar Point, depth unknown.” He goes on to state that it was from the Roman period and it was a “wreck of ‘Spanish-Roman’ amphoras [that] was located (without further details) east of Munxar Point in a report by [Commodore] Scicluna. Other information suggests the site may be closer in” (1992: 284; Site #723; brackets […] mine, GWF). An amphora is used to transport liquids, but not solid goods like grain.
    From this short report it can be safely discerned that the wrecked ship carried a cargo of amphorae that contained either wine or olive oil, but not wheat; and its origin or destination was Spain, and did not originate from Alexandria, Egypt. Those who discuss the dating of the shipwreck say it dates generally to the Roman period (ca. 50 BC to ca. AD 550), only Cornuke narrows it down to about the 1st century. We are not told what his evidence is for this more precise dating. Who was the pottery expert who dated it for him?
    The meager evidence at hand points away from the remains of this shipwreck being the one that the Apostle Paul was on.
    Conclusion of the Matter
    I would agree with Cornuke statement: “Evidence is not the proof; but it is the proper interpretation of the evidence that is the proof” (“Prophecy in the News” interview, December 8, 2011, 2 minutes, 22-28 seconds). Unfortunately, Cornuke ventured outside his field of crime scene investigation and failed to properly understand, and interpret, the Biblical, nautical, geographical, and archaeological evidence relating to Paul’s shipwreck on Malta. The shipwreck of the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke was not on the Munxar Reef.
    For links to critiques about Cornuke’s anchors from Paul’s shipwreck on Malta, see:
    Does “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul” Hold Water?
    https://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/
    Searching for Paul’s Shipwreck on Malta”: A Critique of the 700 Club’s February 26, 2010 Program
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2010/03/%e2%80%9csearching-for-paul%e2%80%99s-shipwreck-on-malta%e2%80%9d-a-critique-of-the-700-club%e2%80%99s-february-26-2010-program/
    “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul”: A Critique of the Video
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2011/09/1008/
    How Accurate are Bob Cornuke’s Claims?
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2012/06/how-accurate-are-bob-cornuke%e2%80%99s-claims-2/
    Bibliography
    Cornuke, Robert
    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 The Maritime Landscapes of Malta from the Roman Period to the Middle Ages. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Bristol [England].
    Parker, A. J.
    1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and Roman Provinces. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm. BAR International Series 580.
    Scicluna, Chev. de
    1965 [Map of Underwater Sites] Missione Archeologica Italiana a Malta. Rapporto Preliminare della Campagna 1964. Roma. Fig. 1.
    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 since 1979, 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. He holds an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary in SC.

    by Gordon Franz

    Reasons Why the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke Were Not Shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef off Malta

    Introduction
    An article on the BASE website (accessed on May 30, 2012) described the reasons Robert Cornuke concluded that the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were shipwrecked on the Munxar Reef on the eastern end of the island of Malta and the people on the ship swam to the beach of St. Thomas Bay. Unfortunately this article contains factual errors and his theory remains disproved.

    Would a Roman Sea Captain Recognize St. Thomas Bay as Cornuke’s Claims?

    The most glaring error Cornuke made in this article was claiming that the sea captain and sailors would not have recognized the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas Bay when the dawn broke (cf. Acts 27: 39).

    Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, stated 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 harbors and anchorages. Recent scholarly archaeological research has shown that there were 32 anchorages and 7 harbors on the island of Malta (Gambin 2005:259-284).

    Cornuke claims that only the Valletta Bay is the “only bay suitable for large ships” on the eastern end of the island. However, recent research has shown that there are four Roman harbor/ports: Marsaxlokk, Marsascala, Marsamxett (Lazaretto Creek), and Marsa (within the Grand Harbor Complex of Valletta Bay), all able to accommodate large ships on the eastern end of the island. It is known that at least the latter port had facilities for storing grain during the winter and also transshipment (Gambin 2005:122-132; cf. Acts 28:1-11).

    The Roman harbor in Marsaslokk Bay is located south of the Munxar Reef, and the harbor that was in the inner reaches of the Marsascala Bay is located just to the north of St. Thomas Bay. Thus, the south-eastern part of the island, between Marsaslokk Bay and the entrance to the Grand Harbor of Valletta would be the best known part of the island for any sea captain and seasoned sailors of an Alexandrian grain ship. This point alone completely disproves Cornuke’s ideas.

    Any ancient Mediterranean sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of an Alexandrian grain ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the south-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 Starboard (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 and known sight.

    Besides the harbors, there are two geological landmarks that the sea captains would be very familiar with on the south-eastern end of the island as well. The first would be the “conspicuous white cliffs” immediately to the south of the Munxar Reef (British Admiralty chart 2628, Malta Island South East Portion; the wording is barely visible on Map 3 of Cornuke’s book, 2003: Plate 3); and second, the Munxar Reef itself. Every sea captain would know the hazardous Munxar Reef because of its inherent maritime danger.

    Cornuke also incorrectly states that: “sailors traveling from Valletta to Rome, as was the customary route at the time, would have regularly sailed past St. Paul’s Bay and all other bays on that side of the island; thus, these bays would have been easily recognized by the sailors on Paul’s ship.” This is factually incorrect for three reasons. First, the Alexandrian grain ship sea captain would not have stopped at Malta unless the sea lanes closed for the winter and he sought refuge on the island as did the grain ship Paul and Luke took to Rome (Acts 28:11). Second, if he was not stopping, he would have made a starboard (right-hand) turn for Sicily and Rome east of, right before they got to, Malta and not sail past the St. Paul’s Bay on the northern shore of Malta. Third, when going from Valletta harbor to Syracuse on the eastern side of Sicily the ship goes due north out of the harbor and does not pass St. Paul’s Bay and the other bays which are to the northwest of the Valletta Harbor.

    Several years ago I was visiting Malta and I took the one-day excursion ferry to Sicily. The ferry followed the same direction, due north, that the ship the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were on would have followed when they left Valletta harbor (Acts 28:11-12). As we departed the harbor, I viewed the shoreline from the port side (left side) of the ferry and could not see the beaches in the bays around the St. Paul’s Bay area.

    Wrong Cargo and Wrong Origin or Destination

    On December 8, 2011, Cornuke was interviewed on the “Prophecy in the News” television program. On the show, he claims that in the 1960’s the Italians found a shipwreck on the Munxar Reef with tiles, amphoras, and other objects that are well catalogued from a shipwreck from “about” the 1st century (19 minutes, 30-50 seconds at http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/tv-program-the-lost-shipwreck-of-paul/)

    Actually the Italians did not discover this shipwreck. It was reported in a publication of the Italian Archaeological Mission by a Maltese diver, Commodore Scicluna. I made some inquires with a Maltese nautical archaeologist, as well as the curator of the Roman collection at Malta Heritage and neither of them could located any of the records or material from this wreckage, except Scicluna’s very brief published report (1965), so this wreck is not well cataloged!

    What little is known about this wreck was summarized by Professor A. J. Parker, in his monumental catalogue of ancient shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea. He reported that one of over 1250 shipwrecks that were documented in the Mediterranean was found “in the vicinity of the Munxar Point, depth unknown.” He goes on to state that it was from the Roman period and it was a “wreck of ‘Spanish-Roman’ amphoras [that] was located (without further details) east of Munxar Point in a report by [Commodore] Scicluna. Other information suggests the site may be closer in” (1992: 284; Site #723; brackets […] mine, GWF). An amphora is used to transport liquids, but not solid goods like grain.

    From this short report it can be safely discerned that the wrecked ship carried a cargo of amphorae that contained either wine or olive oil, but not wheat; and its origin or destination was Spain, and did not originate from Alexandria, Egypt. Those who discuss the dating of the shipwreck say it dates generally to the Roman period (ca. 50 BC to ca. AD 550), only Cornuke narrows it down to about the 1st century. We are not told what his evidence is for this more precise dating. Who was the pottery expert who dated it for him?

    The meager evidence at hand points away from the remains of this shipwreck being the one that the Apostle Paul was on.

    Conclusion of the Matter

    I would agree with Cornuke’s statement: “Evidence is not the proof; but it is the proper interpretation of the evidence that is the proof” (“Prophecy in the News” interview, December 8, 2011, 2 minutes, 22-28 seconds). Unfortunately, Cornuke ventured outside his field of crime scene investigation and failed to properly understand, and interpret, the Biblical, nautical, geographical, and archaeological evidence relating to Paul’s shipwreck on Malta. The shipwreck of the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke was not on the Munxar Reef.

    For links to critiques about Cornuke’s anchors from Paul’s shipwreck on Malta, see:

    Does “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul” Hold Water?

    Searching for Paul’s Shipwreck on Malta”: A Critique of the 700 Club’s February 26, 2010 Program

    “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul”: A Critique of the Video

    How Accurate are Bob Cornuke’s Claims?

    Bibliography

    Cornuke, Robert
    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 The Maritime Landscapes of Malta from the Roman Period to the Middle Ages. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Bristol [England].

    Parker, A. J.
    1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and Roman Provinces. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm. BAR International Series 580.

    Scicluna, Chev. de
    1965 [Map of Underwater Sites] Missione Archeologica Italiana a Malta. Rapporto Preliminare della Campagna 1964. Roma. Fig. 1.

    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 since 1979, 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. He holds an M.A. in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary in SC.

    Tags: , , ,

   

Recent Comments

  • Nicely done Gordon! At last, a place to send people who are...
  • It's incredible how Mr Cornuke keeps finding things in the w...
  • Obviously Mr.Cornuke hasn't studied Torah or the Bible very ...
  • Thanks for this cogent and concise summary, Gordon. The body...
  • Gordon, You did an excellent work to support the traditiona...