By Gordon Franz
The following document is in an outline format and does refer to slides; however, I believe this content would be useful to anyone interested and pray that it will be a blessing.
-
Life of Christ, The Seven Churches of Asia Minor – Rev. 1-3 Comments Off on THE LIFE AND LAND OF THE LORD JESUS
-
Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2006 Season at Hazor
By Gordon Franz
The 2006 Season
This past summer was the 17th season of the renewed excavations of Hazor in memory of Professor Yigel Yadin. ABR had a group of 11 volunteers, lead by Larry Fuller (ABR president) and myself. We joined about 50 other volunteers from Israel and abroad (Scotland, Poland, Romania, America, Denmark, and England) in order to excavate this important site. The ABR team toured around Israel as part of the actual digging at Tel Hazor. Our people worked in two areas: A-4 and the renewed Area M.The main concentration of work for this season was Area M. It is in this area that Dr. Sharon Zuckerman, the area supervisor, has suggested that the administrative palace of Hazor was and the Canaanite archive of the Late Bronze level would be located (2006: 28-37). But before the Late Bronze Age is reached, we must go through the Persian period level and the Iron Age levels. For a report of the previous seasons of Area M, see Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999: 32-34.
In the spring, a bulldozer removed the top half meter of a road that had been put in by the National Parks Authority to allow tourists to drive to the top of the site. Nine 5 x 5 meter squares were opened this season. Immediately underneath this road were several stone walls of the Persian period (4th century BC), apparently making the corner of two rooms. The walls and the restorable pottery that were found were an important contribution to our understanding of Hazor because the excavations in the 1950’s and 1960’s by Prof. Yigel Yadin yielded very little Persian period architecture.
Two of the ABR volunteers worked in the corners of the rooms. Michael Lassiter found a cylindrical seal with two dancing animals on it. After it was cleaned, it was identified as being from the Persian period. He also found an intact Persian period storage jar. Hazor is a scientific excavation so Mike spent the better part of a morning removing the packed dirt from the jar in order to do “flotation” on the soil. This process collects the seeds that were originally in the jar so they could be analyzed and identified.
Joyce Morril worked in the other room. She found lots of restorable vessels of the Persian period. One square over, James Muehling found a bronze object that looked like a battery, but after cleaning, it turned out to be part of a dagger’s handle, possibly of the Persian period or Iron Age. Unfortunately the blade is in the blaulk that separates the two squares and time did not allow it to be removed.
In four of the squares, a cobble stone pavement was reached, apparently part of a courtyard from the Iron Age. In a fifth square there were remains of a hewn water channel that lead to the entrance of a cistern in the courtyard. Unfortunately the excavation was stopped prematurely, thus leaving lots of questions unanswered, just when we were beginning to find things and the area started to make sense.
The restoration projects at Hazor continued this season as well. Orna Cohen and her restorers have beautifully reconstructed the Late Bronze palace on the top of the tel. Tourists will now be able to sense some of the power and glory of the Canaanite kings of Hazor in this ceremonial reception hall.
We’re Outa Here!
On the next to the last day (Thursday) that the ABR group was scheduled to dig at Hazor, trouble broke out in the area. Our Israeli staff had our best interest and safety in mind and within 15 minutes, a bus was on the site to evacuate us. We had an early breakfast and returned to the hotel to get what we needed and were taken to Tiberius. On Saturday morning our bus picked us up, as scheduled, from the Tiberias hotel and were went to Jerusalem to shop and tour and then returned to the United States on Sunday night.
The Prospects for the 2007 Season
Due to the troubles in the Middle East, the 2006 season was cut short by a few weeks and left many unanswered questions. Hopefully, next year some of these questions will be answered.
Dr. Zuckerman has made a compelling case for the archives to be found in Area M. When the archive(s) are found at Hazor, it/they will be a major contribution to Biblical studies and go a long way to resolve some of the thorny issues in Biblical Archaeology.
BibliographyBen-Tor, Amnon, and Rubiato, Maria Teresa
1999 Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City? Biblical Archaeology Review 25/3: 22-39.Zuckerman, Sharon
2006 Where is the Hazor Archive Buried? Biblical Archaeology Review 32/2: 28-37. -
Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2005 Season at Hazor
By Gordon Franz
INDIANA JONES AND HAZOR
Someone shouted, “Bucket chain!” All the volunteers and area supervisors took their positions and passed 200 plus buckets from one to another across Area A-5, up the ladder and into waiting wheelbarrows. Others pushed the wheelbarrows to the dump a few meters away. Last summer (2005), we literally moved tons of dirt and rocks at the excavations at Tel Hazor by doing 10-15 bucket chains per day for six weeks.
We accomplished a lot as far as moving dirt was concerned, but had little to show for it with regard to small finds. I came to the startling realization that Indiana Jones and his clones are purely fictional characters. Real archaeology is a lot of donkey work!The 2005 Season
This past summer was the 16th season of the renewed excavations in memory of Professor Yigael Yadin. ABR had a group of 21 volunteers, lead by Larry Fuller (ABR president) and myself. We had tours around Israel as well as actual digging at Tel Hazor. Our people worked in two areas: A-4 and A-5.
A-4 was divided into two sections, south and north respectively. The last of the 10th century BC Solomonic remains were removed in the southern section in order to penetrate into the Bronze Age. In this section, a plaster floor from the Early Bronze IV period emerged. This discovery, plus other information, demonstrated that the Upper City of Hazor was densely populated. Underneath these remains was a room from the Early Bronze III period. In the northern section, a massive stone was discovered, possibly of a palace (?) from the Middle Bronze II period.
A-5 is an East-West trench located in front of the Solomonic Gate. This area was also divided into two sections, south and north respectively. In previous seasons we found large walls with mudbrick preserved to the height of 4 meters on top of stone foundations that are placed on bedrock. The function of these walls is elusive. I jokingly refer to them as the “Canaanite rat maze!” We have two large “halls” that seemingly do not have entrances.
As Amnon Ben-Tor, the excavator of Hazor has observed: “The remains exposed in Area A-5 raise three main issues: 1) the nature of the exposed hall, 2) the date of the structure, and 3) the question how the mudbrick walls survived to almost their original height of over 4 m., until the halls were filled the Iron Age II” (Ben-Tor 2005).
The restoration projects at Hazor continued this season as well. Orna Cohen and her restorers have beautifully reconstructed the Late Bronze palace on the top of the tel. Tourists will now be able to sense some of the power and glory of the Canaanite kings of Hazor in this ceremonial reception hall.The Prospects for the 2006 Season
One question that is asked of Dr. Ben-Tor is: “Have you found the Canaanite archives yet?” It is known that at least two Canaanite archives existed at Hazor, one in the Middle Bronze Age and the other in the Late Bronze Age. In the 2006 season there will be an attempt to answer this question. One of the staff members, Dr. Sharon Zuckerman, has suggested that the administrative palace of Hazor was near the gate from the Lower City to the Upper City. She will set forth her case in a forthcoming issue of “Biblical Archaeology Review.” In order to test this hypothesis, the 2006 season will concentrate on a reopened Area M that Dr. Zuckerman directed for a number of years (Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999: 32-34). There are still several little projects to be completed in Areas A-4 and A-5, including finding the elusive entrances to the halls.
When the archive(s) are found at Hazor, it/they will be a major contribution to Biblical studies and go a long way to resolve some of the thorny issues in Biblical Archaeology.
BibliographyBen-Tor, Amnon
2005 Notes and News: Tel Hazor, 2005. Israel Exploration Journal. Forthcoming.Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Rubiato, Maria Teresa
1999 Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City? Biblical Archaeology Review 25/3: 22-39. -
Excavations at Hazor Comments Off on Reflections of the 2003 Season at Hazor
By Gordon Franz
What I Did on My Summer Vacation … I Dug Hazor!
A Day at the Dig
The knock came at 4:15 in the morning. Shauel, the excavation trouble-shooter, was knocking on the doors in order to wake up all the volunteers of the Hazor excavation. I must admit, I do not normally get up at 4:15, so I moved a bit slow. But each day was filled with excitement. What would we find today? How hot was it going to be outside? Would we have a breeze? Will we ever find that elusive Canaanite archive?
Before we rode the bus to Hazor, we had a light breakfast of bread and jelly, and sometimes peanut butter, along with coffee, tea or whatever else was put out. At five minutes to five, the bus arrived to take us to the site. It was a short, three-minute ride from our hotel to the dig.
Work began before sunrise. Looking to the east, one could see the silhouette of Mt. Hermon and the volcanic peaks of the Golan Heights. On some mornings we had spectacular sunrises as the sun peaked over the Heights. But with the appearance of the sun, the temperature increased. How hot was it going to be today?
This season the Hazor excavation worked primarily in two locations. The Canaanite palace / temple complex was called A4 and a trench just east of the Solomonic gate called A5. The purpose of this trench is to understand the Israelite and Canaanite fortifications. I was digging in A5.
By seven in the morning we were ready for our first break. We had tea and coffee along with cookies provided by each digger. The tea usually had mint in it. The coffee, well what can I say, when we got down to the bottom of the pitcher, it looked like the Canaanite mud brick from the palace! I do not drink coffee, but I am told it tasted pretty good. After this break, the suntan lotion came out. Even though we had a net over the area that kept out much of the sun, but allowed the breeze to blow through, it was wise to put on the sunscreen.
There was always the constant reminder to drink water. On some days, I would drink between three and four liters of water! One works up a good sweat on an excavation.
Breakfast came around at 9:30. Fortunately A5 was right next to our dining area. This meal consisted of the usual Israeli fare for breakfast: tomatoes, cucumbers, yogurt, cottage cheese, bread, rolls, fish of one sort or another, juice, water and halva. Every once and awhile, Shauel would come through with scrambled eggs cooked in olive oil. It was great!
People sometimes have the wrong impression of archaeology and think it is a treasure hunt. In reality, it is usually tedious “donkey work” of moving dirt. Usually one would use a pick to loosen up the dirt and then scrap it into buckets, all the while looking for any man made objects like pottery, worked flint, or metals. Once all the buckets were filled (in A5 we usually had about 120 of them) the diggers would form a bucket chain and remove all the buckets from the area. Once on top, they were unloaded in wheelbarrows and hauled off to the dump. When a floor level was reached, then the work became a bit more interesting.
A one o’clock, work was over. We piled on the bus with our pottery buckets and returned to the hotel. Lunch awaited us. Since the hotel restaurant was kosher, lunch was the meat meal. After lunch, we would wash the pottery that was uncovered that day. With that task completed, it was time for a nap. Sleeping in a nice air-conditioned room was a welcomed change after working for eight hours in the heat. At 5:30 it was time for pottery reading and supper at 7:30. This meal was the “dairy meal”, or vegetarian meal. After dinner there was usually a lecture or video until about 9 PM. Soon after, one was fast asleep, waiting for Shauel to knock on your door at 4:15 the next morning!
Weekends were free to do as you pleased. Unlike most excavations, the diggers were allowed to stay at the hotel on weekends. Some weekends the diggers just relaxed for the weekend and read a good book, or did laundry in the hotel washing machine. Some diggers would rent a car for a day and visit other archaeological sites in the area, Tel Dan, Caesarea Philippi, Nimrod’s Castle, the Golan Heights, Gamla or the Sea of Galilee. The real energetic diggers would rent a car for the weekend and go further a field, to Jerusalem or Akko.
The excavation had a distinct international flavor. There were a number of Israeli students from Hebrew University as well as other Israelis. There were also people from Romania, the United States, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Denmark, and Australia. Dr. Ben-Tor pointed out to me one week that one area had eleven people in it and nine different languages spoke! The common language was English.
Why Dig Hazor?
Hazor is an important and impressive site. In fact, Hazor is the largest archaeological site in Israel. This 200-acre city consists of two parts, the Upper City, or Acropolis, and the Lower City. The next largest cities, apart from Jerusalem, are Gezer and Lachish at 18 acres. Hazor is eleven times the size of these cities!
For the student of the Bible, Hazor has an impressive amount of Biblical history and the archaeological remains to go along with it.
The first mention of Hazor in the Bible is in Joshua 11. “Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor was formerly the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. There was none left breathing. Then he burned Hazor with fire. … But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshua burned” (11:10,11,13, cf. 12:19). The first Israeli excavator of Hazor, Yigel Yadin, and the present excavator, Amnon Ben-Tor, believes the burn level of the Late Bronze II period is evidence of Joshua’s destruction.
Hazor was allotted to the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. 19:36) and is mentioned in the account of Judges 4 and 5, the story of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:2,3,24).
Yadin excavated a very impressive six-chambered gate dating to the 10th century BC and built by King Solomon. Similar gates from this period were discovered at Megiddo and Gezer. Yadin connected this phenomenon with a passage in the Scriptures, “And this is the reason for the labor force which King Solomon raised to build: to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer” (I Kings 9:15).
In the mid-8th century BC an extraordinary earthquake hit the Middle East. Amos (1:2) as well as Isaiah predicted this earthquake (2:19, 21). Yadin discovered evidence for this earthquake in the 1950’s in Area A. This summer, I believe there was more archaeological evidence for this earthquake in A5. Walls were uncovered that tilted to the south or east and floors collapsed. As I looked at those walls, I contemplated the reason for this earthquake. The prophets warned the people to humble themselves because they were proud and haughty. If they did not, the prophets said, God would humble them with an earthquake (Isa. 2). Several years ago I wrote an article on the archaeological evidence for, and the geological implications of, this earthquake with two geologists, Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Eric Frost. Based on the archaeological evidence, it was determined that the magnitude of this quake measured at 8.2 on the Richter scale! That was a big quake.
Israel, the Northern Kingdom, did not heed the words of the prophets. Amos predicted that a greater judgment would fall on Israel if they did not return to the Lord. That judgment was an invasion by the Assyrians. In 732 BC, the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser III invaded Israel. “In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria” (II Kings 15:29; cf. Isa, 9:1).
At one point during the excavation I was clearing a street level, the area supervisor called it a junkyard. Among other things, I found five arrowheads, one spear point and a sickle, all possibly associated with the Assyrian attack on the city in 732 BC. As I was digging, I was wondering to myself, why would God allow the Assyrians to attack Israel? I recalled the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hand is my indignation. I will send him against and ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath” (10:5,6a). God used the Assyrians to chasten Israel in order to bring them back to Himself. They did not respond positively to the message of the prophets so they were taken into captivity (Lev. 26:32-39; Deut. 28:58-67).
Interestingly enough, Yadin discovered partially eaten pigs underneath the Assyrian destruction level. This indicates that the Israelites were eating pork just prior to the destruction of the city, something the prophet Isaiah condemned because the Mosaic Law forbade it (Isa. 65:1-4; 66:17, cf. Lev. 11:7).
There are other Biblical connections that the Bible student would find fascinating and would help to better understand the Scriptures, but these remain for another time.
Hope to see you next summer at Hazor. Shauel would love to wake you up at 4:15!
-
Archaeology and the Bible Comments Off on THE GEOGRAPHY AND MILITARY STRATEGY OF KING UZZIAH: AN EXPANSIONIST POLICY THAT LED TO HIS DESTRUCTION
By Gordon Franz
Introduction
The consequence of King Uzziah’s military strategy associated with his foreign policy is summarized by a proverb of wise King Solomon. He stated: “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18). Let us examine the geography of King Uzziah’s military expansionist policies and show how these policies led to a proud heart and eventually to his downfall. King Uzziah (also called Azariah in II Kings 15:1-7) is an example of a king who starts out spiritually on the right foot, but ends up on the wrong foot (II Chron. 26).
Chronology
At this point in Israel’s history the Kingdom is divided. The ten tribes to the north called Israel and the two tribes to the south called Judah. King Uzziah, also known as Azariah, reigned from 792-740 BC. He was 16 years old when he came to the throne (792 BC) after the death of his father Amaziah. Uzzaih “sought God in the days of Zechariah” which was about 25 years. When he was 41 years old, about 767 BC, he rebuilt Eilat. His expansionist policies led to a “strong heart being lifted up” and in the year 750 BC, the Middle East was struck with a devastating earthquake and Uzziah was struck with leprosy. In the northern Kingdom, Jeroboam II was ruling from Samaria (792-753/2 BC).
The Rebuilding of Eilat
King Uzziah stepped out of the will of God as revealed in the Word of God, by taking territory that did not belong to him. It is unusual for the writer of the book of Chronicles to mention the building activities in the summary formula of the king’s reign. The Spirit of God included this statement of the building of Eilat because it a key to understanding Uzziah’s pride, and his subsequent downfall.
The southern border of Israel, which is also the southern border of the tribal territory of Judah, is explicitly given in Numbers 34:3-5. It states: “Your southern border shall be from the Wilderness of Zin along the border of Edom; then your sourhern border shall extend eastward to the end of the Salt Sea; your border shall turn from the southern side of the Ascent of Akrabbim, continue to Zin, and be on the south side of Kadesh Barnea; then it shall go to Hazar Addar; and continue to Azmon; the border shall turn from Azmon to the Brook Egypt, and it shall end at the Sea.” Joshua basically reiterates the same borders: “The border of Edom at the Wilderness of Zin southward was the extreme southern boundry. And their southern border began at the shore of the Salt Sea, from the bay that faces southward. Then it went out to the southern side of the Ascent of Akrabbim, passed along to Zin, ascended on the south side of Kadesh Barnea, passed along to Hezron, went up to Adar, and went around to Karkaa. From there it passed toward Azmon and went out to the Brook of Egypt; and the border ended at the sea. This shall be your southern border” (15:2-4; CBA 51).
There are two things to note in these passages. First, the line of the border goes from the southern end of the Dead Sea, to the south of the Ascent of Akrabbim (the scorpion), through the Wilderness of Zin to a point south of Kadesh Barnea. The second thing to note is that the territory of Edom lies to the south of the Land of Israel and the tribal territory of Judah (Crew 2002).
The city of Eilat that was built by King Uzziah was in Edom’s territory. When King Solomon sent out his Red Sea fleet, they departed from “Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (I Kings 9:26). “Then Solomon went to Ezion Geber and Elath on the seacoast, in the land of Edom” (II Chron. 8:17).
In the description of the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness, the territory of Edom is mentioned and Eilat and Ezion Geber are placed in this territory (Deut. 2:1-8).
When I was a student at the Institute of Holy land Studies in Jerusalem, I had a class on “Modern Israeli Society.” One lecture was by a member of Israel’s parliament, the Kenesst. His name was Yehuda ben Moshe. He made a statement I never forgot. He said his only claim to fame in life was: “I was the first mayor of Eilat in 1948 and it was a city that did not belong to us Biblically!” I thought that was an odd statement when he made it, but when I began to study the life of King Uzziah, I realized he was right. Eilat belonged to Edom, not Israel.
The Identification of the Eilat
The region of Eilat / Akaba was first surveyed by Fritz Frank in 1933. He identified Tel el-Kheleifeh with Biblical Ezion Geber. Nelson Glueck conducted three seasons of excavations at this site between 1938 and 1940. He identified Tell el-Kheleifeh with Biblical Ezion-geber and Eilat (Glueck 1938: 2-13).
Prof. Benjamin Mazar challenged Glueck’s view. He stated: “The immediate vicinity of ‘Aqaba is the most suitable spot for an Israelite fort to be associated with Ezion-Geber, located within the settled area of Elath. The latter would be the earlier name of the site, and the fortress of Ezion-Geber would have been founded, after David’s conquest of Edom, as an emporium for the South-Arabian trade” (Mazar 1975: 119*). He suggested that Tell el-Kheleifeh was Ebronah, one of Solomon’s “store-city” (Mazar 1975: 120*), also known as Biblical Abronah (Num. 33: 34-36).
Burno Rothenberg identifies the Ezion-Geber with Jezirat Fara’un, known as Pharaoh’s Island, to the west of modern Eilat (Rothenberg 1972: 202-207; Flinder 1989: 30-43).
Recently, a reappraisal of the excavations and identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh was done by Gary Pratico (1985: 1-32; 1986: 24-35; 1993: 17-23). He concluded that the “identification of Tell el-Kheleifeh is both an archaeological and an historical problem. One may argue the identification from the perspective of possibility or probability but the problem of verification precludes examination of the site in the context of Biblical Ezion-geber and/or Eilath (1985:27).
While we may not know precisely where the ancient site of Eilat is today, it is safe to say that it is in the area of modern day Eilat (Israel) and Akaba (Jordan). It’s location on the tip of the Red Sea (Gulf of Eilat / Akaba) made it ideal for mercantile trade. Sea trade and caravans through this port brought an increase in wealth for Judah because of this trade. There were two other Israelite / Judean kings that took Eilat as well, Solomon (I Kings 9:26; CBA 112, 115) and Jehoshaphat (II Chron. 20:36).
The Military Preparations and Expansionist Conquests
The Chronicler records the military activity of King Uzziah. He states: “Now he [Uzziah] went out and made war against the Philistines, and broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod; and he built cities around Ashdod and among the Philistines. God helped him against the Philistines, against the Arabians who lived in Gur Baal, and against the Meunites. And the Ammonites brought tribute to Uzziah. His fame spread as far as the entrance of Egypt, for he became exceedingly strong. And Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem … And Uzziah built towers in the desert (midbar). He dug many wells, for he had much livestock, both in the lowlands (Shephelah) and the plains (Coastal Plains); he also had farmers and vinedressers in the mountains and in Carmel, for he loved the soil” (II Chron. 26:6-10; CBA 141).
At the beginning of his military campaigns, Uzziah made war against the Philistines and God helped him (26:6, 7). The southern border of Israel was the “brook Egypt”. Nadav Na’aman places this border at the Nahal Basor, just south of Gaza city (1979:68-90; 1980:95-109). Anson Rainey disputes this identification and places it at Wadi al-Arish (1982:130-136). Judah should have driven the Philistines out of this territory long ago because they were a bad influence on Judah / Israel, a fact acknowledged by the Prophet Isaiah (2:6).
The securing of Philistia and the settlement of Judeans within the coastal plains had two economic benefits. First, it gave them the opportunity to develop the agriculture in the area. This was something that Uzziah had a keen interest in (II Chron. 26:10). Second, Uzziah was able to extract tribute from the caravans that used the International Coastal Highway that went through the territory of Philistia (CBA 9, 10).
Uzziah also turned his attention to the Arabians that lived at Gur Baal (26:7). The location of Gur Baal is a much debated topic, but it appears to be somewhere in the region southwest of Judah and near Philistia (Eph’al 1982: 77, 78). The Meunites (26:7) appeared to have settled in the northern Sinai Peninsula to the west of the Aravah and Edom’s territory (I Chron. 4:41, 42; Eph’al 1982:65, 66). In this military action, Uzziah is trying to secure his trade routes to Eilat from any attacks from the west.
The statement that the Ammonites brought tribute to King Uzziah (26:8), implies that Judah controlled the area as well as the strategic Transjordanian Highway that went through their territory, thus brining more tribute money (CBA 9, 10).
Uzziah built towers (migdalim) in the desert (midbar). The midbar in view here is the Wilderness of Zin and its surrounding areas (26:10). Rudolph Cohen has excavated a number of Iron Age fortresses in the Central Negev Highlands, the area of the Wilderness (midbar) of Zin (Cohen 1979: 61-79). These fortresses, along the southern border of Judah, guarded the road to Eilat (Aharoni 1967: 15-17). For a contrary view, see Finkelstein 1984: 189-209.
Uzziah also dug many wells, or cisterns (borot) in the area. Some of which can still be seen in the area (Cohen 1981: xxvii, 62-64, site 101).
The Relationship of the Kings of Judah to Wealth and Power
Moses sets forth the rules and regulations concerning the future rule of kings of Israel / Judah (Deut. 17:14-20). He states that the king will be chosen from “your brethren” (17:15). He was not to multiply horses to himself (17:16). This is to prevent the king from boasting about his own strength (cf. Josh. 11:6; II Sam. 8:4; Micah 5:10). The king is not to multiply wives (17:17a). An example of one who did was Solomon and the foreign wives drew his heart away from the Lord. The king was not to greatly multiply silver and gold to himself (17:17b). They need silver and gold to keep the kingdom functioning, but the instruction is not to “multiply” the precious metals. The king was to write a copy of the (Mosaic) Law (17:18) and read the Law (17:19). The king is subject to the Law and is not above it (17:20).
King Uzziah followed all these principles in the first part of his reign. In the beginning he learned to fear God (II Chron. 26:16a); he observed God’s statues (26:16b); his heart was not lifted up (26:16b); nor did not turn away from the LORD (26:18), thus his days were prolonged (26:21). Yet after he took Eilat, he built up his military and it included multiplying horses for his army. As a result of controlling the international highways and receiving tribute, he multiplied gold and silver to himself. The Prophet Isaiah acknowledged this state of affairs. “Their land [Judah] is also full of silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is also full of horses, and there is no end to their chariots” (2:7).
The Earthquake in the Days of King Uzziah
In the mid-8th century BC, the Middle East was hit with a devastating earthquake. The prophets warned both the Northern Kingdom as well as the Southern Kingdom of impending danger if they did not turn from their evil ways and return to the Lord and His ways.
Two years before this earthquake, the Judean shepherd from Tekoa, cried out against the social injustices in the northern kingdom under the rule of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1; 9:1). The book that bears his name is replete with warnings of an earthquake to come. In the southern kingdom, Isaiah warns of this earthquake as well because of the haughtiness of the people of Judah (Isa. 2:6-21). Hundreds of years later, the prophet Zechariah reminds the people of Judah of the devastation caused by this earthquake (Zech. 14:4, 5).
Evidence for this earthquake has been uncovered by the archaeologists spade throughout Israel and Jordan. Graphic evidence can be seen at Hazor and Ein Hazeva (Biblical Tamar). I tri-authored an article with two geologists on this earthquake and it was concluded that the earthquake measured an 8.2 on the Ritcher scale and the epicenter was located in the Beka Valley, in present day Lebanon (Austin, Franz and Frost 2000: 657-671). An earthquake of that magnitude would put the fear of the LORD into anybody.
Josephus, the First Century Jewish historian, described the events in Jerusalem during this earthquake. King Uzziah was in the Temple trying to offer incense on the altar at Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, a duty only allowed the High Priest (Lev. 16 and 17). The priests tried to stop him, but he was defiant. Josephus records what happens next: “But, while he [Uzziah] spoke, a great tremor shook the earth, and, as the temple was riven, a brilliant shaft of sunlight gleamed through it and fell upon the king’s face so that leprosy at once smote him” (Antiquities of the Jews 9:225; LCL 6:119; cf. II Chron. 26:19-21, 23). The Bible does not place the two events together chronologically, but Josephus may have had access to records that are no longer available to us.
Uzziah was so full of pride that he thought he was above the Law and could do anything he wanted to do. The Chronicler again records: “But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the LORD his God by entering the Temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense” (II Chron. 26:16). The same Hebrew words are used in Proverb 16:18 which states: “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Uzziah paid a high price for his pride and disobedience to the Word of God. He was put outside the city in an “isolation house” and was not allowed into the Temple again (II Chron. 26:21).
The Death of King Uzziah
The Bible records the death of King Uzziah in these terms: “So Uzziah rested with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings, for they said, ‘He is a leper'” (II Chron. 26:23). He was buried with his fathers, but not in the royal tombs. His burial cave is probably the cave in the City of David overlooking the “Tower of Siloah.”
In the 19th century, a burial inscription was discovered on the Mount of Olives (Cameron 1973: 120, #255). It read: “Here were brought / the bones of Uzziah, / King of Judah, / and not to be opened.” The paleography of the inscription is late 1st century BC. Joesphus records that Herod the Great erected a monument over the tomb of David after he tried to steal some of the gold and silver from the tomb. This was probably the time when Uzziah’s bones were moved and the inscription was written.
Summary of King Uzziah’s Foreign Policy and Spiritual Regression
King Uzziah began his reign on the “right foot” by being obedient to the Word of God. Somewhere along the line, he stepped out of the will of God, as revealed in the Word of God, by taking Eilat. When he did this, he had built up his military in order to control the Transjordanian Highway and the International Coastal Highway. As a consequence of controlling these roads, he had to fortify these and other routes. Yet with the control of these roads, the national treasury increased. Yet the sad fact is, because of his military strength and wealth, King Uzziah developed a proud heart that led to his downfall (II Chron. 26:15, 16; Prov. 16:18).
Outline of the Life and Times of King Uzziah (II Chron. 26)
A. Introduction. 26:1-5.
B. The prosperity of King Uzziah. 26:6-15.
1. Material possessions. 26:6-10.
2. Military preparations. 26:11-15.
C. The pride of King Uzziah. 26:16-19; cf. Deut. 8:6-18; Prov. 16:18.
D. The punishment of King Uzziah. 26:20-23.
Bibliography
Aharoni, Yohanan
1967 Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev. Israel Exploration Journal 17/1: 1-17.
Aharoni, Yohanan; Avi-Yonah, Michael; Rainey, Anson; and Safrai, Ze’ev
2002 The Carta Bible Atlas. Fourth edition. Jerusalem: Carta. (Footnoted as CBA).
Austin, Steve, Franz, Gordon, and Frost, Eric
2000 Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C. International Geology Review 42/7: 657-671.
Carmon, Efrat, ed.
1972 Inscriptions Revealed. Trans. by R. Grafman. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
Cohen, Rudolph
1979 The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 61-79.
1981 Archaeological Survey of Israel. Map of Sede Boqer – East (168). Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey of Israel.
Crew, Bruce
2002 Did Edom’s Original Territories Extend West of ‘Wadi Arabah? Bible and Spade 15/1: 2-10.
Eph’al, Israel
1982 The Ancient Arabs. Jerusalem and Leiden: Magness and E. J. Brill.
Finkelstein, Israel
1984 The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands:
Sendentarization of the Nomads. Tel Aviv 11/2: 189-209.
Flinder, Alexander
1989 Is This Solomon’s Seaport? Biblical Archaeology Review 15/4: 30-43.
Glueck, Nelson
1938 The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber and Elath. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 72: 2-13.
Josephus
1937 Antiquities of the Jews. Books 9-11. Vol. 6. Trans. by R. Marcus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 326. Reprinted in 1987.
Mazar, Benjamin
1975 Ezion-Geber and Ebronah. Eretz-Israel 12: 46-48, 119*.
Na’aman, Nadav
1979 The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6: 68-90.
1980 The Shihor of Egypt and Shur that is Before Egypt. Tel Aviv 7: 95-109.
Pratico, Gary
1985 Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A
Reappraisal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 259: 1-32.
1986 A Reappraisal of the Site Archaeologist Nelson Glueck Identified as King Solomon’s Red Sea Port. Biblical Archaeology Review 12/5: 24-35.
1993 Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh. A Reappraisal. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Rainey, Anson
1982 Toponymic Problems (cont.). Tel Aviv 9/2: 130-136.
Rothenberg, Beno
1972 Timna. Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. Aylesbury: Thames and Hudson.
This paper was first read at the Association of American Geographers meeting in Boston, MA on April 16, 2008.
-
Jerusalem Comments Off on “The Most Important Discovery was the People”: An Interview with Dr. Gabriel Barkay
By Gordon Franz and Stephanie Hernandez
Raised in the ghettos of Budapest, Hungary, Israeli archaeologist Gabriel Barkay has had an accomplished career in the archaeology of the Bible Lands. Barkay holds both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Hebrew University and a PhD from Tel Aviv University. His doctoral dissertation, completed in 1985, was on “Northern and Western Jerusalem at the End of the Iron Age.”
Gordon Franz: Thank you for doing this interview for us Goby. In which schools have you taught?
Gabriel “Goby” Barkay: I taught for 27 years at Tel Aviv University in their Institute of Archaeology. Since 1997, I have taught at different schools, mainly Bar-Ilan University, the Hebrew University Rothberg School for Overseas Studies, and for more than 30 years I’ve been teaching at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies, better known today as the Jerusalem University College.
Gordon: Where have you excavated?
Goby: I started my excavations at Tel Arad in 1963. In 1964 I participated in a short excavation in Jerusalem on the road going up to Mount Zion, known as the Pope’s Road. In 1965, I participated in a dig as a student with Yigael Yadin at Megiddo. That same year I started for several seasons excavating in the Negev with Avraham Negev, including Beersheva and Tel Masos for eleven seasons. I also spent fifteen years at Lachish. Since the 1970’s I concentrated my efforts on Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. For seven seasons, I directed the excavations at Ketef Hinnom below the St. Andrews Church of Scotland as well as several burial caves in the Hinnom Valley. To the west of Jerusalem I dug one of the tumuli and also a short season at Ramat Rachel. I dug for two seasons at Jezreel. I dug one season at Susa in Iran during the winter of 1969. In the last seven years I have been involved in a project in the Shephelah at Tel Zayit, digging with Professor Ron Tappy from the Pittsburg Theological Seminary.
Gordon: How did you become involved in the Temple Mount Sifting Project?
Gody: A violation of the law took place on the Temple Mount when a gigantic mosque was built inside Solomon’s Stables in 1996. In 1999 there was a removal of an enormous quantities of soil saturated with archaeological material from inside the Temple Mount. We were all enraged. I remember myself in December 1999 or January 2000, participating in a demonstration that took place near the piles of dirt removed from the Temple Mount and remember being interviewed by different television stations on the subject. I was very much enraged by the fact that the Temple Mount, being the most important archaeological site in the country, is a black hole in the archaeology of Jerusalem.
We actually know nothing about the Temple Mount archaeologically. We know it is more than twice the size of the City of David and is the center of activity in ancient times in Jerusalem and not a single sherd was published from the Temple Mount. Not one survey was carried out on the Temple Mount and that is something that is almost unthinkable.
In 2000, two of my former students, Zachi Zweig and Aran Yardeni showed up at this very place we are sitting right now. They were very upset and they emptied onto the dining room table here two plastic bags that included much mud, but also pot sherds of different periods that I could identify. They covered a wide range of the history of Jerusalem, starting with the Iron Age and ending with the Ottoman-Turkish period. Even earlier than that, I collected pieces of pottery on the piles removed from the Temple Mount which showed that the pile is embodied in it a potential of archaeological studies. The two students and their enthusiasm convinced me that something had to be done.
I negotiated in 2000 with different bodies in an attempt to organize a systematic sifting of the material, but the damage was done. The corpse of the destruction act of the Islamic Waqf was done, the body was already there. The question was now, how to get something positive out of this tragedy. In any case, I was encouraged by Zachi and eventually, after long deliberations, denials and negotiations, and even threats, we managed to get a license in the beginning in my name only and later in Zachi’s name as well. We managed to get a license for sifting through the material in 2004.
Gordon: Some archaeologists have suggested that the project is not real archaeology. What can we learn from the sifting project that will help in our knowledge of Jerusalem in general and the Temple Mount in particular?
Goby: I would prefer to have real archaeology on the Temple Mount, if it were possible. That would be great. Because of political and religious reasons, one can not dig on the Temple Mount. I do not see in the coming future any possibility of carrying out any normal pre-initiated excavations on the Temple Mount. We have to suffice with what we can do. It is always like that in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, you do not dig wherever you want to dig, but wherever it is possible. So this is in line with Jerusalem’s archaeology.
Of course, it is much easier to stand on Mount Olympus, dig some site in Greece or in Turkey, or in Hazor or Megiddo, or any other place and criticize people working in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is under totally different conditions than any other sites. And in Jerusalem, the archaeology and politics: what can we do? It goes hand in hand. It goes together and there is much influence to the archaeological activities in Jerusalem by all kinds of political and other interventions.
If I am interested to know about the Temple Mount, then I am directed by my interests, my motivations. I am interested in the Temple Mount and so is the scholarly world in general. Everyone does what everyone can. This is how I can learn something about the Temple Mount. Of course, I would prefer to have normal excavations on the Temple Mount, but that is impossible, so we have to go in the possible way and not criticize the conditions, but get the advantages of what we can do.
Eventually at the end of this sifting project, or even before the end, we are going to have a kind of a graph showing the intensiveness of human activity upon the Temple Mount in different periods, the statistics of pottery found on the Temple Mount from each and every one of the archaeological periods. The pottery and the amounts of pottery will eventually show the history of occupation upon the Temple Mount. I am well aware of the fact that we work with material which does not have any context. It does not come from the floors, it does not come from stratigraphy, and it does not come from the ideal conditions that an archaeologist would prefer.
Our project is comparable to a surface survey. If you go to a site which was not yet studied, the first thing you do is collect the pottery from the surface, assuming that upon the surface there is a proper representation of all periods and all the civilizations that once were active on the site. The activity throughout the years brought up to the surface from the activity on that certain site. The archaeological survey is a legitimate and common archaeological activity. That is also without any context to the finds. You collect the pottery and draw conclusions without having any floors, any architecture, any stratigraphy, and so forth. Nevertheless, you come to historical, geographical conclusions. So our work is comparable to a surface survey of any archaeological site. When we know nothing, it is better to know little than to despair and give it all up.
Gordon: You have studies what has been sifted so far. Is there any aspect of our understanding of the history of Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount, that the sifting project would change?
Goby: The answer is yes, very much so. We have already some preliminary results which changed the history of Jerusalem on the whole and even the Temple Mount. For example, we have a group of flint implements from the prehistoric Epi-paleolithic period, approximately 15,000 years before our time. This was a period previously unknown in Jerusalem. We have some implements and nice arrowheads of the Neolithic period which is hardly known in Jerusalem. So, this is by itself a very important contribution. We have some Bronze Age pottery and it is hard to tell if the Temple Mount was part of human activity in Jerusalem in the 4th, 3rd, 2nd millennia BC. But nevertheless, we have some Chalcolithic pottery, Bronze Age pottery, 2nd millennium pottery from the time of the Canaanites. We have scarabs of the general Egyptian times, one of which is probably from the Middle Bronze Age and the other from the Late Bronze Age, which is a welcomed addition to the scarce knowledge we have of Jerusalem in the second millennium BC.
Concerning the Iron Age, it is very interesting we do not have any pottery that we can clearly say is part of the Iron Age I. On the other hand, Iron Age 2A, from the 10th century BC, is where we have some material, not of quantitative value, but still we have some pieces that can be clearly dated, and burnished pieces which are of the 10th century BC.
Concerning the later periods, we have a large number of coins and that is one specialty of the sifting project. We have many thousands of coins and we have for example, one Yehud coin of the Persian Period in the 4th century BC. This type of coin has been rare and is important to have. We have several coins of the early Hellenistic period from the rule of the Ptolemy’s, the late 4th and 3rd centuries BC. We have some coins from the Seleucid rule in Jerusalem, and that period is quite enigmatic in the archaeology of Jerusalem, since we do not have many finds in other digs from that time. So we can draw a nice picture of the history of Jerusalem from the coins.
Concerning other periods, such as the Byzantine period, the Christian period, we do not have too many good sources of the Temple Mount. In the account of pilgrims coming to the Holy City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount is entirely ignored. It does not play any important role in the early Christian period. In the written sources one can surmise the Temple Mount was either empty, not active, or was a garbage heap at the time. The results of the sifting project show a totally different picture. It shows much activity. We have a large number of objects dating back to the early Christian period, drawing a totally different picture than what was known before. We have a large number of coins from the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries of the Common Era. We have a large number of weights from weighing gold, showing that there was economic activity on the Temple Mount.
We have a large amount of pottery of the Byzantine period: oil lamps, household ware, as well as course ware of different kinds and types. In addition, we have architectural fragments of Corinthian capitals, which evidentially belong to ecclesiastical structures. I think that the whole role of the Temple mount in the early Christian period should be reevaluated, which means that in a densely built up city, which Christian Jerusalem was in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, I can not imagine a large, vast area of 145,000 square meters in the heart of the city being totally abandoned and totally unused, while the vicinity of the city, just outside Jaffa Gate, on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, on the hills surrounding the city on the north up to St. Etienne on the north and even further than that, there was much activity. There was an overflow of human activity on the outskirts of Jerusalem. So why did the inside of Jerusalem remain empty, such a vast area left unused? That does not make sense on the one hand and on the other hand we have an abundance of material.
Among the material we have are a large number of pieces of jewelry, which at the moment are understudied, but typologically, they could be related to the early Christian period. Among the finds we have about ten or so cruciform C-shaped pendants which were left by the pilgrims or Christians who were active on the Temple Mount. We have from sources perhaps an existence of a nunnery, maybe even an ecclesiastical building; a pinnacle church. So all this hints to a possibility that we will have in the future the ability to change what is known about the Temple Mount in the history books.
Now, another period which is interesting is the Early Roman period. The Temple Mount was destroyed by Titus. We know about the Temple Mount only seventy years later, when Hadrian rebuilt the city of Aelia-Capitaline. The question is what happened between. What happened towards the end of the 1st century AD and the 2nd century AD? I believe that our finds will enable us to draw a picture of the Temple Mount history of that enigmatic period of time.
Gordon: What do you think are the most important objects found during the sifting project so far, and why are they important?
Goby: First of all, the most important discovery we have is not the finds. I discovered that people are more important than finds. We work with a very, very fine team of people who are very sensitive, very helpful, very good natured people and I’ve witnessed the arrival of 40,000 volunteers who participated in this project. The greatest discovery is the immense interest of the people in archaeology and also from circles who would not come to any other archaeological project but who are drawn by a connection to the Temple Mount. In any case, very devote Christian evangelists, the Jewish ultra-orthodox and Orthodox circle come and participate and sift. They are thrilled to have their hands upon the objects that were in the immediate vicinity or area of the Temple Mount itself and were part of the worship of the Temple. So watching the people, watching their excitement, watching their emotional involvement in our project is one of the greatest discoveries.
We collect in the project everything that was either made by man or used by man or testifies about man’s environment. So we collect seashells and we have them in abundance. We collect animal bones and we have them in abundance and eventually those parts of a general assemblage of materials will be of great importance. Among the bones we have several pig bones, several foxes, and we have all kinds and types of wild animals as well as household animals. We have a large number of burnt bones, especially of sheep and goats. Eventually, in the future, we are not only going to identify the bones but also date them with advanced techniques, such as C-14 data. We are going to have some knowledge about the sacrificial activity upon the Temple Mount.
We have much information about the Islamic periods on the Temple Mount and I would like to stress that. We deal with all the periods of the Temple Mount, from the earliest involvement of mankind in the past of the country and until our own days. We have rich finds from the Arabic period, from the time of the Umayyad Dynasty, the time of the Abbasid Dynasty, the time of the Fatimid Dynasty, time of the Crusaders. We have an abundance and rich collection of Crusader coins minted in Jerusalem and we ought not to forget that the headquarters of the Knights Templar were in the southern quadrant of the Temple Mount where the soil was removed. We have a rich collection of Mamluk and Turkish-Ottoman finds including art objects, gaming pieces, glass objects, coins, jewelry, and an abundance of all kinds of types and finds.
If we go to the most touching piece that we have I would say that I was very much touched by a small piece, about 10 cm in size, of stone which is sculpted in the Herodian style. It has a remnant of a floral or vegetal design, very beautifully and artistically carved out of hard limestone. The piece itself got exfoliated or unpeeled from a building as a result of conflagration at a high temperature. The piece is in the style of the Jewish art of the Herodian Dynasty’s time and is close in style to the facades of sculpted burial caves, and in the style of the decorated ceilings of the Huldah Gate passages underneath the present day Al-Aqsa Mosque. It is beyond any doubt belonging to the time of Herod the Great. At the edge of the object there is a remnant of black soot from the conflagration. Actually, this is a piece which enable us to visualize the great fire in which the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So this is in touch with the destruction of the Temple. I can even suggest that the stone could have come from the Temple itself.
Another piece which is very touching is a piece dating back to the First Temple period, to the time of the Prophet Jeremiah. It is a bulla, a tiny lump of clay which has on the back side of it an imprint of some fabric. It probably was the imprint of a satchel that was tied with a string and upon the knot they put a sealing in order to ensure the contents of the satchel which included silver scraps, the hoard of silver of somebody. The other face of the bulla has the impression of the seal of the owner. The bulla itself was made in the negative, and the impression is made in the positive. Eventually someone opened the satchel and the seal got broken. Nevertheless we have two lines of writing upon it. It says the name “[Ga’]alyahu” and in the second line, which is well-preserved, we have the name “[son of] Immer”. The Immer priestly family and another son of the family by the name Pashchur, son of Imer, is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, chapter twenty, being the man in charge of the Temple. He was the chief clerk in the Temple. He is the man who arrested and tortured the Prophet Jeremiah. The Immer family continues to exist in Jerusalem and we find them in the Post-Exilic period in the Book of Nehemiah (7:40; Ezra 2:37). So through this tiny bulla we have direct regards from the First Temple, from Solomon’s Temple. This is of great importance.
Some other finds which made me especially enthusiastic were some of the coins from the First Revolt against the Romans. Some of the coins of the late First Revolt are found burned, twisted and defaced from the fire, from the conflagration. On the first coin that we found we had the slogan of the Zealots and the people who fought the Romans: “for the freedom of Zion.” It is very touching to see after 2,000 years. Actually, each and every one of the objects that we find: beads, a piece of early Arabic period, or a piece from Turkish-Ottoman decoration that surrounded the Dome of the Rock, the glazed tiles that we have pieces of, a bead remnant that that were left by Christian pilgrims in the past, or some Bronze Age or Iron Age pottery, all is very significant for the history of the Temple Mount.
Gordon: You mentioned earlier that you found some bones from foxes. What is the significant of that?
Goby: The Prophet Micah prophesized that the Temple Mount would be destroyed (3:12), and that was in the 8th century BC. In the 8th century there was a corruption of the priesthood that calls the prophet to have a prophecy, and he prophesized that the Temple Mount would he desolate and that foxes would walk upon it. In the book of Lamentation we have also the fact of foxes upon the Temple Mount (5:18). This of course symbolizes the fact that human activity was not there anymore and the place was desolate. In Talmudic literature we have a semi-legendary story of Rabbi Akiva, one of the most influential people in Judaism in general (Tractate Makkoth 24b). Akiva, the son of Joseph, one of the greatest among the sages, is said to have visited Jerusalem after its destruction. He lived in the 2nd century of the Common Era and was executed by the Romans in Caesarea. He is said to have visited the Temple and it said that there he watched a fox come out of the place where the Holy of Holies stood. Of course, he regarded it as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah and maybe the fox we have is the very one he had seen when he came there in the 2nd century.
Gordon: Thank you very much Goby.
This article first appeared in the Winter 2009 issue of Bible and Spade. Vol. 22, no. 1, pages 3-8.
-
Jerusalem Comments Off on PICTURE POST CARDS FROM THE PSALMISTS
By Gordon Franz
Introduction
Most Bible believers who live outside the Land of Israel may read Psalm 125:2, “As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds His people from this time forth and forever,” and think, “Humm, that’s a comforting and encouraging passage. The Lord surrounds His people. He protects us and watches over us forever.” Yet they may not fully appreciate the word picture used by the psalmist in the first part of the verse.
The ABR sifters had the privilege of being guided through the City of David excavations by Aran Yardeni, an archaeological staff member of the TMSP and a graduate of Bar Ilan University. We started at an overview of the City of David on the top of a house situated only meters from where David’s palace once stood (Mazar 2007:52-66). As we read Psalm 125 we looked to the east and saw the range of the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4), the southern spur being called the Hill of Corruption (II Kings 23:13). To the north, we observed Mount Zion, also called Mount Moriah or the Mountain of the LORD (Psalm 48:1, 2; II Chron. 3:1; Micah 4:2). To the west was the Western Hill called the Mishnah in the Hebrew Bible, and usually translated into English as the “Second Quarter” (Zeph. 1:10; Jer. 31:39; II Kings 22:14). Finally, to the south of the city, off in the distance, was the Hill of Evil Counsel. Today the United Nations headquarters for the Middle East is situated on this ridge!
The psalmist composed this psalm in the City of David and literally saw the mountains surrounding Jerusalem and used this word picture to convey a dynamic and powerful spiritual truth; the Lord surrounds His people forever! What an impact that had on each of the sifters.
Hebrew Hymnbook for the Temple
The book of Psalms was the Hebrew Hymnbook for both the First and Second Temple and is still used in the synagogues today. Each psalm was composed by a real people, who were experiencing real events in real places. This article will present some of those places and put the psalm in its historical context.
Beautiful in elevation – Psalm 48:2
A popular song in Evangelical circles is based on Psalm 48. You know the one: “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised …” After touring the City of David, a person will never sing this song the same way again. On the tours of the City of David that I guide, after walking through Hezekiah’s tunnel and visiting the Pool of Siloam, I usually start walking back up the steep road to the Dung Gate at a very brisk pace. I wait until somebody in the group “complains” and says, “Stop, slow down, this is such a steep hill to climb!” At that point I stop and read Psalm 48 to the group. Verse 2 says, “Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth; Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the Great King.” From the Pool of Siloam to the top of the Temple Mount is a 106 meters elevation change. Mount Zion was on the north side of the City of David”.
The psalmist, one of the “Sons of Korah,” probably lived in the City of David. He would, on occasion, walk up the hill from his house to Mount Zion, the City of the Great King, in order to minister in the Temple. It was with joy that he took this strenuous walk because he knew he was going to the place where the LORD resided. Thus he described this elevation as “beautiful.” Fortunately for the ABR sifters, Aran arranged for a bus to drive us up the beautiful elevation!
A City Compact together – Psalm 122:3
The City of David looks like an elongated tongue protruding from the Temple Mount. In antiquity, there were houses built on terraces on the slopes of the city. It seems that houses were practically built one on top of the other. This is reflected in the words of Psalm 122: “Jerusalem is built as a city that is compact together” (v. 3). Dr. Yigael Shiloh, the former excavator of the City of David, used to tell his volunteers that excavated with him, “If you want to know what the Cityof David looked like ‘compact together,’ look across the Kidron Valley to the Silwan Village. It too is built on a slope and the houses appear to be built one on top of the other.”
At Home in Death – Psalm 49:11
One afternoon we visited the excavations at Ketef Hinnom below the St. Andrew’s Scottish Presbyterian Church. Here we studied a series of burial caves from the time of the Judean Monarchy. One cave in particular was of interest because the two oldest Biblical texts were discovered there in 1979 (Franz 2005:53-59). When we visited the City of David two days before, we noticed a house in Area G that was built following the pattern of typical Israel four-room house. Interestingly, the pattern of the burial cave is similar. After I pointed out the similarities between the house and the burial cave, I read Psalm 49:11: “Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever, Their dwelling places to all generations.”
In this psalm, the wealthy materialistic person at the end of the 8th century BC knew that their earthly dwelling place would one-day collapse because it was made of stone, mudbrick, wooden beams and a dried mud roof with grass on top. This person desired to “live eternally” in his earthly body (Ps. 49:9), yet reality told him otherwise. Desiring a more permanent dwelling, knowing that one-day death would be the end results, a burial cave was hewn out of the rocky escarpment outside the city and was patterned after his earthly house. He wanted to feel “at home in death!” (Franz 2005: 59).
By contrast, the psalmist puts materialism in its proper perspective when he concludes the psalm by saying, “But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave (Sheol), for He shall receive me. Selah. Do not be afraid when one becomes rich, when the glory of his house is increased; for when he dies he shall carry nothing away; his glory shall not descend after him. Though while he lives he blesses himself (for men will praise you when you do well for yourself), he shall go to the generation of his fathers; they shall never see light. Man who is in honor, yet does not understand, is like the beasts that perish” (Psalm 49:15-20).
Cave of Adullam – Psalm 57
After David feigned madness in Gath of the Philistines and fled through the Elah Valley, he hid in a cave at Adullam with 400 of his family and friends (I Sam. 22:1, 2). On another occasion, David was in the cave while the Philistines were occupying his hometown of Bethlehem. David wanted a drink of water from the well of the city, so three of his mighty men fetched him some water. When they returned, David poured out the water before the Lord (I Chron. 11:15-19). Perhaps on one of these occasions David composed Psalm 57. While the superscription of the psalm does not say when this occurred or which cave David was in, the psalm follows Psalm 56 which was written when David was captured in Gath (I Sam. 21:10-15). The order of the psalms seems to hint that it was written when David fled from Saul and hid in the cave of Adullam.
Green Grass in the Wilderness – Psalm 103:15-18
David composed a beautiful psalm extolling the character and attributes of God (Ps 103) in which he contrasts the unchangeable and eternal God with humans that are like grass and flowers. In verses 15-18 David draws on his experiences in the Judean desert. During the winter months, the desert is green with grass and there are an abundance of flowers if it was a good rainy season. Soon after Passover, the hot, dry Hamsin winds come off the Arabian Desert and scorch the grass and flowers so they wither away. David sang, “As for man, his days are like grass, as a flower of the field, so he flourishes. For the [Hamsin] wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting”. The Prophet Isaiah makes a similar analogy, but he contrasts the shortness of life with the eternality of the Word of God (40:6-8).
When we went on our Dead Sea Field Trip in June the Judean Desert was dry, brown and desolate. There was not a blade of green grass, or a single flower to be seen! Some of the sifters questions what I said about the grass and flowers. Fortunately our tour hostess, Stephanie, had visited Israel in the springtime a few years earlier and was able to vouch for this phenomenon.
The summer months are the setting for another psalm composed by David when he was in the Wilderness of Judah. He wrote: “O God, You are my God; early will I seek You; my soul thirsts for You; my flesh longs for You in a dry and thirsty land where there is no water” (63:1).
Masada and the Psalms
I should preface my comments about the passages on Masada in the psalms by recounting a story. While teaching at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, I was invited to speak to a Christian tour group in one of the local hotels. The tour host never took his groups to Masada because, as he put it, “The site is post-resurrection [of Jesus], thus unimportant.” One elderly lady in the group asked me quite piously and condescendingly, “You don’t take your groups to Masada, do you?” I knew where that question was coming from. I smiled and said, “Of course I do, it’s a very important Biblical site. King David visited the site on at least three occasions and composed several psalms that mention Masada!” The shocked look on her face was one of those priceless Kodak moments! J She told the group leader of our conversation. He examined the passages and from that point on, he took his groups to Masada.
The word “Masada” in the Hebrew Bible is generally translated “stronghold” or “fortress” in the English Bibles. David visited the site on at least three occasions. The first time he saw it was when he was fleeing from Saul. After his family joined him in the cave of Adullam (I Sam. 22:1, 2), David decided to take them to the Land of Moab and ask the king of Moab to let them stay under his protection in his land. David and his entourage would have gone past Masada as they forded the Dead Sea at the Lisan (“tongue”).
As David passed by, he would have noted the strategic and military value of Masada. The mountain plateau was situated 360 meters above the plain floor on the southeastern edge of the Wilderness of Judah, opposite the Lisan of the Dead Sea. Strategically, from the top of the site, David would have a commanding view of the Dead Sea region and the eastern slopes of the Wilderness of Judah. If there was any large troop movement by Saul, or even the Philistines, he could quickly escape across the Lisan to Moab. Militarily, he also noticed the site had steep sides all around it with only one accessible path to the top on the eastern side of the mountain, today called the “Snake Path.” It was easily defensible from any attackers because of its elevation and the single path to the top. The defenders on top could easily roll down boulders of rocks to stop any attackers.
David made good on his observations and stayed at the “stronghold” (Masada) after he left his parents in Moab. As long as there was water on top of the mountain, David felt safe and secure and did not want to leave. It was not until the prophet Gad came and told David to leave, that he left for the Forest of Hereth in the Land of Judah (I Sam. 22:4, 5).
The second time David and his men went to Masada was after he spared Saul’s life at Ein Gedi. The Bible says, “And Saul went home, and David and his men went up to the stronghold” (I Sam. 24:22). Here was the “parting of the ways” between Saul and David. Saul goes northwest, back to his palace at Gibeah of Saul, and David goes south to the stronghold situated 18 km to the south of Ein Gedi.
The third time we know of David at Masada is after he was anointed king of all Israel in Hebron. The Bible says, “All the Philistines went up to search for David. And David heard of it and went down to the stronghold” (II Sam. 5:17). Notice the topographical indicators in this passage. Hebron (Tel Rumeida) is situated 944 meters above sea level. The base of Masada is 300 meters below sea level. David literally went down to Masada.
Masada was extensively excavated by Professor Yigael Yadin in the early 1960’s. Most of the excavations concentrated on the Early Roman period remains built by Herod the Great and used by the defenders at the end of the First Jewish Revolt in AD 73. Yadin, however, also found 10th century BC, Iron Age pottery scattered on the surface (1966:202). Perhaps some of the 10th century pottery was left by David and his men.
David composed at least four psalms in which he mentions Masada. The first psalm is Psalm 18. This psalm was written on the “day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul” (18: superscription). In it he sings, “I will love You, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock and my fortress (Masada) and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (lit. “high tower”)” (18:1, 2).
The second psalm is Psalm 31. Again David sings, “In You, O LORD, I put my trust; Let me never be ashamed; Deliver me in your righteousness. Bow down Your ear to me, Deliver me speedily; Be my rock of refuge, a fortress (Masada) of defense to save me. For you are my rock and my fortress (Masada); Therefore, for Your name’s sake, Lead me and guide me” (31:1-3).
The Hebrew word “Masada” is also used in Psalm 66:11 and is translated into English as “net” (NKJV; NASB) or “prison” (NIV).
The third psalm that uses Masada is Psalm 71. It is uninscribed, but most likely written by David. In it he sings: “In You, O LORD, I put my trust; Let me never be put to shame. … Be my strong refuge, To which I may resort continually; You have given the commandment to save me, For you are my rock and my fortress (Masada)” (71:1, 3).
The fourth psalm composed by David that mentioned Masada is Psalm 144. In this psalm he sang: “Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle – My loving-kindness and my fortress (Masada), My high tower and my deliverer, My shield and the One in whom I take refuge, Who subdues my people under me” (144:1, 2).
One other psalm mentions a “stronghold.” Psalm 91 is uninscribed, but some commentators attribute it to Moses and suggest it is a continuation of Psalm 90. The superscription of that psalm says: “A Prayer of Moses the man of God.” In Psalm 91 it starts out: “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress (Masada), My God, in Him I will trust” (91:1, 2).
This would have been a psalm David knew by heart. He understood theologically that the LORD was his fortress / stronghold and his trust was in God. Perhaps when he saw Masada for the first time, it reminded him of the Lord. After staying there on several occasions, he came to realize, as secure as this rocky plateau may seem, the Lord truly was his Masada!
The Ein Gedi Cave and Ibex
Another stop on our Dead Sea Field Trip was the overlook at the Ein Gedi Field School. There was a great view of the waterfall in the Nahal David, the spring and tel of Ein Gedi and the ancient terraces on the slopes of the mountains. Somewhere in the area, David hid in a cave when he fled from King Saul (I Sam. 24). Psalm 142 was composed “in a cave”. This might have been the context of this psalm.
The name Ein Gedi means the “spring of the young goat.” Whether it is the domesticated goat or the ibex, the mountain goat, is unclear. David mentions them in Psalm 104:18, as does Job (39:1). Ein Gedi is a nature reserve so the animals are protected, so we were fortunate to see a few ibex “up close and personal’.
Casting Our Sins into the Dead Sea
The prophet Micah admonished the people of Israel to “cast all our sins into the depth of the sea” (7:19-20). The word-picture that Micah has in view is the sacrifice in the Temple. The priest would offer a sacrifice for a person, but the blood of the sacrifice could only “atone” (cover) for the sins of the offerer, but it could never take the sins away. From the Temple Mount, the blood was washed down a pipe into the Kidron Valley and this blood mingled with the water as it flowed through the Wilderness of Judah to the Dead Sea. This sea is the deepest surface of water anywhere on the face of the earth, some 400 meters below sea level. It is also the saltiest body of water and nothing lives in it.
In the Temple economy, sins were covered (“atoned for”) but never taken away. That is why the offerer had to offer a new offering each time he fell into sin. Yet when the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in human flesh, died on the Cross, He paid for all the sins of all humanity (I John 2:2) and there is no need for any more sacrifices (Heb. 10:1-18). God has forgiven, and forgotten, all the sins of those who put their trust in His Son. The prophet Jeremiah proclaimed the New Covenant that was made with the House of Israel and Judah, and by extension, those in the Church. In it, God proclaimed that the “sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34; quoted also in Heb. 8:12 and 10:17).
What the prophet Micah is saying is this: based on the mercy of God, our sins are cast into the depth of the [Dead] Sea. What God has forgiven, God has forgotten. God does not want His children to go fishing for something that does not exist (our sins)! We can thank the Lord Jesus for paying for all our sins and be assured of the promise of God, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to [continually] cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).
Summing Up the Field Trips
One of the sifters, Paula Owen, commented that this trip was: “An incredible journey of a lifetime – that would be the bottom line description of the TMSP!! I can truly say that never have I learned so many valuable Biblical facts at one time, as I did on this trip!! By Day #2 my brain went to the overload mode in the pure excitement and pleasure of this archaeological adventure. It was so overwhelming!”
The history, archaeology and geography of the Land of the Bible can enrich ones reading of the Word of God. The psalms were written by real people, experiencing real events in real places. To see the psalms in their context could enhance our worship of the Lord God.
We took the words of Psalm 48 to heart and acted upon them. “Walk about Zion, and go all around her. Count her towers; mark well her bulwarks; consider her palaces; that you may tell it to the generation following” (48:12, 13). I trust the background information and the spiritual truths learned by each sifter will be passed on to other people, and thus, another generation.
Bibliography
Franz, Gordon
2002 “At Home in Death”: An Archaeological Exposition of Psalm 49:11. Bible and Spade 15/3: 85-91.
2005 “Remember, Archaeology is NOT a Treasure Hunt!” Bible and Spade 18/2: 53-59.
2007 Archaeology, Assyrian Reliefs and the Psalms of the Sons of Korah. Bible and Spade 20/1: 13-24.
Mazar, Eilat
2007 Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area. Jerusalem and New York: Shalem.
Yadin, Yigael
1966 Masada. Herods Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand. Jerusalem: Steimatzky. Reprinted 1984.
This article appeared in the Winter 2009 issue of Bible and Spade, vol. 22, no. 1, pages 14-19.
-
Prophecy Comments Off on WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 1
By Gordon Franz
In the ongoing Rapture Debate, one of the points the Preterists love to attack the proponents of the Pre Trib Rapture is the identification of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 (DeMar 2001:115-130). The Preterist propose the Babylon was Jerusalem and they see the fulfillment of these passages in the destruction of the city in AD 70.
In 1999 I gave a paper at the annual meeting of the Pre-Trib Research Center entitled, “The Preterist View of Jerusalem: Are the “Fulfillments” Historically Accurate?” In the paper, I agreed with the Preterists on the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem. However, I strongly disagreed with their dating of the fulfillment. I sent John Noe, the president of the Prophecy Reformation Institute and a leading preterist, a copy of my paper. He found the paper interesting and commented, “I think you may be on your way to becoming a preterist.” (Personal letter to author, Feb. 11, 2000). I encouraged Mr. Noe to, “not hold your breath on me becoming a preterist. The more I read preterist literature, the more historical problems I see with the position!” (Personal letter to Mr. Noe, Feb. 24, 2000).
I believe we can agree with the Preterist on the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem, however, we must categorically reject their claims that the prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70. This chapter will demonstrate that there is no credible historical evidence to show that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled Bible prophecy the way the Preterist claim.
Dr. Toussaint gave a paper at the 1995 Pre Trib meeting entitled “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse”. In the Q & A session, someone asked if there was a good book that refuted the preterist position from a historical perspective. The questioner observed that the Preterists were “historical revisionists” who took history and made it fit their viewpoint. When no book was mentioned, he went on to challenge one of the “history buffs [in the group] to dig into it.” Having worked on archaeological excavations, I like to dig, so I accepted the challenge. This chapter is the part of the fruit of that challenge.
The subject of Jerusalem is near and dear to my heart. I have lived, on and off, in the City of the Great King for over 20 years guiding field trips, working on excavations in and around Jerusalem, and ministering in one of the local assemblies. I am confident that I have a good working knowledge of the history and archaeology of that great city. So let’s “dig into the subject.”
Before we do, I need to make a few preliminary remarks. It has been my objective to read the Preterist material and let them speak for themselves. I do not want to know what we think they say; I want to know what they say!
The questioner on the tape referred to the preterists as “historical revisionists”, a remark I would give a hearty “Amen!” to. It has been my observation that the preterists have a very vivid imagination when it comes to taking historical facts and twisting them to fit the Biblical text.
I must also confess, at first I was very intimidated by their bitter sarcasm and name-calling. But the more of their material I read, the more I become convinced they are wrong. We “Pre-Trib-er’s” have no need to be intimidated by their position. If one sits down with an open Bible, a good translation of Josephus, and reads the Preterist material carefully (by checking the footnotes and comparing what the proponents say, with what the Bible and Josephus say), one will see that the Preterist view does not have any historical justification.
I talked with Edward Stevens and John Noe, two leading proponents of preterism, at the 1999 Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Boston. One of my questions was “What is the best Preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation?” In unison, both responded, “David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance.” In this paper, I would like to focus my attention on this commentary.
I would also like to make one comment about the Pre-Trib position. The biggest problem with the Pre-Trib position is NOT the exegesis of the text, but the eisegesis of the text (reading into the text, that which does not belong there) by the date setters and sensationalists! I was struck by the similarities between the eisegesis of the Preterist on the one hand and that of the sensationalists and date setters within the Pre-Trib position on the other.
The Preterist View
The Preterist view has been defined as that view which “holds that the book of Revelation was mostly fulfilled in the first century with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Thus, most of the aspects (such as the Beast, the Great Tribulation, the fall of Babylon, and Armageddon) have already occurred” (Balyeat 1991:226). Within the Preterist camp, there are two positions, the Full Preterist position and the Partial Preterist position. R. C. Sproul, a Partial Preterist, calls the Full Preterist position “radical preterism” because “all future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled” (1998:24). Chilton would call them “consistent preterists” (1987:264). Sproul would call himself a “moderate preterist” because “many future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled. Some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled” (1998:24). R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary De Mar, and others champion the partial preterist position. John Noe, Edward Stevens, David Chilton right before his death, espouses the Full Preterist view. When I talked with Stevens and Noe at the ETS meeting, they said that Sproul and DeMar are heading toward the Full Preterist position, but Gentry is not. The Full Preterist position is making inroads into the theological world and the Pre-Tribulation position is beginning to respond to the position.
One of the key tenets of the Preterist position is that the Babylon mentioned in the Book of Revelation is Jerusalem of AD 70. They would say that the judgment that was poured out on this Babylon was fulfilled with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. Kenneth Gentry summarizes the evidence for Jerusalem as being the Harlot Babylon in a footnote in his book, Before Jerusalem Fell. “(1) Both are called ‘the great city’ (Rev. 14:8; 11:8). (2) The Harlot is filled with the blood of the saints (cp. Rev. 16:6; 17:6; 18:21,24; with Matt. 23:34-38; Luke 13:33; Acts 7:51-52). (3) Jerusalem had previously been called by pagan names quite compatible with the designation ‘Babylon’ (cp. Rev. 14:8 and 17:5 with 11:8). (4) Rome could not fornicate against God, for only Jerusalem was God’s wife (Rev. 17:2-5, cp. Isa. 1:20; Jer. 31:31). (5) There is an obvious contrast between the Harlot and the chaste bride (cp. Rev. 17:2-5 with Rev. 21:1ff) that suggests a contrast with the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above (Rev. 21:2; cp. Gal. 4:24ff.; Heb. 12:18ff.). The fact that the Harlot is seated on the seven-headed Beast (obviously representative of Rome) indicates not identity with Rome, but alliance with Rome against Christianity (cp. Matt. 23:37ff.; John 19:6-16; Acts 17:7)” (1998:240,241, footnote 26). In the preface of the new edition he expands on these ideas (1998:liv-lxvi). There are other studies that elaborate on this subject (Ford 1975; Balyeat 1991; Preston 1999; Davies 2000; Holford 2001).
The Dating of Revelation
Another key tenet of Preterism is dating the Book of Revelation to before AD 70. The strongest defense for the pre-AD 70 date in recent years has been by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. entitled Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation (1998, Revised Edition). This book is a reworking of his doctoral dissertation from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.
Most Preterists believe that the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation predict the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. If this is the case, than the Book of Revelation has to be written before the destruction of the city. If, on the other hand, it was written during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 95) than their whole scenario of the destruction of Jerusalem falls apart. Gentry recognizes this when he reviewed Chilton’s commentary on Revelation. He says, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in smoke” (1987:11). In his own book he states, “If the book was written two and one-half decades after the destruction of the Temple, however, then the prophecies are necessarily open to an extrapolation into the distant future, and to the exclusion of the important events of AD 67-70. Hence, the whole bearing of Revelation on New Testament eschatology may well be altered by the determination of the matter before us” (Gentry 1998:21).
It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the date of the book of Revelation. The reader is invited to read Mark Hitchcock’s chapter in this volume. I have not been convinced by Gentry’s arguments for the pre-AD 70 date of the book of Revelation, called the “early date”. I believe the best evidence points to the writing of the book during the reign of Emperor Domitian about AD 95, called the “late date” (Thomas 1994). I will, however, make a few observations about the “early date” for Revelation.
The Acts of John
Gentry comes up with an interesting scenario to get around the writer of the apocryphal The Acts of John clear statement that John wrote the book of Revelation on Patmos during Domitian’s reign. He acknowledges a Domitianic exile, but suggests that “the rationale for the exile is suggestive of a prior publication of Revelation. It could be that John was banished twice, once under Nero and later under Domitian (which would explain the two traditions of a Neronic and Domitianic exile)” (1998:100). He then gives selective quotes from The Acts of John to show that Revelation was written earlier. Let’s look at the account.
“And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another.” It should be noted that there is no reference to the book of Revelation in this passage. The sayings could well have been from the oral teachings of John that made it to Rome. After all, Rome was at the other end of the Ephesus – Rome maritime trade route. The teachings of John would have been based on the Old Testament prophets and the parables and discourses of the Lord Jesus. Gentry proceeds to leave out a very important part of the passage. The text goes on to say when John arrives in Rome, Domitian asks him about his teachings. “Art thou John who said that my kingdom would speedily be uprooted, and that another king, Jesus, was going to reign instead of me? And John answered and said to him: Thou also shalt reign for many years given thee by God, and after thee very many others; and when the times of the things upon earth has been fulfilled, out of heaven shall come a King, eternal, true, Judge of living and dead, to whom every nation and tribe shall confess, through whom every earthly power and dominion shall be brought to nothing, and every mouth speaking great things shall be shut. This is the mighty Lord and King of everything that hath breath and flesh, the Word and Son of the living One, who is Jesus Christ.” It is obvious why Gentry does not quote this part. It sounds pretty futuristic to me! After John demonstrates his power by drinking deadly poison [cf. Mark 16:18], and raising a couple of people from the dead, Domitian banishes him to an island. The last part of Gentry’s quote is, “And Domitian, astonished at all the wonders, sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time. And straightway John sailed to Patmos.” Unfortunately for Gentry, the sentence does not end there. It goes on to say, “where also he was deemed worthy to see the revelation of the end” (ANF 8:560-562). The Acts of John clearly support the “late date” for the writing of Revelation and a futuristic view of prophecy, not the fulfillment in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet Gentry seems to be selective in his quotes to prove his point.
The Seven Stars on the Coins of the Emperors
Chilton comments on the phrase “In His right hand He held seven stars” in Revelation 1:16. “The symbolic use of seven stars was quite well known in the first century, for the seven stars appeared regularly on the Emperor’s coins as a symbol of his supreme political sovereignty. At least some early readers of Revelation must have gasped in amazement at St. John’s audacity in stating that the seven stars were in Christ’s hand. The Roman emperors had appropriated to themselves a symbol of dominion that the Bible reserves for God alone – and, St. John is saying, Jesus Christ has come to take it back. The seven stars, and with them all things in creation, belong to Him. Dominion resides in the right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1987:75.76).
Chilton is generally very good at documenting his statements with reliable sources. Most serious preterist works abound with footnotes. This is very helpful for readers to follow up on the writer’s statements. However, this statement is not footnoted at all. A few points should be clarified. First, the coins of emperors with seven stars on them did not appear regularly until the end of the first century and beginning of the second century AD. Second, the stars on coins generally symbolize the “idea of divinity or of mortals who have joined the stars, as it were, and become gods” (Jones 1990:297). The idea of sovereignty comes from a coin of Emperor Domitian’s deceased and deified son sitting on a globe (representative of the earth) reaching for the seven stars (Franz 1999:47-49; Janzen 1994:644-647). Third, Chilton also has a problem with the dating of the seven star coins. The first seven star coins that were minted during the Imperial period were struck on the island of Crete during the reigns of Caligula (AD 37-41) and Claudius (AD 41-54) and Nero (AD 54-68). For pictures, see Plates 54 and 55, coins 963 – 970, 974, 975; Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles 1992:1/2). A monumental work on Roman provincial coins states the seven stars “represent the Septentriones, the Great Bear; this constellation had a particular connection with Crete as the nurses of Zeus, Helice and Kynosoura, were placed in the heavens as the Great and Little Bear. Therefore the seven stars linked with the cult image of Augustus brought him into a close relationship with Zeus Cretagenes” (Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles 1992:1/1: 230). These coins, however, were for “local circulation” and were not widely circulated off the island of Crete (1992:1/1: 231). It is doubtful most people in the Roman world would have been aware of these coins.
A second coin was struck in Spain and Gaul during the Civil War (AD 68-70). According to Chilton, after the book of Revelation was written. This denarii coin, of the “Divvs Augustus” type, had a crescent and seven stars on the reverse side with Augustus on the obverse side (Sutherland 1984:211, no. 95). It was observed by Sutherland that “the stars and crescent of no. 95 … are borrowed from Republican times” (1984:200). What the meaning of the seven stars in the Republican period is unclear, but at that time, there were seven known planets and some have suggested that the stars represented the planets and the crescent the moon.
Most of the seven star coins come from the end of the first century AD. The coin of Domitian with his son sitting on the globe with his hand stretched out to the seven stars is unique (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:179, no. 209A, Plate V: 86). Others coins with the seven stars and the crescent were struck during the reign of Trajan (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:307, no. 785) as well as Hadrian in the year AD 119 (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:362, no. 202; 381, no. 358; 434, no. 731). Mattingly and Sydenham, two numismatics experts, interpret the seven stars and crescent as “natural symbols of immortality in an age which sought immortality in the stars. It is probably the memory of Trajan that is here honoured. The seven stars of the second type may be purely conventional – a representation of the ‘Septenttiones’, the seven stars of the Great Bear” (1926:324). The argument of the seven stars better fits the “late date” for the Book of Revelation, not the Nero date.
Historical Fulfillment?
Under the subtitle “The Ease of Application to the Jewish Wars”, Gentry notes that “much of Revelation’s vivid imagery lends itself admirably to the catastrophic events of the Jewish War” (1998:239). He ends the paragraph with the statement, “But, with a number of the distinctive elements, there are simply too many converging lines of evidence pointing to the Jewish Wars to allow for this argument’s hasty a priori dismissal” (1998:239). Is this really the case, or can we dismiss the “fulfillments” as historically inaccurate?
Before we look at the “historical fulfillments” we should consider Josephus and his writings. First, Josephus is a reliable witness to the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. He was born into a priestly family on his father’s side and the royal Hasmonean family on his mother’s side (Life 1,2; LCL 1:3). He was raised in the city of Jerusalem. He knew the geography and buildings of the city well and it is reflected in his writings. After he pulled his “Benedict Arnold” routine at Yotapata in Galilee, he became the historian of the Flavian family, which included the soon-to-be emperor Vespasian and his son, Titus. Josephus was also an eyewitness to the fall of Jerusalem with a very good vantage-point, sitting in the tent of Titus Caesar! One should also acknowledge his bias. At certain points Josephus tries to justify his actions that might be seen by his Jewish readers in a negative light. Many Jews would ask why did he not commit suicide after convincing his fellow countrymen to do so after the fall of Yotapata? In addition, he was a beneficiary of the Flavian family (Emperor Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian). He also received Roman citizenship from Vespasian as well as compensation for his land in Jerusalem by Titus. He had a privileged position in Rome (Life 422, 423; LCL 1:155).
Second, the references to the book, chapter, section, paragraphs, and verses of Josephus’ works can sometimes be confusing. It is my observation that most Preterist (and most evangelicals for that matter) use the William Whiston edition of The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus. Within the scholarly community, however, most use the ten volumes, Greek and English, Loeb Classical Library edition (LCL). The numbering system between the two editions can be confusing. Fortunately for the user there is a very helpful tool for cross-referencing these works. In 1984, H. Douglas Buckwalter and Mary Keil compiled a Guide to the Reference Systems for the Works of Flavius Josephus for the Department of Theological Studies at the Wheaton Graduate School. It was recently published in the ETS monograph series (1995). In this paper, I will use the Loeb Classical Library reference numbers and translation.
The Third Seal (Rev. 6:5,6)
The Third Seal describes a man riding a black horse and holding a pair of scales in his hands. A voice says, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and wine.” The Preterist sees this as the famine that resulted from the siege of Jerusalem prior to its destruction. Several passages from Josephus are quoted in attempt to prove their point (Gentry 1999:243, footnote 35; Chilton 1987:189-191). This judgment does describe a famine, but what causes the famine? The answer lies in the phrase “do not harm the oil and wine.” M. Ford in the Anchor Bible commentary on Revelation as attributing the warning to an order from Titus not to disturb the olive groves and vineyards (1987:191, footnote 15; Ford 1975:107). Ford is actually quoting a French book but gives no primary source for the statement. Gentry suggests that the phrase “may even be that the reference to ‘the oil and the wine’ finds expression in the adulteration of the sacred oil and wine by the Jews themselves; Wars 5:13:6″ (1999:243, footnote 33).
I believe that the proper understanding of the phrase “spare the oil and wine” is found in an event recorded in I Sam. 12. Heavy rains during the wheat harvest would bring disaster for the wheat farmer. The context of I Sam 12 is the nation of Israel’s call for a king “like the other nations” and the rejection of the LORD as King. “Is today not the wheat harvest? I (Samuel) will call to the LORD, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking for a king for yourselves” (12:17). The people cried out, “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die…” (12:19).
People do not die from thunder and rain! However, as Nogah Hareuveni of Neot Kedumim, the Biblical Gardens in Israel, has pointed out, “The ripe, heavy-eared wheat can suffer from a downpour not only through physical damage from the force of the wind-driven rain, but also by rotting from the sudden moisture combined with the high temperatures that prevail in Israel by Shavuot (in late May – early June). This interpretation explains why the Israelites cried out to Samuel to ‘pray … to save us from death’ (I Sam. 12:19) – from death by starvation that would follow the destruction of the grain crop” (1988:25). Mildew is one of the results of disobedience to the Word of God (Deut. 28:22; I Kings 8:28 // II Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9; Hag. 2:17; Boronski 1987:158-160).
I experienced such a phenomenon in June of 1992. For two days, Israel was hit with heavy rains during the wheat harvest and the wheat was devastated by mildew. Ironically, it was right before the national elections when people were crying out “Itzhaq, melek Yisrael! Itzhaq, melek Yisrael” (Itzhaq, king of Israel) at their election rallies!
The third seal judgment is an untimely rainstorm during the wheat harvest that destroys a great portion of the crop in Israel and the rest of the Mediterranean world. The demand for wheat, plus the shortage in supply, will lead to higher prices for all. The olive trees and grapevines, the “oil and wine”, will not be affected by this rainstorm because they will have already been pollinated. In fact, the water might even help them. Thus giving oil and wine for all, rich and poor alike (Franz 2000: 9-11).
-
Prophecy Comments Off on WAS “BABYLON” DESTROYED WHEN JERUSALEM FELL IN AD 70? – part 2
By Gordon Franz
The First Trumpet (Rev. 8:7)
John describes the first trumpet judgment as, “The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up” (8:7).
Chilton interprets this passage by saying, “St. John sees hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown onto the Land. The blood of the slain witnesses [I assume the martyrs of the fifth seal, Rev. 6:9-11] is mixed with the fire from the altar, bringing wrath down upon the persecutors. The result of the curse … is the burning of a third of the Land and a third of the trees, and all the green grass (i.e., all the grass on a third of the Land; cf. 9:4). If the trees and grass represent the elect remnant (as they seem to in 7:3 and 9:4), this indicates that they are not exempt from physical suffering and death as God’s wrath is visited upon the wicked” (1987:236).
Several observations should be made at this point. First, Chilton does not indicate if the hail is literal or not. If it is not literal, he does not identify what the hail represents. Later in his book he identifies the hail as something other than hailstones (1987: 417,418). Second, Chilton makes a qualifying statement, “if the trees and grass represents the elect remnant” and then refers to two passages elsewhere in the book of Revelation. Do the trees and grass represent the elect remnant? Rev. 7:3 makes a distinction between the earth, sea and trees and the “servants of our God.” The Apostle John uses the word “and” to distinguish the trees from the servants. In Rev. 9:4 the demonic “locusts” were commanded not to harm the grass and trees but “only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.” In an actual locust plague, the locusts would eat vegetation (i.e. grass or leaves of trees) not attack human beings. In the case of the demonic “locusts” they were not to attack vegetation but human beings and in particular, those who did not have the seal of God. In either case the grass and trees do not represent the elect remnant.
Chilton tries to find a literal fulfillment during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. He says, “Literally, the vegetation of Judea, and especially of Jerusalem, would be destroyed in the Roman scorched-earth methods of warfare” (1987:237). He then quotes a passage from Wars 6:6-8 describing the desolation of Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside caused by the war. What Chilton does not say is why the Romans cut down the trees. The passage before the one quoted by Chilton says, “The Romans, meanwhile, though sorely harassed in the collection of timbers, had completed their earthworks in one and twenty days, having, already stated, cleared the whole district around the town to a distance of ninety furlongs” (Wars 6:5: LCL 3:379). Elsewhere Josephus says “the trees were felled and the suburbs rapidly stripped; but while the timber was being collected for the earthworks and the whole army busily engaged in the work, the Jews on their side were not inactive” (Wars 5:263,264; LCL 3:283). Later on, Josephus writes, “though timber was now procured with difficulty [for the erection of earth-works]; for, all the trees round the city having been felled for the previous works, the troops had to collect fresh material from a distance of ninety furlong” (Wars 5:522,523; LCL 3:363). The Romans cut down the wood in order to use it to build earthworks for its siege of Jerusalem, not to burn as a “scorched earth” policy.
This conclusion is in marked contrast with the prediction by John of the first trumpet judgment, “a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up” as a result of hail and fire, mixed with blood thrown to earth (apparently from heaven). The first trumpet was not literally fulfilled in AD 70.
The Second Trumpet (Rev. 8:8,9)
In the second trumpet judgment, John sees a great mountain burning with fire thrown into the sea and a third of the sea became blood and a third of the sea creatures died. Also a third of the ships were destroyed.
Chilton identifies the mountain as the nation of Israel because they are “the mountain of God’s inheritance” (Ex. 15:17) (1987:238). A careful reading of Ex. 15:17 shows that Israel is separate from the mountain. “You [the LORD] will bring them [Your people = Israel, of verse 16] in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which You have made for Your own dwelling. The sanctuary, O LORD, which Your hands have established.” The mountain, in the context, is Mt. Zion in Jerusalem where God would eventually dwell (Ps. 48).
Chilton does not interpret the sea becoming blood or the sea creatures dying, or the ships being destroyed. It would be better to see this “burning mountain” as a volcano somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea during the Tribulation period. The descriptions that follow, the sea turning to blood, sea creatures dying and the ships destroyed, are known phenomenona connected with volcanic activity (Bent 1888:817).
The Sixth Trumpet (Rev. 9:13-21)
The sixth trumpet judgment begins with the sixth angel releasing four angels that are bound at the Euphrates River. Their job was to kill one third of mankind. The army lead by the angels had “myriads of myriads” horsemen. The NASB and the NKJV give the number as “two hundred million” horsemen. Chilton argues that the number “simply means many thousands, and indicates a vast host that is to be thought of in connection with the Lord’s angelic army of thousands upon thousands of chariots” (1987:251). Yet he goes on to say, “as it actually worked out in history, the Jewish rebellion in reaction to the ‘locust plague’ of Gessius Florus during the summer of 66 provoked Cestius’ invasion of Palestine in the fall, with large numbers of mounted troops from the regions near the Euphrates (although the main point of St. John’s reference is the symbolic significance of the river in Biblical history and prophecy)” (1987:252). He cites Josephus, Wars ii.xviii.9-xix.7 (2:499-545, LCL 2:517-535) and J. M. Ford’s Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation (page 154). She in turn cites a French work by S. Giet. Is this the case? I do not think so.
For a good overview of the Cestius Gallus campaign against Judea, see Gichon 1981. Josephus records Cestius’ preparation in Antioch (Pliny the Elder places the Euphrates River 175 Roman miles from Antioch. Natural History 5:67; 6:126; LCL 2:269,433) for the “invasion of Palestine” (Chilton’s words). [For the use of the word “Palestine” before AD 135 see, Jacobson 1999:65-74] “He accordingly left Antioch, taking with him the twelfth legion in full strength (5,400 infantry and 120 cavalry), two thousand picked men from each of the other legions (6,000 more men from the 3rd, 6th, and 10th Legions) and in addition six cohorts of infantry (500 soldiers in a cohort, so another 3,000 men), and four squadrons of cavalry (I am not able to determine how many four squadrons are); beside these he had the auxiliary contingents furnished by the kings, of which Antiochus supplied two thousand horse (2,000) and three thousand foot (3,000), all archers, Agrippa an equal number of foot (3,000) and rather less than two thousand horse (-2,000), Soaemus following with four thousand, of which one-third were cavalry (1,333) and the majority archers (2,666). … Further auxiliaries in very large numbers were collected from the towns” (Wars 2:500-502, LCL 2:517,519). The organized army had just over 23,000+ infantry and about 5,500 cavalry. The 5,500 does not come close to the 200 million in the text, but then again, that is why Chilton interprets it as “many thousands”!
The horsemen were instructed to kill one third of all “mankind” (9:15) and were successful in this task (9:18). Chilton ignores this number and attributes no fulfillment to it. If he were consistent with his position, the Roman army under Cestius, would have had to kill one third of “Israel” in their attack against Jerusalem. Is this the case? I do not believe so. Of the Jews, he records, “Their (the Jews) own losses had been quite inconsiderable” (Wars 2:555, LCL 2:537). At one point he records 22 being killed in a skirmish with the Romans (Wars 2:519, LCL 2:525). The irony is that the Romans and their allies lost “five thousand three hundred infantry and four hundred and eighty of the cavalry” (Wars 2:555, LCL 2:537). That was one fifth of the Roman forces! But one third of mankind or Israel were not killed.
Chilton realizes this problem and makes a creative excuse for the Jews. “The retreat of Cestius was of course taken to mean that Christ’s prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction were false: The armies from the Euphrates had come and surrounded Jerusalem (cf. Luke 21:20), but the threatened ‘desolation’ had not come to pass. … The Jews recklessly plunged ahead into greater acts of rebellion, unaware that even greater forces beyond the Euphrates were being readied for battle” (1987:258). The problem with this interpretation is that the text does not say what he tries to make it say!
Earthquakes in the Book of Revelation
The word “earthquake” is used seven times in the Book of Revelation to describe five different earthquakes (Rev. 6:12; 8:5; 11:13 [twice], 19; 16:18 [twice]).
The first earthquake occurs during the sixth seal (Rev. 6:12). It is called a “great earthquake” and is connected with other cosmic disturbances (6:12-17). Chilton calls this seal judgement a “de-creation”, or “God ripping apart and dissolving the fabric of creation” (1987:196). The pattern of this judgment is based on the order of creation (i.e. earth, sun, moon, stars, firmament, land and man). The first judgment is the earthquake, and its imagery is the destabilization (of earth?). A number of Scriptures are quoted but Chilton does not say if this earthquake actually occurred. Another preterist says that earthquakes are “the symbol of revolution, the shaking up of the nations in their various places. It is the figure of the agitations, upheavals, resulting in the revolutions and wars of Matthew 24:29. It is the symbol of divine judgment on the nations persecuting the cause of the Lamb” (Wallace 1997:153).
The second earthquake occurs during the seventh seal judgment (Rev. 8:1-6). “Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake” (8:5). Again, Chilton does not say if this is a literal earthquake or not (1987:231-235).
The third earthquake occurs in conjunction with the martyrdom and resurrection of the two witnesses in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:13). “In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand men were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.” Chilton understands this to mean the defeat of the Lord’s enemies, but does not take this as a literal earthquake (1987:285).
The fourth earthquake is mentioned at the end of chapter 11. “Then the Temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His Temple. And there was lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail” (11:19).
The fifth and final earthquake in Revelation is after the gathering of the armies of the nations at Armageddon (Rev. 16:16). This occurs during the seventh bowl judgment (Rev. 16:17-21). “Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the Temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth” (Rev. 16:17,18). This earthquake, John writes, is like none that occurred since men were on the earth. If the Preterist position is true, this earthquake was the most devastating earthquake to hit the earth and Jerusalem in particular (vs. 19, “the great city” = Jerusalem). Yet the Preterist do not take this as a literal earthquake. Chilton says, “Seven times in Revelation St. John mentions an earthquake (6:12; 8:5; 11:13 [twice]; 11:19; 16:18 [twice]), emphasizing its covenantal dimensions. Christ came to bring the definitive earthquake, the great cosmic earthquake of the New Covenant” (1987:413). Another Preterist comments, “These [the voices, thunder, lightnings, and earthquakes] are symbolic of the great energies of God’s throne being loosed in accomplishment of His purpose. The great earthquake symbolizes the great change in the earth that took place when Israel as a nation under God was destroyed” (Ogden 1985:320,321). The Preterist does not take this prophecy literally, but rather symbolically. Why? The reason is because they have no historical fulfillment from Josephus or any Roman historian to show for this prophecy. Remember that Josephus was sitting in Jerusalem as an eyewitness to the siege of the city by Titus Caesar. If any earthquake had occurred, for sure he would have mentioned it, especially one the size that John predicted.
There were only three recorded earthquakes in Jerusalem during the First century AD. One occurred in AD 30, in connection with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 27:51-54; 28:2). Another in AD 33, where there was slight damage to the Temple and finally another one in AD 48 that caused slight damage (Amiran, Arieh and Turcotte 1994: 265). Since there was no earthquake, much less the most devastating one to hit the city, the Preterist have to make the earthquake symbolic!
The Preterist dates the book of Revelation to before AD 70. If they took this prophecy as a literal earthquake, Pliny the Elder would have put the lie to John’s statement “such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth.” Pliny was a Roman of equestrian rank and a prolific researcher and writer. His best known work is the 37 books of his Natural History. Ironically, Pliny died while investigating the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79. Writing in AD 77, Pliny described the earthquake that destroyed a portion of Asia Minor (now western Turkey) in AD 17 as “the greatest earthquake in human memory occurred when Tiberius Caesar was emperor, twelve Asiatic cities being overthrown in one night” (2:86:200; LCL 2:331, viii).
Tacitus, in his Annals, described this earthquake as well. “In the same year, twelve important cities of Asia collapsed in an earthquake, the time being night, so that the havoc was the less foreseen and the more devastating. Even the usual resource in these catastrophes, a rush to open ground, was unavailing, as the fugitives were swallowed up in yawning chasms. Accounts are given of huge mountains sinking, of former plains seen heaved aloft, of fires flashing out amid the ruin. As the disaster fell heaviest on the Sardians, it brought them the largest measure of sympathy, the Caesar promising ten million sesterces, and remitting for five years their payments to the national and imperial exchequers” (2:47: LCL 2: 459).
Pliny wrote this statement in AD 77, after John penned the Book of Revelation (according to the Preterist) and he said the AD 17 earthquake was the greatest in human memory. If there had been an earthquake in Jerusalem right before AD 70, Pliny would have mentioned it as the greatest. Pliny’s statement would fit better in the context of the book of Revelation having been written during the reign of Emperor Domitian.
Earthquakes create a big problem for the preterist position because none occurred during the time of the Jewish revolt. Thus, they have to make it symbolic, and not literal.
Hailstones (Rev. 16:19-21)
After the greatest earthquake ever recorded in the history of humanity (Rev. 16:16), the great city (Jerusalem) was divided into three parts. Chilton, quoting Carrington, attributes this historically to the three rival Jewish leaders within Jerusalem during the siege by Titus (1987:416; cf. Wars 5:184-221; LCL 3:255-267). The “great Babylon” (Jerusalem) was remembered before God and He poured out His wrath (16:19). “Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found” (16:20). Rather than seeing this as some seismic activity resulting from the greatest earthquake to hit the face of the earth (cf. 16:16), Chilton sees this symbolically as the disappearance of false refuge for the wicked to hide (1987:417).
Then, “great hail from heaven fell upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent. And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great” (16:21). Chilton correctly sees the connection between this judgment and the 7th plague during the Exodus from Egypt (Ex. 9:18-26), and the hailstones that fell on the Canaanite at Beth Horon (Josh. 10:11). In both cases these were literal hailstones and in modern day military parlance, they would be “air-to-surface” projectiles.
Yet how does Chilton and other preterists, understand these hailstones? “Hailstones” = stone missiles (ballista stones) shot from Roman catapults against the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem! (Chilton 1987:417,418; Gentry 1998:245,246; Russell 1996:480,481; Ogden 1996:322,323). Josephus describes the Roman “artillery engines” (or “stone projectors”) as “wonderfully constructed” and “the rocks which they hurled weighed a talent and had a range of two furlongs or more” (Wars 5:269,270; LCL 3:285). Elsewhere Josephus mentions the 160 artillery engines that the three Roman legions employed against Jerusalem and ballista stones that weighted one talent (Wars 3:166-168; LCL 2:627). In modern military jargon these would be “surface-to-surface” projectiles.
The differences between hailstones and ballista stones are drastic. One is made of ice and the other is made of stone, and in Jerusalem, limestone. One is “air-to-surface” and divinely poured out, while the other, is “surface-to-surface” man made artillery shot by the Romans. The only similarities between the hailstones of Rev. 16 and the ballista stones of the Roman siege are that they both weighed one talent. According to Chilton, a talent is equal to 100 pounds. Others dispute this claim and say, “no precise weight is intended by the talent-sized hailstones poured out of the bowl of the seventh angel in Rev. 16:21, but they would have been formidable, weighing, even by the late Jewish definition of the talent, at least 20.4 kg” (Powell 1992:6:907b). If one converted this weight, 20.4 kg would equal 49.982 pounds, half what Chilton states.
A good example of ballista stones found in an archaeological context in Jerusalem can be seen in the area of the Citadel Museum at Jaffa Gate. However, these stones are not from the First Jewish Revolt, but most likely from “the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes during the reign of John Hyrcanus (133-132 B.C.E.)” (Sivan and Solar 1994:174; a photograph of the ballista stones can be seen on page 173).
In June of 2000, I gave a field trip to the Herodian, south of Bethlehem. In Herod the Great’s bedroom there was a pile of ballista stones. As I sat on top of them, I read Rev. 16:21 to the group of seminarians from The Master’s Seminary. I pointed to the stones and said, tongue-in-cheek, “Folks, these are the hailstones mentioned in this passage!” The students, all good Pre-Tribbers, looked at me in bewilderment until someone in the back asked, “Why haven’t them melted?!” I responded, “Good question, next time you talk to a Preterist, ask him.”
Rev. 16:17-21 illustrates a glaring problem in the preterist position. When is the text to be taken literally and when is it to be taken symbolically? The earthquake in verse 18 is symbolic and the “hailstones” (which, according to the Preterist, are really ballista stones) are taken “literally” and historically fulfilled in AD 70. Consistent hermeneutics would prove helpful to the preterist in determining literal meaning from symbolic meanings.
“The Man of Sin”
James Russell, in his book The Parousia, gives 12 criteria for identifying the “Man of Sin” in II Thess. 2:1-12 (1996:181-182). They are
(1) He will be an individual.
(2) He is a public person.
(3) He holds the highest rank in the State.
(4) He is a Gentile, not Jewish.
(5) He claims divinity.
(6) He pretends to exercise miraculous power.
(7) His character is wickedness.
(8) He is a lawless ruler.
(9) When the epistle was written, he had not come to power.
(10) He was “hindered” by someone known to the Thessalonians.
(11) He was doomed to destruction.
(12) His “manifestation” was prior to the Parousia.
Russell goes on to identify the “Man of Sin” as Nero and his step-father, Claudius, as the “restrainer”.
The biggest problem with this view is that the list of criteria leaves out a very important point. Paul writes that the “Man of Sin” would sit “as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thess. 2:4). While Nero claimed divinity, he never sat in the Temple of God in Jerusalem and declared himself God.
John Noe, following a booklet written by John Bray (1999), has recently suggested that the “Man of Sin” was John of Gischala, one of the commanders of the Zealot forces defending Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt and the Temple Mount in particular. The “restrainer” was the Jewish priesthood lead by Ananus, the high priest. They were removed when John of Gischala had them all murdered (2000:206-212).
The shortcoming of this view is that John of Gischala never declared himself to be God. If he did, Josephus would have picked up on it and accused him of blasphemy. There was no love loss between the two. In fact, they hated one other.
Both views have partial fulfillment, but not complete fulfillment. Nero proclaimed himself to be divine, but never sat in the Temple of Jerusalem. John of Gischala, on the other hand, was in the Temple in Jerusalem, but never declared himself to be God. Thus both fail to fulfill the prophecy of Paul in II Thess. 2. We are still waiting a future fulfillment in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.
John Noe should be commended for showing the comparison between Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2 (2000:296, footnote 2). But it makes more sense to see the two as future rather that fulfilled in AD 70.
Some Observations
The biggest problem with the preterist position is the lack of consistent hermeneutics. They grope to find historical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. When historical fulfillment fails the passage or event becomes “symbolic”. It would be helpful if someone in the preterist camp would write a hermeneutics for his or her position. What are the criteria for taking something literally? When does something become symbolic?
In some cases, they do not give a complete interpretation of a passage. For example, in the second trumpet judgment, Chilton fails to identify or interpret all the things in the passage. He makes no mention of the blood, the sea life that died or the 1/3 of the ships that were destroyed (8:8,9).
They are also selective in their use of the material they use to prove their point. For example, The Acts of John.
Sometimes they use the historical data incorrectly as demonstrated by the coins with the seven stars.
Finally, the “historical fulfillments” are not really fulfillments at all.
Are the Fulfillments Historically Accurate?
This chapter began by asking the question, “Are the fulfillments of the preterist view of Jerusalem historically accurate?” The question must be answered three ways, (1) Biblically, (2) Historically, and (3) Prophetically. Biblically, is Jerusalem to be identified with Babylon? Prophetically, were the prophecies fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem? Historically, does the historical record fit the fulfillments?
Biblically, the preterists have properly identified, in my opinion, “that great city” (Babylon) with Jerusalem. Historically, their evidence for a fulfillment by an AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Prophetically, they have misidentified the timing of the event. I believe “that great city” (Babylon) of Revelation 11-18 is a still future city of Jerusalem where the Antichrist will set up his throne in a rebuilt temple. This city, trodden under foot by the Gentiles for the last 42 months of the Tribulation, will be destroyed at the end of the Great Tribulation period.
Babylon is identified as “that great city” nine times in the Book of Revelation. Seven of which are clearly connected with “Babylon”. The first mention of the phrase “that great city” is in Rev. 11 where it is clearly identified as Jerusalem, “where our Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8). It is also called “spiritually” (we would say metaphorically) “Sodom and Egypt”. The city is not Sodom or Egypt, but is called that. It is identified as the place where our Lord was crucified. Where was that? It was not outside of Rome, nor Babylon, nor in Egypt, but Jerusalem. This first mention of “that great city” clearly identifies the rest of the usage of the phrase. John uses “Sodom” and “Egypt” in a spiritual (metaphorical) sense for Jerusalem, why could he not use “Babylon” in the same way?
I believe there are three reasons most Premillennialists have not taken a serious look at this view. First, they have their preconceived ideas as to the identity of Babylon. It is either Rome or Babylon in Iraq. Needless to say, both of these ideas have serious Biblical flaws. Second, they do not want to admit the Preterist might have correctly identified the city. Third, they do not want to be accused of anti-Semitism. Of course, nobody would accuse Isaiah of anti-Semitism after he called the leaders of Jerusalem, “rulers of Sodom” and the people of Jerusalem, “people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:10) and “a harlot” (1:21). Jeremiah calls the prophets of Jerusalem “like Sodom” and the people of Jerusalem “like Gomorrah” (Jer. 23:14). Ezekiel calls Judah “Sodom and her daughters” (16:46). This is strong language but it is not anti-Semitic.
For Further Study
One area of comparison that I have not been able to pursue is the chronology of the Great Tribulation as set forth by the Preterist with the chronology of the First Jewish Revolt and the history of the Roman Empire during the 60’s of the First century. Lord willing, and the saints aren’t Raptured first, I will write an article on “The Preterist View of the Great Tribulation and the First Jewish Revolt: Is It Chronologically Accurate?”
One would have to make a time line of the Jewish Revolt (fortunately Josephus left us meticulous dates for most events) and the Roman Empire in the decade of the 60’s. Then compare the timeline with the Preterist’s interpretation of the “time span” passages in the book of Revelation (i.e. “five months,” “three and a half years,” “forty-two months,” and “1,260 days”).
Another area to pursue would be the “fulfillment” of the “Abomination of Desolation” in Matt. 24:15. The Preterists have suggested several different interpretations to show how this was “fulfilled” during the First Jewish Revolt.
Still further study should be on their identification of the “Man of Sin”. Does John of Gischala fit the criteria of II Thess. 2?
A Final Word
The Apostle Paul wrote the second epistle to the church at Thessalonika to correct some prophetic errors. He concludes his epistle by admonishing the believers, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (3:14,15).
We should be very careful not to stoop to the level of name-calling when we talk with those who hold to the Preterist position. They are not our enemies, nor are they heretics, but they are our brothers. They fully believe in the inspiration and inerrency of the Scriptures. They love the Lord Jesus and His church. We just do not agree with them on certain points of theology. When we do disagree, we can kindly say, “I’m sorry brother, I love you but have to respectfully disagree with you.” After all, it is NOT the end of the world!
Bibliography
Amiran, D., Arieh, E., and Turcotte, T.
1994 Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 B.C.E. Israel Exploration Journal 44/3-4: 260-305.
Balyeat, J.
1991 Babylon, The Great City of Revelation. Sevierville, TN: Onward.
Bent, J.
1888 What St. John Saw on Patmos. The Nineteenth Century 24:813-821.
Bray, J.
1999 The Man of Sin of II Thessalonians 2. Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministry.
Borowski, O.
1987 Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Buckwalter, H. D., and Shoaff, M.
1995 Guide to the Reference System for the Works of Flavius Josephus. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripolles, P.
1992 Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1. London: British Museum. Paris: Bibliotheque nationale de France.
Chilton, D.
1987a The Days of Vengeance. Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.
1987b Paradise Restored. Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.
1987c The Great Tribulation. Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion.
Davies, K.
2000 Babylon The Harlot City. Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association.
DeMar, G.
2001 End Time Fiction. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Ford, J. M.
1975 Revelation. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Franz, G.
1999 The King and I: The Apostle John and Emperor Domitian. Bible and Spade 12/2: 45-51.
2000 The King and I: Opening the Third Seal. Bible and Spade 13/1: 9-11.
Gentry, K.
1994a Before Dispensationalism Fell. A Response to Dr. Robert L. Thomas (Part 1). Dispensationalism in Transition 8/8:1,2.
1994b Reconstructionism v. Dispensationalism. A Response to Dr. Robert L. Thomas (Part 2). Dispensationalism in Transition 8/9: 1,2.
1998 Before Jerusalem Fell. Dating the Book of Revelation. Atlanta, GA: American Vision’s.
Gichon, M.
1981 Cestius Gallus’s Campaign in Judaea. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 113: 39-62.
Hareuveni, N.
1980 Nature in Our Biblical Heritage. Translated by Helen Frenkley. Kiryat Ono, Israel: Neot Kedumim.
1987 The Emblem of the State of Israel. Translated by Helen Frenkley. Kiryat Ono, Israel: Neot Kedumim.
Holford, G.
2001 The Destruction of Jerusalem. An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity. Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media.
Jacobson, D.
1999 Palestine and Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 313: 65-74.
Janzen, E.
1994 The Jesus of the Apocalypse Wears the Emperor’s Cloth. Pp. 637-657 in SBL 1994 Seminar Papers. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Jones, J.
1990 A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins. London: Seaby.
Josephus
1976 Josephus, The Life, Against Apion. Vol. 1. Trans. H. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library.
1976 Josephus, The Jewish Wars. Books I-III. Vol. 2. Trans. H.
Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university. Loeb Classical
Library.
1979 Josephus, The Jewish Wars. Books IV-VII. Vol. 3. Trans. H. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university. Loeb Classical Library.
Mattingly, H., and Sydenham, E.
1926 The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 2. London: Spink and Son.
Noe, J.
2000 Beyond the End Times. Bradford, PA: Preterist Resources.
2001 Shattering the Left Behind Delusion. Bradford, PA: Internationalist Preterist Association.
Ogden, A.
1985 The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets. A Commentary on Revelation. Somerset, KY: Ogden Publications. Third printing, 1996.
Paher, S.
1996 Matthew 24. First Century Fulfillment or End-Time Expectations? Las Vegas, NV: Nevada.
Pliny
1979 Pliny, Natural History. Books I-II. Vol. 1. Trans. H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library.
1989 Pliny, Natural History. Books III-VII. Vol. 2. Trans. H. Rackham.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library.
Powell, M.
1992 Weights and Measures. Pp. 897-908 in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday.
Preston, D.
1999 Who Is This Babylon? Self published.
Russell, J.
1996 The Parousia, A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming. Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publications.
Siven, R., and Solar, G.
1994 Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988. Pp. 168-176 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Sproul, R. C.
1998 The Last Days According to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Stevens, E.
1997 What Happened in A.D. 70? Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publication.
Sutherland, C.
1984 The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 1. London: Spink and Son.
Tacitus
1992 Tacitus, Histories IV-V, Annals I-III. Vol. 3. Trans. C. Moore and J.
Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical
Library.
Thomas, R.
1994 Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation. The Master’s Seminary Journal 5/2: 185-202.
Van der Waal, C.
1991 Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy. Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance.
Wallace, F.
1997 The Book of Revelation. Fort Smith, AR: Foy E. Wallace Jr.
Publications.
Wilson, M.
2000 Zeugma: Armageddon on the Euphrates? Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 45: 23-35.
A variation of this paper was presented at the 1999 Pre-Trib Study Group on Monday, December 13, 1999.
-
Cracked Pot Archaeology, Paul's Shipwreck on Malta Comments Off on DOES THE “THE LOST SHIPWRECK OF PAUL” HOLD WATER? Or, Have the Anchors from the Apostle Paul’s Shipwreck Been Discovered on Malta?
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
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 1st 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 16th 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’ 33rd 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.
Recent Comments