• 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

    www.ldolphin.org/sinai.html

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

    See: www.noahsarksearch.com/iran.htm

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

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

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

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

    Malta – A Great Place to Visit!

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

    Examining the Evidence for the Shipwreck on the Munxar Reef

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thorough Research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There are at least four recognizable points that could be seen from the outer Munxar Reef had this been the exact spot of the shipwreck of Paul as Mr. Cornuke argues.  The first was the entrance to Marsaxlokk Bay where a Roman harbor / port was, the second, the entrance to Marsascala Bay where another Roman harbor was located.  The third point would be the dangerous Munxar Reef (or small islands or peninsula in the 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.

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology Comments Off on MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA – part 1

    By Gordon Franz

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

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

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

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

    The Proponents of Jebel al-Lawz as Mt. Sinai

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

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

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

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

    Problems with the Jebel al-Lawz location view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Archaeological and Geographical Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology Comments Off on MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA – part 2

    By Gordon Franz

    Where was the Red Sea Crossing?

    The location of the Red Sea Crossing is a hotly debated topic and I would like to throw my two cents worth into the debate.  There are two studies that I have found to be very helpful and would highly recommend them.  The first is Dr. James Hoffmeier’s book, Israel in Egypt (1997).  While I do not agree with some of his conclusions, it is well documented and sets forth all the different views.  The second study is a ThM thesis by Joel McQuitty done at Capital Bible Seminary in 1986.  It is entitled “The Location and Nature of the Red Sea Crossing.”  Ironically, McQuitty wrote it at the time the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz were carrying out their adventures in Saudi Arabia!  He does not interact with this view because the proponents’ view was not yet in print.

    Is the location of the Red Sea Crossing important for Bible believers?  One commentary on the book of Exodus observes, “The exact place of Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea has no direct theological importance” (Cole 1973:44).  McQuitty points out, “In the form of the statement Mr. Cole is correct, geography normally impinges very little upon theology.  However, how one determines the geography of the Bible may speak volumes concerning one’s theology” (1986:2).

    In the literature, I have been able to discern five general areas that have been proposed for the Red Sea Crossing.  Within each area there are several variations.  I was intrigued to see in the book of one of the proponents, and it is also in their advertisement in BAR, five “proposed traditional Red Sea Crossing sites”.  I have not been able to document four of these anywhere in the literature and he does not have the three usual sites above the Gulf of Suez marked (Williams 1990: map following page 128).

    The five areas that I have been able to discern, from north to south, are;

    • The Mediterranean Sea sites. Usually the crossing is placed at Lake Sirbonis. This identification is based on placing the Baal-Zephon with a sanctuary of Zeus Casios nearby. The leading proponents of this view are O. Eissfeldt, M. Noth, H. Cazelles, Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah.
    • The northern sites. Several lakes north of the Bitter Lakes have been proposed. They are Lake Timsah, Lake Balah or the southern extension of Lake Menzaleh. The proponents of this area are E. Naville, M. F. Unger, K. A. Kitchen and J. Hoffmeier.
    • The central site. The proponents of this view place the crossing at the Bitter Lakes. Some would suggest that the Gulf of Suez actually came up to the Bitter Lakes in antiquity. The proponents of this view are J. Simons, C. Condor, U. Cassuto, John J. David.
    • The southern view. The proponents place the crossing at the northern end of the Gulf of Suez. Within this view there are two areas. One view places it just off shore from the modern day Suez City. The other places it at a land bridge 4 miles south of Suez City between Ras el-‘Adabiya and Birket Misallat. The proponents of this view are E. Robinson, A. Smith, E. H. Palmer (1977:35-37), Keil and Delitzsch, James Murphy, John Rea, J. McQuitty and G. Franz.
    • The southeastern view. This view places the crossing in the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat. Within the gulf there are two proposed crossings. One crossing, proposed by R. Wyatt and L. Moller, is a land bridge to the east of Nuweiba. The second crossing that was proposed is at a land bridge at the Strait of Tiran. R. Knuteson, J. Irwin, B. Cornuke and L. Williams hold this view.

    Within the debate on the location of the Red Sea crossing there is a sub-debate on the meaning of the name Yam Suph.  The common interpretation of these words today is “Reed Sea”.  The first to suggest Yam Suph means “reedy swamp” appears to be Rabbi Shelomoh Yetzhaki (Rashi) in the 11th century AD.  Personally I am not comfortable with that etymology.  I will leave that discussion for another paper.  I think the meaning of Yam Suph is Red Sea.

    The word Yam Suph is used 24 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Ex. 10:19; 13:18; 15:4,22; 23:31; Num. 14:25; 21:4; 33:10,11; Deut. 1:40; 2:1; 11:4; Josh. 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Judges 11:16; I Kings 9:26; Neh. 9:9; Ps. 106:7,9,22; 136:13,15; Jer. 49:21).  The Greek words, Erythra Thalassa, is used two times in the New Testament (Acts 7:36; Heb. 11:29).  These are the Greek words used to translate the Hebrew Yam Suph in the Greek Septuagint.

    In the Greco-Roman world the term Erythra Thalassa covered “all eastern waters, including the Indian Ocean; it specifically referred to the modern Red Sea and Persian Gulf” (Warmington and Salles 1996:1296,7).  Strabo, writing his Geography at the beginning of the First Century AD, said, “There is another canal which empties into the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf near the city Arsinoe, a city which some call Cleopatris [modern day Suez City – GF].  It flows through the Bitter Lakes, as they are called” (17:25; LCL 8:77).  Strabo makes a distinction between the Red Sea, also called the Arabian Gulf, and the Bitter Lakes.  The Bitter Lakes is never called the Red Sea.

    In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Yam Suph could refers to either the Gulf of Suez or the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat.  The context determines the location.  For example, Exodus 10:19 says, “And the LORD turned a very strong west wind, which took the locusts away and blew them into the Red Sea.  There remained not one locust in all the territory of Egypt.”  As J. Rea points out, the “strong west wind” should be translated “sea wind”.  In Egypt, the sea winds are from north-northwest to the south (1975:1:572).  Since the locusts covered “the face of the whole earth [land of Egypt]” (10:15), there would need to be a large body of water to destroy the locusts.  The Gulf of Suez is what is in view.  Exodus 13:18 and 15:4,22; Num. 33:10 refer to the Gulf of Suez.  On the other hand, I Kings 9:26 says “King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.”  This is clearly referring to the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat.  Judges 11:16 and Jer. 49:20, 21 are most likely referring to this gulf as well.

    What are the Biblical criteria for the Red Sea Crossing?  There are three passages that deal with the topography of the Red Sea crossing.  Exodus 14:2 gives Moses perspective.  It states, “Speak to the children of Israel, that they turn and camp before Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, opposite Baal Zephon; you shall camp before it by the sea.”  Exodus 14:9 gives Pharaoh’s perspective.  It states, “So the Egyptians pursued them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen and his army, and overtook them camping by the sea beside Pi Hahiroth, before Baal Zephon.”  In the itinerary of sites where the Israelites traveled in Numbers 33:7, 8 it is stated: “They moved from Etham and turned back to Pi Hahiroth, which is east of Baal Zephon; and they camped near Migdol.  They departed from before Pi Hahiroth and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness.”  Three topographical sites must be identified from these passages.  They are the Pi Hahiroth, the Migdol and Baal Zephon [See Map 1].

    Scholars have debated the meaning of Pi Hahiroth but the consensus seems to be that it is a Hebraized form of Akkadian origin meaning “mouth of the canal” (Kitchen 1998:78; Hoffmeier 1997: 169-172, 182-183, 188-189, 211, 214; Currid 1997:134; Redford 1992:5:371; Sneh, Weissbrod and Perath 1975: 547; Albright 1948:16; Skipwith 1913:94, 95).  If that is the case, what canal is being referred to?  I would like to propose that there was a canal from the Bitter Lakes to the Gulf of Suez, or at least the remnants of a canal that was started and abandoned by the time of the Exodus, but the toponym was still known.

    Strabo writes of such a canal.  He says, “There is another canal which empties into the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf near the city Arsinoe, a city which some call Cleopatris. … The canal was first cut by Sesostris before the Trojan War – though some say by the son of Psammitichus, who only began the work and then died – and later by Dareius the First, who succeeded to the next work done upon it.  But he, too, having been persuaded by a false notion, abandoned the work when it was already near completion; for he was persuaded that the Red Sea was higher than Aegypt, and that if the intervening isthmus were cut all the way through, Aegypt would be inundated by the sea.  The Ptolemaic kings, however, cut through it…” (Geography 17:1:25; LCL 8:77).

    Aristotle, in his Meteorologica, states, “One of the kings tried to dig a canal to it [the Red Sea].  (For it would be of no little advantage to them if this whole region was accessible to navigation: Sesostris is said to be the first of the ancient kings to have attempted the work.)  It was, however, found that the sea was higher than the land: and so Sesostris first and Dareius after him gave up digging the canal for fear the water of the river should be ruined by an admixture of sea-water” (1:15:25-30; LCL 117).

    Pliny describes the planned canal between the Nile River and the Red Sea in these terms, “This project was originally conceived by Sesostris King of Egypt, and later by the Persian King Darius and then again by Ptolemy the Second, who did actually carry a trench 100 ft. broad and 30 ft. deep for a distance of 34 ½ miles, as far as the Bitter Lakes” (Natural History 6:33:165; LCL 2:461, 463).

    Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BC, describes the building of this canal into the Red Sea.  It was begun by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II and finished by the Persian King Darius (The Persian Wars 2:158; LCL 1:471,473).  He does not, however, mention the attempt by Sesostris.

    James Breasted, a noted Egyptologist, believes that Queen Hatshepaut’s expedition to Punt went down the Nile River to a canal through the Wadi Tumilat to a canal connecting to the Red Sea (1912:188, 274-276).  If he were correct, that would demonstrate that there was a canal in existence right before the Exodus from Egypt.  However, several other Egyptologists have disputed this idea (Kitchen 1971: 184-207).

    As Dr. Hoffmeier points out, “The possibility remains that a genuine memory of the canal-excavating accomplishments of one or more of the Sesotrises or Senuserts from Dynasty 12 may be preserved in these classical writers.  The late George Posener thought these references might be connected with the work of Senusert I or III.  Currently, no contemporary Egyptian texts support or deny this tradition” (1997:169).

    The classical sources seem to indicate that a canal was started by Sesostris in the 12th Dynasty [ca. 1900 BC] but not completed.  If that is the case, he might have begun part of the project at the Red Sea but later abandoned it.  This would have been called the Pi Hahiroth, the “mouth of the canal.”  The toponym would have been preserved even at the time of the Exodus.  I would propose that the Pi Hahiroth would be located somewhere near today’s Suez City at the northern end of the Gulf of Suez.

    The next toponym to consider is the Migdol.  K. A. Kitchen says that “the term migdol is simply a common noun from Northwest Semitic, for a fort or watchtower, and we do not know how many such migdols existed in the East Delta region” (1998:78).  There was a fortress at Clysma-Qolzoum (modern day Suez City) that dates to the Late Bronze Age (Bruyere 1966).  The question is, was there an occupational level at the time of the Exodus, or was there another fortress in the area?  This fortress would have guarded the northern end of the Gulf of Suez and the canal, if it existed, as well as the road coming up from the Sinai.

    The next toponym to be considered is Baal-Zephon.  The identification is problematic.  Dr. Hoffmeier has pointed out that the “expression literally means ‘lord of the north’ and is a deity in the Ugaritic pantheon associated with Mount Casius just north of Ugarit” (1997:190).  Eissfeldt suggested it was located at Ras Qasrun based on the account of Herodotus (Persian Wars 2:6, LCL 1:281; 3:5, LCL 2:9).  Baal-zephon was worshipped at Memphis and Tell Defeneh and a cylinder seal depicting Baal-Zephon as the “protector of sailors” was found at Tell el-Dab’a (Hoffmeier 1997:190).  W. F. Albright states that, “Baal-saphon was the marine storm-god par excellence, like Greek Poseiden.  As such, he was also the protector of mariners against storms.  In his honour temples were built and ports were named along the Mediterranean litoral as far as Egypt, where we find Baal-zephon worshipped at Tahpanhes (Daphne) and Memphis” (1968:127.128).  Quite possibly there would have been a temple on Jebel ‘Ataqa over looking the northern end of the Gulf of Suez.  The sailors could petition him on their way out to sea for a safe trip and thank him when they arrive safely to port.

    More than likely, when the Israelites camped by the sea, it would have been on the plains at the north shore of the Gulf of Suez between Suez City and the impressive mountain to the west, Jebel ‘Ataqa.  Robinson describes this area as a “desert plain … composed for the most part of hard gravel” (1977:70).  There is adequate space for the tribes of Israel.

    Where would the crossing have been?  Edward Robinson, in 1838, placed the crossing along the northern shore of the Gulf of Suez.  He seems to favor a somewhat naturalistic explanation for a miraculous event (1977:81-86).

    Topographically, the most suitable site for the crossing is a natural land bridge that lies 4 miles south of the northern shore of the Gulf of Suez that averages 6 meters (ca. 20 feet) below the surface.  This land bridge is ½ mile wide and four miles across.

    With Jebel ‘Ataqa on their right and the sea on their left and the wilderness closing in to a point at Ras el-‘Adabiya, Pharaoh’s statement in Exodus 14:3 makes sense.  “For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, ‘They are bewildered by the land; the wilderness has closed them in.”

    When the Israelites saw Pharaoh and his army approaching they were terrified and complained to Moses.  Moses responded, “Do not be afraid.  Stand still and see the salvation of the LORD, which He will accomplish for you today” (Ex.14:13).  Moses lifted up his rod and the LORD divided the sea with a wall on one side and on the other as well (Ex. 14:16, 21, 22, 29) and they went through on dry land.  When the made it to the other side, the waters returned and covered the Egyptians (14:28; 15:4, 5, 19).  There is no naturalistic explanation for this occurrence; it was a first class miracle.

    This location is also where the early Christian pilgrims place the Red Sea Crossing (Wilkinson 1981: 100,101,205-207).

    Once on the other side, where Birket Nisallat is today, the Israelites were in no rush to go anywhere.  There was nobody chasing them anymore.  The Egyptians had drowned.  The Israelites probably spent the next day worshiping the Lord for His great salvation.  We know that Moses composed a song and Miriam and the women danced and sang (Ex. 15:1-21).

    When they began their journey again, they went into the Wilderness of Shur (Ex. 15:22).  Edward Palmer, a 19th century explorer, best described this scene.  He said, “The word Shur in Hebrew signifies ‘a wall;’ and as we stand at ‘Ayin Musa and glance over the desert at the Jebels er Rahah and et-Tih which border the gleaming plain, we at once appreciate the fact that these long wall-like escarpments are the chief if not the only prominent characteristics of this portion of the wilderness, and we need not wonder that the Israelites should have named this memorable spot, after its most salient feature, the wilderness of Shur or the wall” (1872:44).  When I stayed in Suez City last May, I had dinner in a hotel over looking the Suez Canal.  As the sun was setting, I noticed this prominent line of escarpment as well.

    The waters of Marah are three days journey from the Red Sea (Ex. 15:22).  Where these are located, I do not know for sure.  The Numbers account places it in the wilderness of Etham (33:8).  The Wilderness of Etham appears to be the larger area with the Wilderness of Shur the southern part if this wilderness.  The Israelites headed north to Marah.  E. Robinson identifies a “fountain Naba’, three hours distance across the Gulf and so brackish as to be scarcely drinkable (1977:69).  The local Arabs called it el-Ghurkudeh.  This was the source of the drinking water for Suez.  Robinson’s Arab guide described it as “a basin eight or ten feet in diameter and six or eight feet deep, with stone steps to go down into it.  In this basin the water, which is quite brackish, boils up continually and stands two or three feet deep, without any outlet; furnishing enough to supply two hundred camel-loads at once” (1977:89).  Moses cast a tree into the bitter water and it was made sweet (Ex. 15:25).

    Apparently after this incident, the Israelites turned south to Elim with its twelve springs and 70 palm trees (Ex. 15:27; Num. 33:9).  A good candidate for this site is one of the most prominent springs in the Sinai Peninsula, ‘Ayun Musa.  Two geologists observed that “there are twelve springs, from two which good drinking water may be obtained” (Moon and Sadek 1921:2).  In their geological report, they have pictures of this spring with palm trees in the area.  When Robinson visited in 1838 he observed only seven springs (1977:90).

    The Numbers account says that they camped by the Red Sea after their time in Elim (Num. 33:10,11).  Somewhere at the entrance to the Wadi Sudr would be a good candidate for this campsite.  After, they headed up Wadi Sudr to Jebel Sin Bishar, the Biblical (and real) Mt. Sinai (Har-el 1983; Faiman 2000:115-118).

    Menashe Har-el makes a solid case for Jebel Sin Bishar being the real Mt. Sinai.  He points out that Jebel Sin Bishar is the only mountain in the Sinai Peninsula that preserves the toponym “Sinai” in the word “Sin” (Har-el 1983:421).  He states that “the meaning of Sin Bisher is the reporting of the Law, or Laws of man.  This name hints at the “Giving of the Law” (ibid).  Josephus says that Mt. Sinai is the highest mountain in that area (Antiquities 2:264, 3:75,76; LCL 4:279, 355).  While “Jebel sin Bishar is only 618 meters above sea level, it is the most prominent of its surrounding” (ibid).  Remember, Moses at 80 years old, had to climb that mountain several times!

    MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA- part 3

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology Comments Off on MT. SINAI IS NOT AT JEBEL EL-LAWZ IN SAUDI ARABIA- part 3

    By Gordon Franz

    The Chronology from Rameses to the Red Sea

    Bible geographers who deal with the Exodus take the three encampments from Rameses to the Red Sea, i.e. Succoth, Etham and Migdol, to refer to three days of travel.  The Bible does not explicitly say this.

    Joel McQuitty made an interesting suggestion back in 1986.  He suggested that the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread commemorates the seven days it took to go from Rameses to the Red Sea (1986:103-105; Ex. 13:3,4; 12:33f.; Deut. 16:3; Lev. 23:42-43).  Ironically, one of the proponents of Jebel al Lawz does as well.  However, he goes one step further and says that the Israelites rested on the Sabbath (Letter from Durham, Sept. 7, 2001, p.  14).

    If McQuitty is correct, and I believe he is, then this would fit very nicely with a crossing at the northern end of the Gulf of Suez.  As K. A. Kitchen has pointed out, Rameses is located in the area of Khataana / Qantar (1998:77).  Others place Rameses at Tell el-Dab’a, another site in the area (Shea 1990:98-111).  Kitchen goes on to locate Succoth at Tell el-Maskhuta and Pithom at Tell er-Retaba (1998:78).  From the Qantar area to Suez City is approximately 100 miles.  If we take that number and divide it by seven days it comes out to about 15 miles per day.  Considering the Israelites left Egypt in “haste” (Ex. 12:33; Deut. 16:3) and in “orderly ranks”, a military term for battle array (Ex, 13:18), 15 miles a day would be very reasonable.  Robinson observed that “the usual day’s march of the best appointed armies, both in ancient and modern times, is not estimated higher than fourteen English, or twelve geographical miles, and it cannot be supposed that the Israelites with women and children and flocks, would be able to accomplish more” (1977:75).

    A near contemporary event to the Exodus would be Thutmose III’s first campaign against the land of Canaan.  Aharoni describes the march by Thutmose III and his army to Megiddo this way:  “From Sile, the chief frontier post on the Egyptian border, the army covered the 150 miles to Gaza in nine or ten days, a very rapid pace” (1979:153).  In this march across the northern Sinai they encountered very sandy conditions, but they would have averaged 15 miles per day.  Once they got to Canaan, they slowed down because of resistance along the way by the Canaanites (Aharoni 1979:153).

    Problems with the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat Crossings

    The proponents of Jebel al-Lawz do not agree on the crossing site of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat.  One group, consisting of R. Wyatt, J. Pinkoski and L. Moller suggests that the Israelites crossed at Nuweiba.  The other group, consisting of J. Irwin, R. Cornuke, L. Williams, R. Knuteson, K. Kluetz, and K. Durham argues for the Strait of Tiran.

    Regarding the Nuweiba crossing, there are several problems.  The first problem is the distance it takes to go from Rameses to Nuweiba.  Moller, in his video, said their route through the Sinai would take three weeks.  This does not meet the Biblical requirements of seven days.  The second problem is the topography of the underwater land bridge.  From Nuweiba the land bridge slopes down to 850 meters (2,790 feet) but then comes up sharply on the east side as it gets to the shore of Saudi Arabia.  This sharp incline would make the ascent extremely difficult, if not impossible for the Israelites to cross in one night.  Dr. Roy Knuteson, a retired pastor who has done a considerable amount of research on the Red Sea crossing also points out, “The wadi they claim the Israelites traveled on [to Nuweiba] is much to small for those millions of people” (Letter from Knuteson, June 8, 2001).  He goes on to say in the same letter, “…the coral encrusted chariot wheels are interesting, but not convincing.  The so-called ‘golden wheel’ is a fabrication.”  Russell and Colin Standish have also examined the other claims of Wyatt regarding the so-called chariot wheels that were discovered (1999:164-194).

    The second crossing site at the Strait of Tiran has serious problems as well.  The first problem is the distance from Rameses to their Red Sea crossing.  From Tell el-Dab’a to Ras Nasrani at the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula is approximately 350 miles.  The “Geological Photomap of Israel and the Adjacent Areas” shows that most of the way down the west side of the Sinai Peninsula is sand, alluvium, clay, marl and sandstone.  Robinson observed and wrote about the sand and gravel as he traveled south to Jebel Musa (1977:89-96).  This terrain would be difficult to travel on foot or with carts, especially when making a hasty exodus out of Egypt!  This trip would be impossible to do in seven days unless they averaged 50 miles per day for seven days or 58 miles a day if they took Shabbat off.  One should remember Thutmose III’s army averaged only 15 miles per day across the sandy northern Sinai.  The conditions would be very similar.

    The second problem is the topography of their land bridge across the Strait of Tiran.  One of the proponents claims that “the distance shore to shore at the Strait of Tiran is no more than two miles – by far the narrowest channel on both sides of the gulf” (Cornuke and Halbrrok 2000:215).  If one measures on the nautical maps, the distance from Sinai to Saudi Arabia is eleven miles, not two.

    The proponents also seem to imply that the land bridge is relatively flat and can be crossed very quickly.  One proponent says, “Due north sat an oddity of Ripley’s Believe it or Not: a five-hundred-yard-wide coral reef, invisible on the surface yet spanning the entire straits like a stealth aircraft carrier” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000:212).  He goes on to say, “The coral reef we inspected is sturdy and broad enough – and situated in water shallow enough – to meet this ‘dry land’ criteria.  Two million Israelites, columns of cattle, flocks, fleets of carts and wagons – even Egyptian troops and chariots – would have been able to pass quickly over the tightly compacted coral without getting their feet wet” (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000:214-215).

    The British Admiralty map 801 and the American NOAA map 62222 show that these statements are not accurate.  The shallow reefs do not go all the way across and the land bridge is not flat.  In the midst of the Strait of Tiran is the Enterprise Passage [See Map 2, taken from the NOAA map 62222].  This is an underwater passage / channel that goes north south through the Strait.  It is approximately ¾ of a mile wide with a depth of 700 feet.  The eastern side has a slope with at least a 60% incline.   To put this incline number in perspective, in Bergen County, NJ, where I live, roads can not have an incline of more than 10%.  The 60% would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, obstacle for travel.  One of the proponents acknowledges this depth, but does not seem to grasp the significance of the problem (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000:214).  It would be a near impossible process for 2 million people to go down and up these slopes, along with their carts and wagons.  It would be next to impossible for the Egyptian chariots to go down and up unless they were SUV chariots with traction tires!  Also, if any of them stumbled going down the slopes they would be cut very badly on the coral.  This passage would be next to impossible, if not an impossible obstacle, because it would slow the pace of the Israelites down considerably or even stop it, as well as cause serious problems for the Egyptian chariots.

    To illustrate the impossibility of the Strait of Tiran crossing, I would like to issue the following challenge to the proponents of this view.

    The Exodus Challenge

    Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams are self-proclaimed “Adventurers of History.”  This challenge will be the ultimate adventure to validate their claims that Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

    The Challenge

    Two of the three BASE participants (Bob Cornuke, Larry Williams and/or Ken Durham) are to walk from Tel el-Dab’a (Biblical Rameses) to their Red Sea Crossing, northeast of Sharm el-Shiek, in seven days with one day of rest for the Sabbath (either Saturday or Sunday).

    The Conditions

    They are to wear sandals and walk on the sandy ground, not on the paved road.

    They are to take two ten-year-old children.  (Please get a parental consent form signed by both parents.  I do not want you to be hauled into court for child abuse).  Also bring along two sheep and two goats.

    They will be permitted to buy bottled water along the way.  I do not want to be responsible for their death by dehydration!

    In the event that the pillar of cloud/fire does not reappear, they will be permitted to use road maps and their good judgments as to the timing so as to cover the 350 miles, averaging 58 miles per day, in the allotted time.

    The Concessions

    They will not have to take 2 million men, women or children with them, nor a herd of cattle, a flock of sheep and herd of goats.

    They will not have to bring along any nursing mothers with newborn children.

    They will not need to bring along senior citizens.  Remember, Moses, Aaron and Miriam were all more than 80 years old.

    The Promise

    In the unlikely event the challengers are successful, after being observed by a neutral party and documented on video, I (Gordon Franz) will publicly and in print, renounce my articles against the idea that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz and will wholeheartedly endorse their views.  I will also donate $1,000 to the BASE Institute.

    In the likely event of failure, I will let them decide what their course of action will be.

    Ken Durham called this an “intentionally frivolous challenge”! (Letter from Durham, Sept. 7, 2001, p. 7).  With all due respect, I am very serious about this challenge because if they walk it, they will abandon the idea because they will know (experientially) that it is impossible.  He also objected to placing Rameses at Tell el-Dab’a and would prefer to see it in eastern Goshen.  As they say at Burger King, “Have it your way!”  I am willing to let you start from the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat and go the 250 miles you think was the distance.

    Durham says, “A steady walking rate of 3.5 miles per hour sustained for 12 hours of navigable daylight results in a ‘days journey’ optimal linear distance of 42 miles. … Therefore, as odd as it may sound to our ears to reckon a ‘day’s journey’ as 42 to 43 miles, it is probably very close to the optimum of the Exodus Hebrews” (Letter from Ken Durham, September 7, 2001, p. 14).  He then sets forth his scenario for the distance traveled each day (pp. 13-15).  On the first day they traveled 36 miles.  The second, 36 miles and camped at Etham, but he does not identify where Etham was located.  On the third day they pick up the pace to 16-18 hours per day and travel 45-48 miles.  The fourth day they cover 48 miles.  The fifth day they cover 40-45 miles, and the sixth day another 45-50 miles.  On Shabbat they rested.  If they can walk those distances each day, I would be impressed.  What really stretches the imagination is his reckoning of the Egyptian forces.  Pharaoh had spies following the Israelites for three days.  On the third day when they realize the Israelites are not stopping, they return to Pharaoh by the fourth day so he can muster his chariot force and foot soldiers in order to pursue the Israelites.  Those spies would have to run back overnight to Pharaoh covering a distance of approximately 120 miles in less than 12-16 hours (running a steady 10 miles per hour!).  If Pharaoh were successful in mustering his troops in one day, they would have three days to catch up to the Israelites.  They would have to average 83 miles per day, on foot and in chariots, in order to cover the 250 miles in three days!  Anybody want to join them? J

    Other Problems With This View

    It has been said, “The devil is always in the details.”  There are other problems with this view.  For example, the Israelites camped at Etham at the edge of the wilderness (Ex. 13:20; Num. 33:6).  The wilderness that is implied is the Wilderness of Etham.  After they cross the Red Sea, they journey in the Wilderness of Etham again (Num. 33:8), also called the Wilderness of Shur (Ex. 15:22; Robinson 1977:80).  If the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz were consistent with their views, the Wilderness of Etham would be somewhere on the west side of the Sinai, yet it would also be across the Straits of Tiran in Saudi Arabia.  It does not make geographical sense to have one wilderness on the west side of Sinai and the same wilderness across the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat in Saudi Arabia.

    Another problem is the Israelites second camp at the Red Sea.  According to the Number’s itinerary, the Children of Israel cross the Red Sea, stop at Marah, then moved on to Elim and camped by the Red Sea (Num. 33:8-11).  According to the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz, Elim is located at al-Bad’ (Williams 1990:178; Cornuke and Halbrook 2000:96, 97, plate 13,14).  If their view were consistent, they would have to give a reasonable explanation as to why the Israelites backtracked to the Red Sea before they proceeded to Jebel al-Lawz.  On the other hand, a stop at the Red Sea, at the mouth of Wadi Sudr, on the way to Jebel Sin Bishar makes perfect geographical sense.

    A third problem is the motivations of the Amalekites to attack Israel at Rephidim (Ex. 17:8-16).  The Biblical records place the territory of the Amalekites around the area of Kadesh Barnea (Gen. 14:7) and the Negev (Num. 13:29).  For a discussion of the archaeology and geography of the Analekites, see Mattingly 1992:1:169-171.  If Mt. Sinai is at Jebel Sin Bishar than the motive is clear.  The Israelites are heading to the Land of Canaan and the most direct route is through Kadesh Barnea and the Negev.  The Amalekites were also protecting the abundant water source at Kadesh Barnea.  If Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz, then there is no motive for the Amalekites to travel all the way down to the site to attack the Israelites.  If the Israelites were going to the Land of Canaan, they could go up the Transjordanian Highway and avoid Kadesh Barnea and the Negev all together.  Some proponents of Mt. Sinai in Midian place Kadesh Barnea in the area of Petra.  I have repeatedly asked the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz where they place Kadesh Barnea and they have yet to give me an answer.

    The Conclusion of the Matter

    As popular as this idea may be in certain evangelical (and even Jewish) circles, there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence for the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

    There are several unsubstantiated claims that the proponents of this site need to substantiate or abandon.  First, the Sinai Peninsula was not part of Egypt proper, but “out of Egypt.”  Second, Biblically, Mt. Sinai is not in the Land of Midian, yet Jebel al-Lawz is in Midian territory (northwest Saudi Arabia).  Third, the Sinai Peninsula was part of “Arabia” in the First Century AD.  Paul would be perfectly correct in stating Mt. Sinai is in Arabia if Mt. Sinai was at Jebel Sin Bishar.

    The proponents also need to face up to the archaeological evidence at their site.  The petroglyphs of bovine existed long before Moses ever lived.  The so-called “Cave of Moses” at el-Bad’ were not hewn until long after Moses lived.  The so-called “altar of Moses and the 12 columns” dates to the Nabatean period and has nothing to do with the Wilderness Wanderings.

    The Red Sea crossings at the Gulf of Akaba / Eilat have serious topographical and Biblical / geographical difficulties that the proponents of the view need to consider.

    A more plausible location for Mt. Sinai is at Jebel Sin Bishar in the west central Sinai.  If that is the case, the Red Sea crossing would best be located at a natural land bridge that goes east-west across the northern Gulf of Suez to the east of Jebel ‘Ataqa.  The Pi Hahiroth, the “mouth of the canal”, would be the remnant of an unfinished canal near the modern day Suez City.  The Migdol, “fortress”, would be at or near Clysma.  Baal-Zephon would be a temple to the mariner storm god Baal somewhere on Jebel ‘Ataqa.

    Had the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz examined the evidence in the libraries in the United States carefully and visited the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, they would have come to a different conclusion.  First of all, they would have discovered that they were looking in the wrong place for the Red Sea Crossing and Mt. Sinai.  Second, in the Cairo Museum they would have noticed the chariots of Pharaoh Tutankhamen.  With the exception of Pharaoh’s gold plated chariot, all the other chariots were made of wood and rawhide (leather) with a few copper components.  The first two items that would have disintegrated quickly underwater (Littauer and Crouwel 1992:1:888.889).  Thus there would be nothing left of the chariots to discover with the exception of a few pieces of copper.

    Finally, the proponents would have considered the words of Josephus.  “On the morrow, the arms of the Egyptians having been carried up to the Hebrews’ camp by the tide and the force of the wind setting in that directions, Moses, surmising that this too was due to the providence of God, to ensure that even in weapons they should not be wanting, collected them and, having accoutred [equipped] the Hebrews therein, led them forward for Mount Sinai, with intent there to sacrifice to God and to render to Him the thanks-offerings of the people for their deliverance, even as he had received commandment” (Antiquities 2:349; LCL 4:317,319).  Why look for things that had disintegrated long ago and weapons that were providentially given to the Israelites?  It would be better to follow the example of Moses and go and worship the Lord for His great salvation!

    Bibliography

    Aharoni, Y.

    1979    The Land of the Bible.  A Historical Geography.  Revised edition.  Trans. A. Rainey.  Philadelphia: Westminster.

    Albright, W.

    1968   Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan.  Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Aristotle

    1952    Meteorologica.  Trans. H. Lee.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

    Blum, H.

    1998    The Gold of Exodus.  The Discovery of the True Mount Sinai. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Breasted, J.

    1912    A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Bruyere, B.

    1966    Fouilles de Clysma-Qolzoum (Suez) 1930-1932.  Le Caire: L’Institut Francais D’Archeologie Orientale.

    Cole, R.

    1973   Exodus.  Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity.

    Cornuke, R., and Halbrook, D.

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

    Cross, F.

    1998   From Epic to Canon.  Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins.

    Currid, J.

    1997   Ancient Egypt in the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids: Baker.

    Dever, W.

    1997    Is there Any Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus?  Pp. 67-86 in Exodus The Egyptian Evidence.  E. Frerichs and L. Lesko, eds.  Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Faiman, D.

    2000    Digging Mount Sinai from the Bible.  Bible and Spade 13/4: 115-118.

    Franz, G.

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

    Har-el, M.

    1983    The Sinai Journeys.  The Route of the Exodus.  San Diego, CA: Ridgefield.

    Herodotus

    1999   The Persian Wars.  Books I-II.  Trans A. Godley.  Cambridge, MA:

    Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

    1995    The Persian Wars.  Books III-IV.  Trans. A. Godley.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

    Hoffmeier, J.

    1997   Israel in Egypt.  New York: Oxford.

    Josephus

    1978    Jewish Antiquities.  Books I-IV. Trans. H. Thackeray.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

    Kitchen, K.

    1971    Punt and How to Get There.  Orientalia 40: 184-207.

    1998    Egyptians and Hebrews, from Ra’amses to Jericho.  Pp. 65-131 in The Origin of Early Israel – Current Debate.  S. Ahituv and E. Oren, eds.  Beer-sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

    Littauer, M, and Crouwel, J.

    1992    Chariots.  Pp. 888-892 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 1.  D. Freedman, ed.  New York: Doubleday.

    McQuitty, J.

    1986    The Location and Nature of the Red Sea Crossing.  Unpublished ThM thesis from Capital Bible Seminary.

    Mattingly, G.

    1992    Amalek.  Pp. 169-171 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 1.  D. Freedman, ed.  New York: Doubleday.

    Moon, F., and Sader, H.

    1921    Topography and Geology of Northern Sinai.  Petroleum Research.  Bulletin No. 10.  Cairo: Government Press.

    Na’aman, N.

    1979    The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt.  Tel Aviv 6: 68-90.

    Palmer, E.

    1872   The Desert of the Exodus.  New York: Harper and Brothers.

    Pliny

    1989    Natural History.  Books III-VII.  Vol. 2.  Trans. H. Rackham.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library.

    Rea, J.

    1975    The Exodus.  Pp. 568-577 in Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia.  Vol. 1: 568-577.

    Redford, D.

    1992    Pi-Hahiroth.  P. 371 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.  Vol. 5.  D. Freedman, ed.  New York: Doubleday.

    1997    Observations on the Sojourn of the Bene-Israel.  Pp. 57-66 in Exodus The Egyptian Evidence.  E. Frerichs and L. Lesko, eds. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

    Robinson, E.

    1977   Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea.

    New York: Arno.  Reprint of 1841 edition.

    Shanks, H.

    1992   Frank Moore Cross.  An Interview.  Bible Review 8/4: 20-33, 61-63.

    Shea, W.

    1990   Leaving Egypt.  Archaeology and Biblical Research 3: 98-111.

    Skipwith, G.

    1913    Pi-Hahiroth, “The Mouth of the Canals”.  Palestine Exploration Quarterly ??: 94-95.

    Sneh, A., Weissbrod, T, and Perath, I.

    1975    Evidence for an Ancient Egyptian Frontier Canal.  American Scientist 63: 542-548.

    Standish, R., and Standish, C.

    1999   Holy Relics or Revelation.  Rapidan, VA: Hartland.

    Strabo

    1982    The Geography of Strabo.  Vol. 8.  Trans. H. Jones.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard university.  Loeb Classical Library.

    Warmington, E., and Salles, J.

    1996    Red Sea.  Pp. 1296-1297 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third Edition.  S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds.  Oxford and New York: Oxford University.

    Wilkinson, J.

    1981   Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land.  Revised edition.  Jerusalem:

    Ariel.

    Williams, L.

    1990    The Mountain of Moses.  New York: Wynwood.

    This paper presented at the ETS / NEAS meeting Thursday, November 15, 2001, 9:50-10:30 a.m. session.  Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, CO.

  • Noah’s Ark Comments Off on Did the BASE Institute Discover Noah’s Ark in Iran?

    By Gordon Franz

    The recent reputed discovery of Noah’s Ark by the BASE Institute has gotten a great deal of airtime as well as publicity on the Internet.  There are, however, some excellent reviews that critique the claim that Noah’s Ark landed in Iran.  Three such reviews should be noted: the first is a well illustrated article by Rick Lanser, of ABR (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/articles/article49.html), another article by Rex Geissler (http://www.noahsarksearch.com/iran.htm) and the last one by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/news/70/).  In this review, I will add a few details that were overlooked by the other articles.

    I do have an interest in the location of Noah’s Ark, so I read the article on the BASE website (http://www.baseinstitute.org/noah.html), as well as the two books on the mountains of Ararat.  The first book, a gripping, well-written page turner, was entitled, In Search of the Lost Mountains of Noah, the Discovery of the Real Mts. Of Ararat, and was co-authored by Robert Cornuke and David Halbrook. It was published by Broadman and Holman in 2001.  In this book, Cornuke advocated Mt. Savalon in Iran as part of the Mountains of Ararat.  Apparently he did not find Noah’s Ark on this mountain so he sought the ark on Mt. Suleiman in the Elburz Mountain Range in Iran near Tehran.  This location is advocated on the website and the second book authored by Robert Cornuke and entitled, Ark Fever.  It was published by Tyndale House in 2005.

    I went to many universities and libraries in the New York City area (including Columbia University, Drew University, New York Public Library, Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Union Theological Seminary, and Kutztown University) in order to verify the claims presented on the website, and in the books.  After reviewing the material presented, it became obvious to me that the BASE researchers had done inadequate research and consequently had mistakes on their website and in their books that led them to the wrong conclusions.

    • The Mount Suleiman proposed by the BASE researchers is not within the Biblical “mountains of Ararat” (Urartu) and nowhere near it so it cannot be where Noah’s Ark landed.
    • None of the ancient historians and authors, such as Josephus and Berossus, placed Noah’s Ark on the mountains of Ararat within modern Iran either.
    • Modern scholarship has also found that the Kingdom of Urartu proper never extended 300 miles into Iran to Mount Suleiman in the Elburz range near Tehran.

    These are serious flaws in the research by the BASE Institute that need to be addressed by scholars and should be brought to the attention of the general public.  An informed person will find that there is overwhelming evidence that the object of interest discovered by the BASE team is not Noah’s Ark.

    A disclaimer is in order as well.  A business associate and close friend of the BASE Institute predicted that Mr. Cornuke would be “venomously attacked by both Christians and non-Christians.”  He claims that the reason some Christians would attack him would be because they are jealous, having “spent years and millions of dollars searching on Mt. Ararat in Turkey” and it turned out to be the wrong mountain.

    Personally, I have never searched for anything on Mt. Ararat (Agri Dagh) in Turkey and, in fact, have never been to that mountain, nor do I have any interest in climbing that mountain.  I have done all my archaeological work in Israel (Jerusalem, Lachish, Jezreel, Hazor, Ramat Rachel, etc.) and have never excavated in Turkey.

    This article is a critique of the ideas presented on the BASE website and in the books and nothing more. I will not judge motives. I will simply examine the evidence as a professional. I hope this will invite a similar response from Mr. Cornuke, his organization and his supporters to this or any other factually based critique of his claims.

    One of the flyers distributed by an organization promoting a presentation by Cornuke asked the question, “Is it Noah’s Ark?”  The blurb goes on to say, “Dr. Bob Cornuke, president of BASE Institute is not making any claims.  Instead, he is sharing photographic and laboratory data, and letting audiences draw their own tentative, informed conclusions …”

    Herein is the problem. They raise the question, “Is this Noah’s Ark?”  But they never answer the question whether it is Noah’s Ark or not. What we, in the evangelical community lack is any critical evaluation by the BASE team of the material presented, especially when it goes contrary to the statements of the Bible.  Such an evaluation would allow someone to make a conclusive, informed decision.  Cornuke likes to challenge his listeners with the questions, “What if this is true?”  But the critical question is, “Is this true?” This question is never addressed. What he fails to provide, this article will, and for one reason.  My concern is that evangelical Christian researchers do honest, careful, meticulous research, using original, or primary, sources and hard data.  They must fully and accurately document their findings and arrive at viable conclusions.  That, and no less, should be the goal of this, or any research, done by evangelical Christians.

    Is Mount Suleiman in the Elburz Range within Land of Ararat / Urartu?

    Our compass, the Bible, makes it clear the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4).  I would agree with the BASE website that Ararat refers to a range of mountains and not just one mountain called “Mount Ararat”.  Herein is the most important issue to be discussed.  Does Mount Suleiman in the Elburz Range fall within the Land of Ararat?  If it does not, then there is absolutely positively no way the object of interest discovered by the BASE Institute could be Noah’s Ark (Ark Fever, pages 229-246).  Also, any talk of whether the BASE team went to the site visited by Ed Davis is totally irrelevant.

    The BASE researchers have made the claim that the Land of Ararat is east of Lake Urmiah in Iran.  If their location for the landing of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Suleiman has any validity then the Land of Ararat / Urartu must extend east of Lake Urmiah, actually 300 miles to the east of Lake Urmiah, all the way to the Elburz Mountain Range and the Caspian Sea.  Do the BASE researchers successfully demonstrate that Mount Suleiman in the Elburz Range in Iran is the landing site of the Ark within the Mountains of Ararat?

    In the book, Ark Fever (page 166) a conversation is recounted between Ali, the guide, and Cornuke.  Ali allegedly reported that the Iranian scholar, Dr. Abdul Hussein Zarinkub, placed the first capital of Urartu in the region of Lake Urmiah.  Cornuke goes on to say that David Rohl agreed with Dr. Zarinkub’s assessment.  He quotes from Rohl’s book, Legend. The Genesis of Civilization.  A Test of Time, vol. 2 (1998).  London: Arrow, page 104.  I found the quote on page 102 in the Century, Random House edition (London, 1998).  The quote, as recorded in Ark Fever, says: “The later kingdom of Urartu [Ararat] was originally located here [east of Lake Urmia] in its early days, before shifting its heartland to the area around Lake Van.”  This is a misleading and inaccurate quote.  Rohl’s actually said: “Scholars have determined that the later kingdom of Urartu (Ararat) was also originally located here (in the Miyandoab plain) in its early days, before shifting its heartland to the area around Lake Van.”  Please notice that Cornuke substituted the words “east of Lake Urmia” for Rohl’s “in the Miyandoab plain.”  The map on page 83 of Rohl’s book places Miyandoab south of Lake Urmiah, not east of it.  Rohl also states, “The lost kingdom of Aratta, mentioned in the earliest Sumerian epics, is to be located within the Miyandoab plain to the south of Lake Urmia in greater Armenia” (page 103, see also page 100).

    Dr. Paul E. Zimansky, a leading expert of Urartian studies, gives a lengthy description of the territory of the Kingdom of Urartu / Ararat.  He states: “Urartian kings would have ruled all of the agricultural lands around Lake Van and Lake Sevan, and the southwestern shore of Lake Urumiyeh.  The upper Aras, particularly the Armavir and Erevan areas, was firmly in their hands, and conquest took them as far north as Lake Cildir.  Along the Murat, evidence for royal control is surprisingly meager, but sufficient to put the Euphrates at Izoli within the conquered zone and the Elazig area in the narrower sphere.  Campaign inscriptions are found well to the east of Tabriz, but the nearest evidence for firm state control in that direction comes from Bastam, thirty-eight kilometers north of Khvoy.  Missing from this picture are the large and fertile plains of Erzurum and Erzincan on the Karasu, the northwest shore of Lake Urumiyeh, the plain of Marand, and the middle Aras from Jolfa to the slopes of Mount Ararat.  All of these are generally assumed to be part of Urartu in some sense, and it is worth examining other forms of evidence to see if there might be some grounds for including them within the perimeter of state control” (Ecology and Empire: The Structure of Urartian State, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985, page 10).  For a discussion of the inscriptions found to the east of Tabriz (in Iran), in conquered territory outside the borders of the Kingdom of Urartu, see B. Andre-Salvini and M. Salvini’s study, “The Urartian Rock Inscriptions of Razliq and Nasteban (East Azerbaijan, Iran)” in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolia 41/1 (1999), pages 17-32.

    The territory of Urartu is centered around Lake Van and between this lake and Lake Urmiah.  Lake Van is about 90 miles / 150 kilometers to the west of Lake Urmiah.  Urartu’s eastern border went up to the northern and southern tip of Lake Urmiah (which are in Iran), but not to the eastern side of the lake.  The Mount Suleiman that the BASE Institute claims is the mountain where the Ark landed is about 300 miles to the east of Lake Urmiah and is not in the Land of Urartu.

    It is important to note that the Elburz Range is not included in the Land of Urartu / Ararat.  In fact, the Elburz Range is in the Land of Media (Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2, edited by I. Gershevitch, 1968, page 36).  The ancient Biblical and historical sources clearly show that Mt. Suleiman, northwest of Tehran, was deep inside the land of Media and far outside the land of Ararat / Urartu where the Ark landed.

    A student of the Bible who is interested in the search for Noah’s Ark should do a serious study on the region of Ararat / Urartu.  It would be helpful to begin with:  W. W. Gasque, “Ararat”, pages. 233, 234 in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1979); A. R. Millard, “Urartu”, page 955 in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1979); Edwin Yamauchi, pages 29-47 in Foes from the Northern Frontier.  Grand Rapids: Baker (1982); Paul E. Zimansky, Ancient Ararat.  Delmar, NY: Caravan Books (1998).  The use of secondary sources (Roux, Gasque, Millard, Yamauchi, and Zimansky) is good for general background information, but it is the proper use of primary sources that builds a compelling case.  The serious student of the Bible should master the primary sources.

    Do Other Ancient Writers Put the Ark in Iran?

    The BASE website identifies three ancient writers that supposedly place the landing of the Ark in Iran: Nicolas of Damascus, Flavius Josephus and Julius Africanus.  Is this an accurate assessment of what these ancient writers actually wrote?

    Let us start by examining the statements of the Jewish historian Josephus.  There are at least six passages in the writings of this first century AD historian that refer to the Ark and / or the location of its landing.  The BASE website only refers to two of the six and on one of them the citation is inaccurate.

    In the first reference, Josephus recounts the writings of Berosus, the priest of the temple of Bel in Babylon, who states the ark, “landed on the heights of the mountains of Armenia” (Against Apion 1:130; Loeb Classical Library 1: 215).

    The second reference by Josephus states, the “ark settled on a mountain-top in Armenia” (Antiquities of the Jews 1: 90; Loeb Classical Library 4: 43).

    The third reference, in Antiquities of the Jews 1: 92 (Loeb Classical Library 4: 45), states: “The Armenians call the spot the Landing-place, for it was there that the ark came safe to land, and they show the relics of it to this day.”  This passage does not state explicitly where the Ark landed, but Josephus does indicate that the Ark still existed in his day.  One needs to determine the territory of Armenia at the end of the 1st century AD.  Did it include Iran?  The answer is, “No, Armenia did not extend into Iran, and for sure, not to the Elburz range.”

    For a good study on the historical-geography of Armenia, see the four articles by R. H. Hewsen in Revue des Etudes Armeniennes, vol. 13 (1978-79) pp. 77-97; vol. 17 (1983) pp. 123-143; vol. 18 (1984) pp. 347-366; vol. 19 (1985) pp. 55-84.

    The fourth reference to the Ark by Josephus is his quotation of Berosus the Chaldaean’s (330-250 BC) description of the Flood and the landing of the Ark.  He quotes, “It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in Armenia on the mountain of the Cordyaeans, and that persons carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they use as talismans” (Antiquities of the Jews 1: 93; Loeb Classical Library 4: 45).  We get the word Kurdistan from the word Cordyaean.  This area is located in southeastern Turkey today.  At one point that was a district in Armenia.

    The fifth quote that Josephus gives is from Nicolas of Damascus which the BASE website quotes from J. W. Montgomery’s book, but they don’t seem to realize the quote was from Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 1:95; Loeb Classical Library 4:47).  Here, it is reported by Nicolas, “There is above the country of Minyas in Armenia a great mountain called Baris, where, as the story goes, many refugees found safety at the time of the flood, and one man, transported upon an ark, grounded upon the summit, and relics of the timber were for long preserved.”  The importance of this quote is that the Ark landed in Armenia.  Again, Armenia did not extend into what is present day Iran.

    The sixth quote, the one cited on the BASE website, is found in Antiquities of the Jews 20:24, 25 (Loeb Classical Library 10:15).  It is not, as cited by the website, “(Loeb edition, volume 1X, pp. 403-403).”  Here Josephus recounts the story of Monobazus, the king of Adiabene and the wife of Queen Helena, who wanted to see his son Izates before he died.  The capital of Adiabene is Arbela in northern Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).  When Monobazus saw his son, he gave Izates the district of Carron.  The land of Carron is described as a place with “excellent soil for the production of amomum in the greatest abundance; it also possesses the remains of the ark in which report has it that Noah was saved from the flood – remains which to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.”  The land of Carron must be in the mountains to the north of Mesopotamia (in present day southeastern Turkey), but these mountains are not in present day Iran.

    The BASE website goes on to cite Julius Africanus as supporting their claims that the Ark landed in Iran.  They quote from Lloyd R. Bailey’s book, Noah – The Person and Story in History and Tradition (1989), University of South Carolina Press, rather than the original source.  No page number is given for this quote, but this source can be found on page 65.  In the context, Prof. Bailey does not support the BASE contention that Julius Africanus says the Ark landed in Iran, but rather, the context quotes Julius Africanus as placing the landing of the Ark “somewhere in the mountains of modern Kurdistan (the upper Zagros range, northeast of Mesopotamia)” in the area of ancient Adiabene (page 64).  In the footnote to the Julius reference Bailey adds: “Parthis was generally to the east of Mesopotamia, but occasionally extended its influence to the area of Greater Armenia.  Thus Julius’ reference allows for a number of possibilities” (page 217, footnote 24).  The possibility that he suggests is the ancient “Mount Nisar, which is likely the spectacular Pir Omar Gudrum (called Pira Magrun by the Kurds), just south of the Lower Zab River” (page 65).  This mountain is in the Kurdish part of Iraqi today, not Iran.

    What is interesting is to go back and read the original quote of Julius Africanus.  He says: “And Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on.  And when the waters abated, the ark settled on the mountains of Ararat, which we know to be in Parthia; but some say that they are at Celaenae of Phrygia, and I have seen both places” (The Extant Writings of Julius Africanus, page 131b in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, Hendrickson (1994)).  The last part of the sentence is not quoted by Dr. Bailey or the BASE website.  Phrygia is in Western Turkey, not Iran.

    The Land of Ararat / Urartu is in modern day Turkey and north and west of Lake Urmiah, but it is not in the Elburz range in Iran.  It is wishful thinking on the part of the BASE researchers to claim that the ancient writers placed the landing site for the Ark in modern day Iran.  The ancient writers clearly point to Turkey or Iraq as the place of the landing of the Ark, not Iran.

    The BASE team is free to speculate, within reason, any new theories they may have regarding the landing place of the ark. That reasoning, however, must take into account all the data pertaining to historical geography. These facts must not be overlooked.

    Is Ararat East of the Land of Shinar (Gen. 11:2)?

    The BASE website states that: “The Bible gives us a clear direction for the landing location of the Ark, and it is not in the direction of Turkey.  The Bible says that the survivors of the flood journeyed ‘from the east’ and subsequently settled in ‘Shinar’ (a region generally known as Babylon).”  I would agree with the BASE researchers that the descendents of Noah came from the east, but does the text state that the Ark landed east of Shinar?

    The Biblical passage does not state that Ararat is east of the Land of Shinar.  The scholar that is quoted at the end of this section is Samuel Shuckford (?1694-1754), a Cambridge graduate and the chaplain to King George II.  In his book,  The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected, From the Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire at the Death of Sarda-Napalus, and to the Declension of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Under the Reigns of Ahaz and Pekah, (I kid you not, that’s the title of the book!)  I was able to locate a 5th edition of vol. 1 of this work published in 1819.  The original edition was first published in 1728.  In it, Shuckford says that about 80 years after the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat the descendents of Noah migrated to the Plain of Shinar (pages 93 and 94), that is plenty of time for the descendents to multiply and migrate to Shinar from wherever the Ark landed.

    The BASE website states: “It is highly unlikely that the descendents of Noah would migrate from the traditional Mount Ararat in Turkey to the Mesopotamia plain.  If they did so, they would have had to traverse impassable mountain ranges to eventually come from the east. The Assyrian invaders found it impossible to cross these mountain ranges thus it would seem that the descendents of Noah would find it equally difficult.”  This statement is simply not true.  The Assyrian invaders did not find the mountain ranges impossible to cross.  Sargon II, in the year 714 BC (see below for citations), took his army from Calah into the Zagros Mountains, up around Lake Urmiah and into Urartu and back to Calah, all in less that one year.  Sargon complained that part of the campaign in the Zagros was difficult, but it was not impossible.  Other Assyrian kings invaded Urartu through the Zagros Mountains as well.  During times of peace, there was trade and commerce between Urartu and Assyria.  The mountains are not impassible and it is not impossible to cross them.  If the Assyrians could do it, the descendents of Noah could as well.

    The BASE website gives a quote from a book by Edward Hitchcock entitled The Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences (1851).  (Please note the misquotation of the title.  The website entitles the book Religion and Geology.  Fortunately the website did spell Edward Hitchcock’s name correctly and I was able to locate the book).

    Hitchcock says: “Shuckford suggested that some spot farther east corresponds better with the scriptural account of the place where the ark rested.  For it is said of the families of the sons of Noah, that, as they journeyed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar.  Now, Shinar, or Babylonia, lies nearly south of the Armenian Ararat, and the probability, therefore, is, that the true Ararat, from whose vicinity the descendents of Noah probably emigrated, lay much further to the south” (pages 139, 140).  This quote is an accurate replication of what Hitchcock said, but a good researcher should read the context and follow up on what Shuckford actually believed.

    In the chapter where this quote is found (Lecture IV), Dr. Hitchcock is recounting all the different views of geology and Noah’s Flood that were held by theologians in 1851 (eight years before Charles Darwin published Origins of Species).  Hitchcock is advocating a “local” or regional Flood and not a universal world-wide Flood.  He realized that if the Ark landed on Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh) and the flood waters covered that mountain, then the Flood would have had to be global or universal in scope.  To get around this problem he quotes the above passage from Samuel Shuckford.  Dr. Hitchcock did not fairly represent Chaplain Shuckford’s position.  After dismissing the “common opinion … that the ark rested on one of the Gordyean hills” (page 87), Shuckford advocated a landing site for Noah’s Ark “near Saga Scythia on the hills beyond Bactria, north of India” (page 92).  That area is today northern Afghanistan and Pakistan, located about 1,200 miles ENE of Shinar.  Yet Dr. Hitchcock says the landing site was further to the south of Armenian Ararat, in Shinar / Babylonia, not to the east or ENE and not in Iran or India.

    It is not true that Genesis 11:2 “only allows for a Northern Iran interpretation.”  The descendents of Noah had 80 years to multiply once they left the Ark and migrate to Shinar.  They could have walked from the mountains of Ararat to China and back to Shinar if they wanted.  The text does not demand, or require, that the Ark landed to the east of Shinar.

    Do the maps in Ark Fever confirm the Mount Suleiman location for the landing site of Noah’s Ark?

    Two old maps are presented in Ark Fever in an attempt to bolster the case for the landing site of the ark in Iran (pages 42 and 60).  However, neither map supports the case for Mount Suleiman being the landing site of the ark.

    The first map is found on page 42.  It is identified in the book as a “Map of the ‘Terrestrial Paradise,’ showing Noah’s Ark below the Caspian Sea on the Summit of ‘Mont Ararat.’  Pierre Daniel Huet’s conception from Calmet’s Dictionnaire historique del [sic] la Bible (1722).”  What BASE is trying to demonstrate by this map is that the landing site for Noah’s Ark is below (or near) the Caspian Sea, just as Mount Suleiman, near Tehran, is near the Caspian Sea.  This is very misleading.  The map is not to scale and is an idealized map.  Fortunately one can locate where this mountain is by a careful examination of the map.  Just below the mountain is a city named Ecbatana.  The ancient city of Ecbatana is buried underneath the modern Iranian city of Hamadan.

    Ecbatana is mentioned once in the Bible in Ezra 6:2 (see the margin of any good study Bible) as the capital of the province of Media.  It is also possible that it was one of the “cities of the Medes” to which Israelite captives were exiled to by the Assyrians after the fall of Samaria (II Kings 17:6).  Interestingly, the mapmaker places “Mount Ararat” in the Land of Media and not in Armenia.  This should have raised red flags because this is contrary to our Biblical compass.

    The mapmaker was trying to convey that the Ark landed on a mountain near Ecbatana, but not, as Ark Fever tries to portray, on Mount Suleiman some 250 km to the northeast of Hamadan.  There are Luristan traditions that Noah’s Ark landed in the area of Hamadan.  Major Rawlinson visited the area in 1836 and mentions the tradition of the landing on a “very lofty range, called Sar Kushti” on page 100 in his article in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9 (1839) 26-116.

    The second map is found on page 60.  It is labeled “Map of Armenia showing ‘Ararat Mons’ (Mountains in Region of Iran) from Petras Plantius 1552 & 1622.”    The arrow on the map points to “Ararat mons” and the label says that they are “mountains in region of Iran.”  This map is primitive, and in some cases inaccurate, but a careful examination of the map will show that the mountains are in southeastern Turkey and not Iran.  Just below the “Ararat mons” are the cities of Nineve, Mosul, and Arbela, all cities in northern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), and not Iran.  The range of mountains to the right of “Ararat mons”, running in a north-south direction, are the Zagros Mountains, even though they are mislabeled “Caspy (?) montes” (Caspian Mountains).  One can tell they are the Zagros Mountains by the location of Elam and Susa at the southern end of the mountain range.  These locations are to the southeast of the Zagros Mountains.  The label under the map is misleading because “Ararat Mons” is not in the region of Iran.

    The two maps in Ark Fever do not support the claim by the BASE Institute that the landing site of Noah’s Ark was on Mt. Suleiman near Tehran in Iran.

    Where did Sennacherib’s two sons really flee too?

    The Bible states that after Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was assassinated by his two sons, they escaped into the Land of Ararat” (II Kings 19:37 // Isa. 37:38).  This occurred on the 20th day of the month Tebet (October) in the year 681 BC.

    Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son that succeeded him after his father’s death, pursued his two brothers.  One of Esarhaddon’s historical texts says, “As for those villains [his two brothers] who instigated revolt and rebellion, when they heard of the approach of my army, they abandoned their regular troops, and fled to parts unknown” (ARAB II: 202).  Esarhaddon does not tell us where they went, but the Bible, our compass, does.  They went to the Land of Ararat.  As we’ve seen before, the territory of Ararat / Urartu does not extend to the east of Lake Urmiah.

    The BASE researchers could have located the site utilizing the statement by E. A. Wallis Budge where he gives the precise location that one of the sons, Sharezer, fled to: a village on Mount Kardo in the ancient Land of Ararat / Urartu which is in present day Turkey and not Iran.

    Another scholar made another interesting suggestion based on Esarhaddon’s “Letter to God” that the two brothers fled to Subria, a buffer state between Assyria and Urartu (Bradley Parker, The Mechanics of Empire (2001) pp. 241-245, 251).  This area is in Turkey, not Iran.

    According to the BASE website, Sargon II described the Mountains of Urartu as a “spine of a fish”.  Is Sargon II describing the Elborz Mountains?

    The BASE website states that “the Elborz Mountains matched to what the real Mountains of Ararat should look like according to a description by Sargon the Second in 714 B.C.  He recorded that the Mountains of Urartu (Ararat) were like the spine of a fish which were very high and impossible to cross.”  They go on to speculate that “Mount Suleiman in [sic] one of several high narrow mountains [sic] peaks that look like the long spine of a fish.  There are fifteen peaks [sic] are over fourteen thousand feet high in that range”.

    The only basis for these claims is a citation from George Roux’s book, Ancient Iraq, 1966 edition, page 313.  Roux’s book is a classic and has gone through several editions with different publishers.  Unfortunately, I was not able to locate a copy of the 1966 Penguin edition, but did find the reference to the “spine of the fish” on page 260 in the 1964 World Publishing Company edition and page 290 of the 1980 second edition Penguin paperback.  A friend informed me that the quote was on pages 283-284 of his tattered copy of the 1966 edition.  Unfortunately for the BASE researchers, this reference does not support their claim.  In fact, their speculation is wrong on two counts.

    The “spine of the fish” quotation comes from Sargon II’s “Letter to Assur recounting the events of the eighth campaign” (Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, Vol. 2.  London: Histories and Mysteries of Man, 1989, pages 73-99, cited below as ARAB).  He writes, “Mount Simirria, a large mountain peak, which stands out like the blade of a lance, raising its head above the mountains where the goddess Belit-ilani resides, whose summit reaches to the heavens above, whose root strikes downward into the midst of Arallu (the lower world); where, as on the back of a fish, there is no going side by side, and where the ascent is difficult (whether one goes) forward or backward …”  George Roux translates the phrase “back of a fish” as “like the spine of a fish” (page 260 in Ancient Iraq, Cleveland: World Publishing, 1964).

    On this cuneiform tablet, Sargon II the king of Assyria, addresses the supreme god of Assyria, Assur and recounts his campaign against the kingdom of Urartu in the year 714 BC.

    Sargon II and his army left the capital, Calah, and went into the Zagros Mountains to secure his eastern flank before he attacked the kingdom of Urartu.  The “spine of the fish” quote comes in the first part of Sargon’s campaign and not his campaign against Urartu.  Sargon identifies Mount Simimia as the mountain described as the “spine of the fish” (Luckenbill 1989: II: 74).   There have been a number of scholarly works on the geography of eighth campaign by Sargon II against Urartu and this mountain can be pinpointed on a map.

    A helpful tool to research the location of Mount Simimia and follow the route of Sargon’s campaign are the maps in the Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Edited by S. Parpola and M. Porter, Casco Bay Assyriological Institute and the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001).  I engaged in a simple exercise by spreading the map from the back of the atlas out on a table and read the account in ARAB and followed the route from one place, region or mountain to another.  Mt. Simirria was located at Kuh-I Saih Maret, on the eastern edge of the Zagros Mountains, about 40 kilometers to the north of modern day Sanandag and 190 kilometers northwest of modern day Hamadan, not in the Mountains of Urartu as the BASE website maintains (Parpola and Porter 2001: 5, 7, 16; map 11).

    Sargon II’s account is helpful in another respect because it delineates the eastern border of Urartu and demonstrates that the Elborz Mountains are not in the Land of Urartu.

    Sargon II’s campaign goes up the east side of Lake Urmiah and reaches a point near modern day Mount Sahand, a large volcanic mountain to the east of the lake.  Sargon writes, “I stopped my march on Andia and Zikirtu which lay before me, and set my face toward Urartu.  Uishdish, a district of the Mannean country, which Ursa had seized and taken for his own, with its many cities, which are countless as the stars of heaven, I captured in its entirety” (ARAB II: 84, para. 157).  Ursa is the Assyrian name for the Urartian king Rusa.

    Dr. Paul Zimansky has observed: “Sargon’s account shows sensitivity to a distinction between territory that is truly “Urartian” and territory which is merely under Rusa’s political control.  For example, the letter states that Uisdis [also spelled Uishdish – gf] was a Mannean province which Rusa had expropriated” (“Urartian Geography and Sargon’s Eighth Campaign”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990), page 7).

    Sargon goes on to say: “From Uishdish I departed, (and) drew near to the city of Ushkaia, the great fortress on the outer frontier (lit. head of boundary) of Urartu, which bars the pass into the Zaranda district like a door” (ARAB II: 84, para. 158).  Zimansky continues his observation: “Only after his march through it [the district of Uishdish – gf], upon entering the next province, does Sargon claim to have crossed the border into Urartu” (JNES 49 (1990), page 7).  The next province, Zaranda, is northwest of Lake Urmiah.

    The unsubstantiated speculation of the BASE research team that the Urartian mountain, described by Sargon II as like a “spine of a fish,” is in the El Borz Mountain Range is wrong on two accounts.  First, the “spine of the fish” quote by Sargon II is not referring to the Mountains of Urartu, as the BASE website claims, but rather Mt. Simimia in the Zagros Mountain Range.  Second, the Elburz Mountain Range is not in the Land of Ararat / Urartu.

    It is clear that whatever the object of interest found by the BASE team on Mount Suleiman in Iran, it can not be Noah’s Ark because our compass, the Bible, clearly states that the Ark landed in the Mountains of Ararat / Urartu and Mount Suleiman is not in the Mountains of Ararat!  This we can say with certainty. That naturally raises one question.

    What is it?

    Since the object of interest found by the BASE team can not be Noah’s Ark, then what is it?  I can only venture a guess because I have not been to the mountain, nor have I seen the material first hand.  I suspect it is some sort of geological formation.  Or, as one Ark hunter so eloquently put it, “It could be plain old rocks that mean nothing!”  At the end of the day, this will prove to be the correct assessment.

    I was able to locate one geological report on the geology of Takht-i-Suleiman in the Elburz Mountain Range in Iran.  It was co-authored by Augusto Gansser and Heinrich Huber in 1962.  The article, in English, was entitled “Geological Observations in the Central Elburz, Iran” and published in Schweizerische Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen (Vol. 42, pages 583-630).

    Gansser and Huber observe that “The Pre-Devonian sedimentary uplifts show a regional, though slight metamorphism and their fracture system is accentuated by a dense dike and sill network of diabasic composition” (page 590).  One geologist pointed out to me that “diabase is often a dark rock and could correspond to what was shown in the photos.”

    Since I am not a geologist, I can not make a fair and accurate assessment of the material.  If there are any serious ark researchers with geological training that does not have access to this publication, I will be glad to make it available.  With more published information available, the discussion can go forward on a much more informed academic level.  It would be helpful if the BASE researchers provided other researchers with the exact GPS coordinates for the site.

    The Challenge to the BASE Institute

    I hope in the weeks and months to come, the BASE Institute will follow the standard protocol of the scientific community and present their findings in the proper way.  Ark researchers and some archaeologists would like to see all the material published in a peer reviewed scientific journal(s), either a geological and/or an archaeological one.

    The late Ron Wyatt claimed to have found ninety-two (92) Biblical objects or places, yet he never published a single object in a peer reviewed scientific publication.  The only thing that was ever published in a peer reviewed journal was by his partner, Dave Fasold, and it was not a pretty review of Wyatt’s “Noah’s ark.”  [Lorence Collins and Dave Fasold, “Bogus ‘Noah’s Ark’ from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure”, Journal of Geoscience Education 44 (1996) 439-444].  The BASE Institute has made claims of four Biblical discoveries, yet none of the first three (Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia, the ark of the covenant in Ethiopia, or the anchors from Paul’s shipwreck off the coast of Malta) have ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific publication by the BASE Institute.  (A popular book for the lay audience, with a few pictures, is not a scientific publication).  I hope with this discovery, the BASE Institute will follow normal scientific protocol and not follow in the footsteps of Ron Wyatt.

    With so many theories claiming to discover biblical truth, the evangelical Christian community must be very discerning and follow the model of the Bereans who, after hearing the Apostle Paul himself, “searched the Scriptures to see whether these things are true.”  Before swallowing the next claim, our community must do our homework on the history, archaeology, geology and geography of the landing place of Noah’s Ark using primary sources and hard data. If we cannot, then hold off judgment (pro or con) until others are given the opportunity to do so.

    At this point the claims made by BASE Institute do not seem to have any merit. For the sake of the truth, however, I encourage the BASE Institute investigators to offer scholars, independent of the BASE Institute, full access to all the data. Let their best evidence come under the tests of scholarly scrutiny. When all the test results are in, the investigation and its claims will either be vindicated or proven false.  The church, the witness to an unbelieving world, and truth itself deserve no less.

    Revised October 15, 2006

    Revised January 26, 2007

  • Profiles in Missions Comments Off on DEMAS: Lover of this Present World

    By Gordon Franz

    Introduction
    Our society tends to blame adverse behavior on our environment, or on circumstances and events around us, but we seldom, if ever, take personal responsibility for our own actions.  One of the most haunting passages of Scripture in Paul’s epistles, and one that probably caused him to weep over as he wrote, is found in II Tim. 4:10: “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica.”

    The apostle Paul was a “people person.”  He ministered to people, he trained people, he prayed for people.  When one of those people, whom he had poured his life into, deserted him, he must have felt devastated and alone.  This seems to be reflected in the next verse when he wrote, “Only Luke is with me” (4:11).  Let us examine the life of Demas and see what lessons we can learn from his failure.

    His Hometown
    The Scriptures do not explicitly state where Demas was from.  Some have inferred from the desertion passage that his departure to Thessalonica implies that he was returning to his hometown.  If that is the case, he was originally from Thessalonica.

    In the excavations at Thessaloniki, inscriptions were discovered with the names of the politarchs of the city on them (the “rulers of the city” in Acts 17:6, 8).  Two different inscriptions had the name Demetrius on them.  W. F. Boyd tries to make an association with Demas and one of the two politarchs named Demetrius found on inscriptions.  He admits it is not a certainty, but he thinks it is a possibility (1916: 1: 286, 287).

    If Demas is from Thessaloniki, it would be interesting to compare his life with that of Aristarchus.  Both of these men were from Thessaloniki, both may have been from the aristocracy and probably had some wealth, both were trained by the Apostle Paul, yet both men went in different spiritual directions.  Why?  It is not because of environment, circumstances, or even teaching: it’s because the individual chose to go in the spiritual direction that he wanted and would bear the consequence of his decision.

    His Spiritual Activities
    Demas first appears in the Bible when he was in Rome during the Apostle Paul’s first imprisonment (AD 60-62).  Paul is under house arrest in his rented house and is allowed visitors (Acts 28:30, 31).  In the last chapter of the Book of Colossians there are at least eight believers with Paul at this time who are known by the saints in the Lycus Valley where Colossae is located.  Six of them send their greetings to the churches in the valley (Col. 4:10-14), five of them will send their personal greetings to Philemon at Colossae as well (Philemon 23, 24).  Justus, apparently was not known by Philemon.  Two other brothers, Tychicus and Onesimus, will take the letters back to the valley (Col. 4:7-9).
    The two lists of greetings provide small details about Demas.  In Colossians, he is listed with Dr. Luke and Epaphras (4:12-14), where they are set in contrast with the three Jewish believers, Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus – called Justus, mentioned previously (4:10, 11).  This passage seems to indicate that Demas was a Gentile.

    In the greetings to Philemon, Demas is included in the statement that he is a fellow laborer with Paul (Philemon 24).  The word “fellow-laborer” (sunergos) has the idea of a co-worker.  W. D. Thomas pointed out that the “word implies that two people are working closely together as partners, sharing work and responsibility.  There is even the suggestion of equality in the word co-worker.”  He goes on to say that Demas was a “close confidant of Paul, sharing the Apostle’s vision of winning the world for God” (1983-84: 179).  Apparently Demas was a visiting missionary to the Lycus Valley at one time because they knew him, thus his greetings to them.  He was not a local brother like Epaphras (4:12).  As for the timing of his visit to the Lycus Valley, the Scriptures are silent.

    His Forsaking of Paul
    The Apostle Paul wrote that Demas “forsook him.”  (II Tim. 4:10).  The Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest states: “The Greek word ‘forsaken’ (egkataleipo) means ‘to abandon, desert, leave in straits, leave helpless, leave in the lurch, let one down’” (1966:2: 164).

    One noted preacher suggests that Demas “may not have been a true believer at all” (MacAuthur 1995:206).  A word of caution is in order at this point.  Demas was a fellow laborer with Paul and at a point in time, he forsook Paul.  We have no Scriptural record of what happened to Demas after he got to Thessalonica.  Perhaps he abandoned his love for this present world and started to love the appearing of Christ and began to set his affection on things above.
    Even if, in addition to forsaking Paul, he forsook the Lord, the Lord would remain faithful to him because He can not deny Himself because the promise of eternal life is for eternity and the Father and the Son held on to Demas (II Tim. 2:11-13; John 6:35-40, 47; 10:25-30).

    His Love for this Present World
    Paul does not tell us what aspect of the present world system Demas loved.  He does not say if it is fame, fortune, or the gratification of the flesh.  I believe the reason that the Apostle Paul does not tell us any details as to what Demas did “loving this present world” was two-fold.  First, he did not want to embarrass his fellow laborer any further, saying that he forsook Paul was bad enough.  But second, Demas’ life could be instructive to other believers and also serve as a warning to potential wayward believers.  When a Bible teacher expounds on the life of Demas, broad applications could be made to his love for this present world system, and not limit it to a single example, or sin.

    The Apostle John wrote to believers in Asia Minor: “Do not love the world or the things of the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – is not of the Father but is of the world.  And the world is passing away, and the lust of it, but he who does the will of God abides forever” (I John 2:15-17).

    John uses the same word for “love” (agape) that Paul uses in II Tim. 4:10.  However, he uses a different Greek word for world.  In the epistle to Timothy, Paul uses “aiona” (the concept of “eons of time” comes from this word), while John uses “kosmos.”  Richard Trench, in his book Synonyms of the New Testament sees a subtle difference between these two words.  “Kosmos” is the “world contemplated under aspects of space” while “aiona” is the “same contemplated under aspects of time” (1973: 214).  The questions that should be raised from this distinction are: “Are believers in the Lord Jesus living for time, or eternity?”  And, “are Christians living for this world, or Thy Kingdom to come?”

    The Christian should view the “world” as often used in the New Testament, as a moral and spiritual system, in both time and space, which is designed to draw the believer in the Lord Jesus away from his or her love for the Lord and any service that might be rendered to Him (Gal 1:4; I Tim. 6:17; Tit. 2:12).

    This world system has only three allurements to draw the believer away from his or her love for the Lord.  First, there is the lust of the flesh, second, the lust of the eyes, and finally, the pride of life.  The first, the lust of the flesh, has to do with the gratification of the flesh (what makes me feel good physically).  Included within this allurement would be sexual sins, gluttony, drug use and drunkenness.  If it’s gluttony, perhaps he did not like the cheese-less pizza in Rome and wanted to devour the chicken gyros in Thessalonica!  The second category is the lust of the eyes (what possessions I want to make me happy).  These sins would be what we see and desire to have, but the object we want is not ours to have because it belongs to someone else.  This is known as covetousness.  The final category is pride of life (what I want to be).  This is the arrogance that one has when they boast about themselves, their accomplishments, or their possessions.  Whatever Demas’ love for the world was, it fell into at least one of these three categories.

    Interestingly, Adam and Eve were tempted to disobey the Lord God in the Garden of Eden by these same three tactics.  In the most perfect conditions humans ever lived, Satan came to Eve, disguised as a serpent,  and cast doubt on the Word of God (Gen. 3:1), and then he blatantly challenged the Word of God (3:4, 5).  So when Eve “saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree desirable to make one wise (pride of life), she took of its fruit and ate.  She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen. 3:6).

    On the other hand, the Lord Jesus, after He was baptized, was tested by the Devil in the most imperfect conditions for forty days (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13).  In the Gospel of Luke, the Lord Jesus is presented as the Perfect Man, thus the Last Adam (I Cor. 15:45).  Luke records the genealogy of Mary where her line is traced all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:38).

    The first testing by Satan was to challenge the Lord Jesus to turn the stone into bread (Luke 4:2-4).  Here was the lust of the flesh, the desire to have physical food while He was fasting.  But, Jesus answered Satan from the Word of God saying, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”  He was quoting Deut. 8:3.

    In the second testing, Satan takes the Lord Jesus to a high mountain and shows Him all the kingdom of the world and says they could all be the Lord’s if only He would bow down and worship Satan (Luke 4:5-8).  Satan tested Him with the lust of the eyes because there was the desire to see and covet that which was not His.  This world system was under the dominion of Satan (John 12:31; 14:30; II Cor. 4:4).  Yet again, Jesus quotes from the Word of God: “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Deut. 6:13; 10:20).

    The final testing, Satan takes the Lord Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple and says: “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here” and then he proceeds to misquote Psalm 91:11, 12.  Here was an attack on the deity of the Lord Jesus.  He was the Son of God.  Yet Satan was attacking with the “pride of life.”

    Interestingly, Jesus passed the same three tests, in the most imperfect conditions, that Adam and Eve failed, in the most perfect conditions in the Garden of Eden.  What was the secret of His victory?  First, Luke tells us that the Lord Jesus was filled with the Spirit (4:1, 14; see also Eph. 5:18).  Second, He knew and used the word of God against Satan each time He was tested (4:4, 8, 12; see also Eph. 6:17).  This should be an encouragement for every believer to be filled with the Spirit and to put on the whole armor of God, which includes the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 5:18-6:20).

    His Departure to Thessalonica
    Why Demas went to Thessalonica, and what he did there is not revealed in the Scriptures.  Hanson gives a tantalizing note in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.  He said: “A copyist in a manuscript preserved in the Medici Library in Florence adds in the margin the information that Demas became a priest of a pagan temple at Thessalonica.  On what authority he says this we do not know” (1966: 100).  If this footnote is true, the allurement that Demas fell for was the pride of life.

    “Golden-mouth” John Chrysostom, the eloquent preacher who lived about AD 400 suggests that “having loved his own ease and security from danger, he has chosen rather to live luxuriously at home, than to suffer hardships” apparently with Paul (quoted in Oden 1989:176).  If this is the case, the allurement that Demas fell for was the lust of the flesh because he wanted the easy life.

    W. F. Boyd conjectures: “In this case the prospect of civil honors may have been the reason which led him to abandon the hardships and dangers of the Apostle’s life and return to Thessalonica, where his family may have help positions of influence” (1916: 287).  If this is the case, the allurement that enticed Demas was again the pride of life.

    Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, in the first half of the 2nd century AD, wrote an epistle to the church at Philippi.  In the ninth chapter of his epistle, he listed some of the martyrs of the early church: Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, Paul and other apostles, and said that all these had not “run in vain” because they did not “love this present world” (Polycarp to the Philippians 9:1, 2; LCL I: 295).  Polycarp hints at the fact that he is referring to Demas when he lists the martyrs and said they did not love this present world.  The implication was that Demas did not want to be a martyr so he abandoned Paul in Rome just before he was executed.  If this is the case, the allurement that enticed Demas was the pride of life.  He valued his earthy life more than receiving the crown of life (James 1:12; Rev. 2:10).

    What Would Jesus Say about Demas?
    Jesus gives a series of parables during the fall of AD 28 from a boat in a cove of the Sea of Galilee.  While speaking to the multitude that is seated in the natural amphitheater to the west of Capernaum, He spots a farmer sowing seeds on the hillside.  He says, “Let me tell you about the four different types of soil that the seed is falling onto.  The first soil was actually the road that runs along the shore of the Sea of Galilee.  Here, the birds of the air ate the seeds.  The second soil was the stony ground.  The seeds spouted for a short while until the heat of the sun scorched the plant and it withered away.  The third soil that the seeds fell on was the thorny ground.  Here the thorns eventually choked the plants.  The final soil that the seeds fell on was good soil and the plants produced 30, 60 and 100 fold” (Matt. 13:3-9; Mark 4:1-8; Luke 8:4-8).  Later, when Jesus interpreted this parable to His disciples, He said of the second soil, that when tribulation and persecution came, the believer would stumble.  Of the third soil, He said that because of the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches, the word of God is choked in the life of the believer and he becomes unfruitful (Matt. 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15; for a full discussion of the Parable of the Four Soils, see Quick 1977).  Demas “loving this present world” would fall in either the second or third soils.  This was not the normal Christian life, but rather, the sub-normal Christian Life.  The fourth soil was the normal Christian life, producing fruit in the life of the believer.

    His Place at the Judgment Seat of Christ
    All believers in the Lord Jesus and only believers in the Lord Jesus will be at the Judgment Seat of Christ (II Cor. 5:10).  The unbeliever will appear at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).  These two judgments are separated by 1,007 years.  At the Judgment Seat of Christ, the believers works are made manifest (I Cor. 3:12-15).  Sin is not the question at this judgment because the Lord Jesus paid for all our sins on Calvary’s cross.

    In the context of Paul’s statement of Demas abandoning him, Paul declares his impending martyrdom (II Tim. 4:6-8).  Paul contrasts his, and others, who love the appearing of the Lord Jesus and will eventually receive the crown of righteousness, with Demas who was living for this present world and not looking for the appearing of the Lord Jesus.  Demas will be at the Judgment Seat of Christ, but when his works are manifested, they will be like wood, hay and straw and will be burned up and he suffers loss, yet Paul says he will be saved, yet through the fire (I Cor. 3:12, 15).  The Apostle John would describe him as being ashamed at the coming of the Lord Jesus (I John 2:28).  Earlier in Paul’s epistle to Timothy he says of those believers who deny the Lord, that they will be denied the privilege of reigning with Christ for 1,000 years (II Tim. 2:11-13, for a full discussion of this passage, see McCoy 1988).

    Demas was with Paul when he wrote the epistle to the church at Colossae (Col. 4:14).  He should have recalled the words that Paul penned when he wrote: “If (or, since) then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.  Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.  For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:1-4).  The promise and hope of the Lord’s return should be a purifying hope (cf. I John 3:3).  In fact, Paul goes on to say, “Therefore, put to death your members” (Col. 3:4) and then lists various sins that would fit into the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” categories.

    Applications
    Believers in the Lord Jesus should not emulate the life of Demas.  Yet there are at least three things we can learn from the life of this wayward believer.

    First, we should have an eternal perspective on life and not love this present world system that is out to trip us up and draw us away from our love for the Lord and His Word.  This world system is passing away, so this should encourage us to live for the Kingdom to come and eternal rewards.

    The second thing we can learn from Demas is that no Christian is immune from loving this present world and leaving the Lord’s work and the Lord’s people.  Paul wrote and admonished the Corinthian believers: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:12).  The allurement of this world falls into three categories: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.  The Lord Jesus was tested the same way, yet He passed the tests with flying colors because He was filled with the Spirit and used the Word of God when Satan attacked.  Paul went on to tell the Corinthian believers: “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way to escape, that you may be able to bear it” (I Cor. 10:13).  We should be looking for that escape hatch when temptation comes.  Believers should also realize that the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust, and that we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (Tit. 2:12).

    The third lesson we can learn from the life of Demas is that the hope of the Lord’s return should change the way we live now.  If Demas continued in his love for the world, he would eventually be ashamed at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ because he would stand at the Judgment Seat of Christ and his works would be made manifest.  At this point, he would have his new, sin-free body, and would say to himself: “Why did I waste my life?  I was living for time, but not eternity, living for this world and not the Kingdom to come!”  On the other hand, if Demas had lived in light of the return of Christ, this would have provided a purifying hope for him because he knew that one day he would be just like the Lord Jesus.  He would begin to live now in light of eternity, and for rewards in the Kingdom to come (I John 2:28-3:3).  As the little ditty goes: “Only one life, so soon shall past, only what’s done for Christ shall last.”  We are to live in light of the Judgment Seat of Christ and let this sobering truth change the way we live today.

    Bibliography

    Boyd, W. F.
    1916    Demas.  Pp. 286, 287 in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.  Vol. 1.  J. Hastins, ed.  New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Hanson, Anthony
    1966    The Pastoral Letters.  Cambridge: At the University.

    Hiebert, D. Edmond
    1992    In Paul’s Shadows.  Friends and Foes of the Great Apostle.  Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University.

    MacArthur, John
    1995    The MacArthur New Testament Commentary.  2 Timothy.  Chicago: Moody.

    McCoy, Brad
    1988    Secure Yet Scrutinized.  2 Timothy 2:11-13.  Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 1/1.

    Oden, Thomas
    1989    First and Second Timothy and Titus.  Interpretation.  Louisville, KY: John Knox.

    Polycarp
    1912    The Epistle to the Philippians of Saint Polycarp.  Pp. 282-301 in Apostolic Fathers.  Vol. 1.  Trans. by K. Lake.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 24.  Reprinted 1985.

    Quick, Kenneth
    1977    An Exegetical and Soteriological Examination of the Parable of the Four Soils.  Unpublished Master of Theology thesis.  Dallas Theological Seminary.

    Thomas, W. D.
    1983-1984    Demas the Deserter.  Expository Times 95: 179-180.

    Trench, Richard
    1973    Synonyms of the New Testament.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

    Wuest, Kenneth
    1966    Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament.  Vol. 2.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

  • Life of Christ Comments Off on THE IMPERIAL CULT AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST Romans 1:3-4

    By Gordon Franz

    Introduction
    In 1987, I was participating in the “Who is the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” conference in Memphis, TN.  During one of our lunch breaks, a group of us, who were alumni of the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem, went to a local eatery.  Sitting opposite me was Bishop Mesrob Mutafyan, a bishop of the Armenian Church in Istanbul, Turkey.  (He has since been elevated to one of five Patriarchs in the Armenian Church).  During our conversation, the subject of liturgy and creeds came up.  Since I was from a non-liturgical church I asked him why they repeated the liturgy and creeds over and over again.  His answer was very helpful.  He said that historically, many people in the churches had never learned to read.  When they repeated the liturgy (which is mostly Scripture verses) over and over again, it helped them memorize the Word of God.  By repeating the creeds, the participants became grounded in the doctrinal truths of their faith.

    One creed that the Western Church recites is the so-called Apostle’s Creed.  While it was not composed by the early apostles, one church historian described it as “by far the best popular summary of the Christian faith ever made within so brief a space,” and went on to say “It is not a word of God to men, but a word of men to God, in response to His revelation” (Schaff 1990:1:15, 16).  It is solid theology in a concise creed.  I believe that Romans 1:3-4 was one of the original creeds concerning the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Literary Structure
    The creed in Romans 1:3-4 is composed of two lines with three clauses in each line and a summary statement at the end.  It was formulated by either the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem, or by the great Hebraic minds of the apostle’s Peter (cf. Matt. 16:16) or Paul, based on the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures (Romans 1:2).

    “Concerning His Son:
    A. Who was born
    B. of the seed of David
    C. according to the flesh,
    A’. and declared
    B’. to be the Son of God (with power)
    C’. according to the Spirit of holiness, (by the resurrection from the
    dead),
    Jesus Christ our Lord.”

    In the literary structure of this creed, the central thought of each line is the Person of the Lord Jesus in His role as the “Seed of David” (His humanity) and the “Son of God” (His deity).  In order to appreciate these two roles, we must understand the world of the First Century church in Rome, the church that Paul addressed in this letter.  They, more than any other church in the Roman Empire, would understand the imperial cult and emperor worship and the sharp contrast Paul was making in these verses between the Lord Jesus and all the Roman emperors.

    The “son of God” in the First Century Roman World
    On March 14, 44 BC the tyrannical dictator, Julius Caesar was assassinated by a group of men, lead by Brutus and Cassius, who identified themselves as the “liberators.”  Brutus commemorated this event by issuing a coin with a liberty cap, flanked by two daggers and the Latin words EID MAR [“Eids of March”] (Vagi 1999:2:198, coin 95).  After Caesar’s death, the Roman senate “voted to give Caesar divine honors” (Plutarch, Caesar 67:4; LCL 7:603; see also Suetonius, Deified Julius 88; LCL 1:119).  In other words, they added him to the Roman pantheon as a god!  This was the first time in Roman history that a mortal was deified.  This Roman Senate decision would significantly affect the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in the years to come.

    Plutarch, a Greek writer who wrote a series of books about the lives of famous Greek and Roman personalities, recounted events of “divine ordering” (his words) surrounding the death of Julius Caesar.  Among other things, he states there was a “great comet, which showed itself in great splendor for seven nights after Caesar’s murder” (Caesar 69:3; LCL 7:605-607).  This was interpreted as a sign that Julius Caesar was taken up to the heavens to join the Roman gods.  His adopted son, Octavian, minted coins with the comet on it and the Latin words DIVVS IVLIVS [“divine Julius”]! (Kreitzer 1990:213; Vagi 1999:2:221, coin 278).
    Octavian (reigned from 27 BC to AD 14), the grand-nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar, and known to us from the New Testament as Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1), minted coins with the title DIVI F [“son of God”] on them in Latin (Vagi 1999:2:217-231).  He considered himself the son of the divine Julius Caesar.  Some consider that Caesar Augustus was Satan’s puppet and counterfeit “messiah” to distract people from the real Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Suetonius (AD 75-140), a Roman historian, reports that after Augustus died and was cremated, an ex-praetor took an oath that he had seen the form of the Emperor on his way to heaven (Deified Augustus 100:4; LCL 1:283-285).
    The next emperor was Tiberius (reigned from AD 14-37).  He was the son of Livia, the stepson, son-in-law and heir of Augustus.  Thus began the Julian dynasty.  People married so they were somehow related to by blood or adoption to Augustus and thus by adoption to Julius Caesar, and would consider themselves the “seed of Julius.’  When Tiberius died, however, he was not deified by the Roman Senate.
    Caligula (reigned from AD 37-41), the adopted grandson and heir of Tiberius, could not wait to die so he deified himself.  He ordered statues of himself placed in temples, shrines and synagogues so people could worship him.  After he was assassinated, the Roman Senate cursed him and had his name erased from all inscriptions and his statues smashed.

    Claudius (reigned from AD 41-54) was the grandson of Livia (wife of Octavian), Mark Antony and Octavia (grand niece of Julius Caesar).  He was the nephew of Tiberius and the granduncle and adoptive father of Nero.  Claudius was also an uncle of Emperor Caligula and was made emperor by the Praetorian guards after Caligula was assassinated.  He had physical disabilities, but was an effective administrator, however brutal at times.  Suetonius states that after Claudius died, he was “buried with regal pomp and enrolled among the gods, an honor neglected and finally annulled by Nero, but later restored to him by Vespasian (Deified Claudius 45: LCL 2:81).  Seneca (4 BC – AD 65), on the other hand, wrote a religio-political satire that dripped with sarcasm, entitled Pumpkinfication.  (LCL 15:437-483).  The title of this book was a slam on emperor worship.  The word “pumpkinfication” was chosen instead of deification.  In Seneca’s satire, Claudius is considered a pumpkin instead of a god!

    Permit me to use my sanctified imagination for a minute.  I would like to think the book made the International Herald Tribune best seller list for AD 55 when it was published.  Perhaps it was a hot item in the bookstores of the Roman colony of Corinth when the Apostle Paul was there in the winter of AD 57-58.  Since he wanted to improve his Latin before he went to Rome, he bought a copy of the book and read it in order to get a sense of the imperial cult.  When he penned the letter to the church in Rome, he began with the creed concerning God’s Son: “Born of the Seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”  What a contrast to the recently deified Emperor Claudius!

    Nero (reigned from AD 54-68), the adopted son of Claudius, and some say his natural born son (Burns 1996: 6-11), was not deified by the Roman Senate when he died, but in fact, was cursed by them.  Following his death there was civil war which saw three emperors in quick succession: Galba, Otho and Vitellius (from June AD 68 to December AD 69), until General Vespasian was hailed emperor by the Senate.

    Emperor Vespasian (reigned from AD 69-79) was born a common man and not related by blood or adoption to the Julio-Claudian dynasty.  In other words, he was not of the “seed of Julius”!  He came to realize that emperor worship and the imperial cult was a scam.  Suetonius reports that Vespasian “did not cease his jokes even when in apprehension of death and in extreme danger; for when among other portents … a comet appeared in the heavens, he declared that [the comet was an omen about] the king of the Parthians, who wore his hair long, whereas I am bald.”  When he finally realized his number was up, he said: “Woe’s me.  Me think I am turning into a god” (Vespasian 23:4; LCL 2:319; and also Dio Cassius, Roman History 66:3; LCL 8:295).  If he was going to become a god, what did he have to worry about?!

    After his death, he was cremated and his ashes put in an urn and the urn placed in the family mausoleum in Rome.  A coin was minted by his son Titus with Vespasian’s urn on the reverse side, flanked by two laurel branches (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926:123, coin 62; Vagi 1999:2:311, coin 958).  This coin might have been Vespasian’s last joke from the grave.  Whereas there was a posthumous coin of Julius Caesar being taken to heaven on a comet to join the gods, Vespasian knew he would be relegated to ashes in an urn!  The Roman Senate, however, did deify him.

    Vespasian’s two sons, Titus (reigned from AD 79-81) and Domitian (reigned from AD 81-96), were very much into the imperial cult.  When Titus died, his brother Domitian constructed an arch in his brother’s honor that commemorated the victory of the Romans over the Jewish people and the destruction of Herod’s Temple.  The tops of each side of the arch contained the inscription: F. DIVI [“the son of the god”].  In the center of the interior of the arch, Titus is on the back of an eagle being taken to heaven (Kreitzer 1990: 210).  When Domitian became emperor, he, like Caligula, could not wait to die in order to become a god, so he deified himself in AD 86.  And Domitian, like Caligula, was cursed by the Roman Senate after he died.  The Emperor worship of Domitian is the background to the book of Revelation (Franz 2006:73-87).

    Conclusions
    By sharp contrast, Paul writes that the Lord Jesus was “born of the Seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”  It was the covenant promise of God to David and the bodily resurrection that set Him apart from all the Roman emperors.
    One other aspect of the Person of Christ that set Him apart from the Roman emperors is bringing peace with God to the individual.  Some of the emperors could boast that they brought peace to the Roman world “on land and sea”, but one thing they lacked was the ability to bring peace to the hearts of men and women.  That, only God manifest in the flesh – the Lord Jesus, could do.  Later in the epistle to the Romans, Paul wrote: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1).

    The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated that the payment for sins on Calvary’s cross had been paid in full and accepted by God the Father.  It also demonstrated that Satan had been defeated and death vanquished.  When people put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, they are justified, or declared righteous, by a Holy God.  Have you trusted the Lord Jesus as your Savior?

    Bibliography

    Burns, Jasper
    1996    Was Nero the Natural Son of Claudius?  The Celator 10/12: 6-11.

    Dio Cassius
    1995    Roman History.  Books 61-70.  Vol. 8.  Trans. by E. Cary.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 176.

    Franz, Gordon
    2006    Propaganda, Power and the Perversion of Biblical Truths: Coins Illustrating the Book of Revelation.  Bible and Spade 19/3: 73-87.

    Kreitzer, Larry
    1990    Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor.  Biblical Archaeologist 53/4: 210-217.

    Mattingly, Harold; and Sydenham, Edward
    1926    The Roman Imperial Coinage.  Vespasian to Hadrian.  Vol. 2.  London: Spink and Sons.  Reprinted 1997.

    Plutarch
    1994    Lives. Alexander and Caesar.  Vol. 7.  Trans. by B. Perrin.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 99.

    Schaff, Philip
    1990    The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes.  Vol. 1.  Sixth edition.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.  Reprint of 1931 edition.

    Seneca
    1997    Apocolocyntosis.  Pp. 432-483.  Trans. by W. H. D. House.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 15.

    Suetonius
    1989    Lives of the Caesars.  Vol. 1.  Trans. by J. C. Rolfe.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 31.

    1992    Lives of the Caesars.  Vol. 2.  Trans. by J. C. Rolfe.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.  Loeb Classical Library 38.

    Vagi, David
    1999    Coinage and History of the Roman Empire.  2 vols.  Sidney, OH: Coin World.

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology, Life of Christ Comments Off on Bloodline – Serious Documentary or Hollywood Hoax?

    By Gordon Franz

    Biblical archaeology can be an exciting subject to study and even more exciting to participate in an actual excavation of biblical significance. Hollywood was able to capture the excitement and adventure of biblical archaeology in the now-famous fictitious Indiana Jones movie, “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

    Sometimes Hollywood has a sinister motive when dealing with the subject of archaeology and the Bible. Recently a new archaeological movie was released that claims to cast doubts on two of the basic tenets of Christianity: the deity of the Lord Jesus and His bodily resurrection. “Bloodline” is produced by 1244 Films; the director and narrator of the movie is Bruce Burgess, and the producer is Rene Barnett.

    The premise of the movie, that purports to be a serious documentary, is that there is “incontrovertible proof” that “totally refutes” Christianity. The movie claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, or children. After the crucifixion of Jesus, Mary hid the body of Jesus and she and her child, or children, moved to France. The Knights Templar rediscovered the body of Jesus and brought his mummified body to Rennes-Le-Chateau, in southwest France in the 12th century AD.

    Sounds familiar? This movie claims to have the “proof” for the fictitious novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code. The film suggests that the mummified body of Mary Magdalene was recently discovered in the area of Rennes-le-Chateau along with other 1st century AD artifacts from the Jerusalem area that were associated with the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
    I attended the May 5th press conference for the movie in New York City. In the press packet was a “For Screening Only” edition of the movie. I have seen the movie several times and will base by critique on that edition.

    What is the “Incontrovertible” Evidence?

    I will only summarize the “evidence” presented in the movie. For a detailed and documented refutation of the claims in this film, see my lengthy review

    The “Body” of Mary Magdalene

    In 1999 a British adventurer named “Ben Hammott” (not his real name) allegedly found a cave with treasures in it — as well as a burial with a shroud that had a red Knights Templar cross on it — in the hills to the east of Rennes-le-Chateau. When he returned with Bruce Burgess in 2006, “Ben Hammott” cut away part of the shroud and exposed the head and hands of a mummified person. They also took a hair sample from the body and submitted it to the Paleo-DNA Labs at Lakehead University in Canada for analysis. The mitochondrial DNA from the hair strand suggested “the Middle Eastern maternal origins of the individual based on haplotyping information.” The mummified body was on a slab of marble that suggests the individual was venerated by someone in the past. The conclusion that was drawn from this “evidence” was that this was the body of Mary Magdalene.
    This mummified body (if in fact it is a real body) could not be that of Mary Magdalene, or any other Jewish person for that matter. During the Second Temple period (the time of Jesus), Jewish people never mummified their dead. At the burial of Jesus normal Jewish burial customs were followed (John 19:38-40), and one would assume the same thing would have occurred with Mary Magdalene’s burial. Jewish burial entailed letting the flesh decay and after a year, the family gathered up the bones and placed them in bone boxes called ossuaries. This practice was called ossilegium, or secondary burials.

    The Artifacts from Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s Wedding

    The second startling discovery was a wooden chest that contained a small bowl or cup, an ungenterium, a glass phial with a parchment inside and about 30 coins. These 1st century AD artifacts, probably originating from the area of Jerusalem, were claimed to be from the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene!

    Before we review these objects, we should address the issue as to whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. This is the premise of The Da Vinci Code, but there is no biblical evidence – or other first-century AD evidence — for this idea so it should be dismissed.
    “Ben Hammott” allegedly discerned “clues” in the statues and pictures on the wall of the Mary Magdalene church in Rennes-le-Chateau that led him and the producer on an archaeological scavenger hunt for bottles that provided further clues that led them to the wooden chest.
    In the third bottle there was a parchment that allegedly contained the confession of the priest that reburied the “body” of Mary Magdalene in the Knights Templar tomb. It said: “The resurrection of Jesus was a trick, it was Mary Magdalene who took his body from his tomb. The disciples were fooled. Later, the body of Jesus was discovered by the Templars and then hidden three times. The Knights protected a great secret which I have found. Not in Jerusalem. The Tomb is here. Parts of the body are safe. Rome knows all about this, but they can not afford to let the secret be known. They threatened to kill if the location of the tomb was revealed.”
    This is the over riding message that “Bloodline” is trying to convey. Jesus did not come back from the dead, thus He is not God. This statement goes contrary to what Dr. Luke writes about in the beginning of the book of Acts. “To whom [the apostles] He [the Lord Jesus] also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (1:3).

    As an archaeologist, my imagination was taxed as I watched the scavenger hunt. Even the messages found rolled up in the bottles looked like they were written with red felt-tipped pens! Once they found the cave that had the chest in it, they used a dowsing rod to locate the exact spot of the chest. After digging a few centimeters, voila, there was the wooden chest! (If only real archaeology could be this easy).

    In the press release, it was stated that the chest was “extremely damp and rotten.” When I looked at it during the New York news conference, it did not look rotten (although I did not handle the chest). In the movie, when Hammott was using the petech (a tool used by archaeologists for digging dirt), he hit the wood of the chest. It gave a sound of a solid piece of wood from a box that was hollow inside, and did not give the sound of wood that was “damp and rotten.” If the wood was “damp and rotten” it would have crumbled, or at least left a hole in the top of the chest made by the petech.

    The first artifact in the chest was described in the press release as a “simple pottery drinking cup.” The pottery expert that examined it, Professor Gabriel Barkay from Bar Ilan University in Israel, said it could also be a small bowl and stressed that it was a “common” artifact in everyday use by everybody.

    Jewish weddings during the Second Temple periods were elaborate and festive affairs. The bride and groom would not have used a common cup made of coarse pottery for their wedding festivities, but rather, one of silver, gold, glass, or Eastern terra sigillata pottery. Using a “common” cup, if it was a cup and not a bowl, would be like a wealthy bride and groom at a wedding today toasting each other with a Styrofoam cup!

    The second artifact in the box was identified as an ungenterium. In the 1st century AD it was called a piriform bottle. This object is used to hold unguents, or perfumes, and is used for domestic as well as funerary purposes. They were regularly left in tombs so that the perfumes could counteract the smell of the decomposing flesh.

    This piriform bottle could not have been the object used by “Mary of Bethany, alias Mary Magdalene” (according to the movie) to anoint Jesus for His burial for three reasons. First, the piriform bottle is made of clay, but the Bible says that the vessel Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus with was made of alabaster (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). Second, the piriform bottle is completely intact. The Bible says Mary broke it in order to anoint Jesus (Mark 14:3). Finally, the vessel is too small. The Bible says it contained a pound of spikenard, thus the vessel would have been much larger then the one found in the chest (John 12:3).

    Professor Barkay was asked how these objects could have made their way to a cave in France. He suggested two possibilities. First, the Knights Templar brought them back to France with them in the 12th century. The second possibility is that they were purchased on the antiquities market in Israel and taken to Europe recently. I am inclined to believe the latter makes more sense.

    I suspect, but can not conclusively prove at this point, that this is all a Hollywood hoax. The “mummified body” apparently is made of plastic; the artifacts were probably recently bought on the antiquities market in Jerusalem and placed in a wooden chest that was buried in a cave near Rennes-le-Chateau; and the elaborate archaeological scavenger hunt was concocted by the Hollywood types for suspense and adventure in the movie. Bottom line: this movie should not be taken seriously and comes nowhere close to the exciting adventures of the fictitious Indiana Jones. Skip this flick.

    The Agenda of Bloodline

    At the end of the movie, Bruce Burgess said, “For the record, I do think that it’s possible that these discoveries, especially the chest and maybe even the tomb were somehow placed there for Ben, and us to find. That doesn’t make them fake in any way. It just means that someone with an agenda wanted this material revealed, but who?”

    I can think of three possibilities. First, some secret organization (in the movie it is the fictitious Priory of Sion) who wants to disprove the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus and will bump off anybody in the way of their agenda. Second, people who want to sell books and movie tickets. There is a third, yet more driving, possibility. Bloodline has an agenda. The message they are trying to get out, disguised as a serious documentary, is that Jesus is not God manifest in human flesh and He did not come back from the dead.

    The Conclusion of the Matter

    The poster for the movie asks the provocative question: “What if the greatest story ever told was a lie?” I think the wrong question was asked. It should have been, “What if the premise and storyline of ‘Bloodline’ is a lie?” The historical, biblical, and archaeological evidence suggests that this is the case.

    The greatest story ever told is still true. The Lord Jesus, in love, left the glories of heaven, humbled Himself, veiled His glory and became a man in order to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem in order to pay for all the sins of humanity (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Phil. 2:5-11; I John 2:2). Three days later, He was bodily resurrected from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. He left no physical bloodline because He never married Mary Magdalene; He lived a perfect, sinless life here on earth as God manifest in human flesh. However, He does have a spiritual bloodline that is composed of all who have put their trust in Him and Him alone for their salvation (Heb. 2:10). His spiritual children did not earn their salvation, they did not work for it, they did not join a church or be baptized, they simply trusted Jesus to forgive all their sins so He could give them His righteousness so they could enter a perfect Heaven and be in the presence of a holy God forever (Acts 13:38, 39; 16:30, 31; Rom. 4:5; Phil. 3:9; Titus 3:4-7; I John 5:13).

    Do not believe the lie of the movie “Bloodline”, but rather, believe the truth of the Word of God, the Bible. Your eternal destiny, Heaven or Hell, will be determined by what you believe.

  • Life of Christ Comments Off on Jesus IS Yom Kippur

    By Gordon Franz

    Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), is the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. It begins at sundown on the eve of the 10th of Tishri on the Jewish calendar. If you are in Jerusalem, it is a day like no other day. It is absolutely quiet and nothing moves, except people walking. There are no cars on the roads. The only vehicles that are allowed are emergency vehicles.

    One year I was in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. The silence was deafening! So much so, that even the birds could be heard singing. I was staying at the Institute of Holy Land Studies on Mount Zion and could hear casual conversations by people across the Hinnom Valley as if we were talking one to another.

    The Biblical Yom Kippur

    On the LORD’s “Divine Calendar” (Lev. 23), Yom Kippur is observed on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri). On this day, no work is to be done and the people are to afflict their souls (Lev. 23:26-32).

    When the Tabernacle and Temples stood, the nation of Israel was to follow certain rituals and the High Priest was to offer specific sacrifices on this Day (Lev. 16; Num. 29:7-11). These sacrifices could atone for (cover) sin, but could never take sin away. The Holy Spirit gives a divine commentary on this Day and its services and shows how the Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of Yom Kippur and the perfect sacrifice that paid for all sin and removed sin once and for all (Heb. 9 and 10; especially 9:12, 12; 10:1-4, 12, 14, 18). For a discussion of the Yom Kippur practices during the Second Temple period, see Edersheim 1976:302-329.

    Interesting Added Traditions

    The Mishnah, the rabbinic commentary on the Bible as well as the Talmud, the commentary on the Mishnah, devotes a whole tractate to this day. The tractates are simply called Yoma, the Day. Perhaps this is the day the Book of Hebrews refers to when it states: “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching” (10:25). Most commentators suggest “the Day” is either the return of Christ, or the Day of Judgment, or the destruction of Jerusalem, but the context may indicate that it is the Day of Atonement.

    Sometime during the Second Temple period, a tradition was added, based on Isaiah 1:18, of tying a scarlet wool cord, or skein, around the horns of the scapegoat that was to be sent into the Wilderness. The tradition stated that if the Lord forgave the nation of Israel sins for that year, the cord turned from scarlet to white (BT Yoma 67a, pp. 314, 315 in Soncino edition). Yet the Talmud records: “Our Rabbis taught: ‘During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [“for the LORD”] did not come up in the right hand nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white” (BT Yoma 39b, p. 186 in Soncino edition). The Temple was destroyed in AD 70. Forty years prior to that was AD 30. What happened in AD 30 to cause the cord never to change color again and show the nation of Israel that their sins were forgiven by the Lord? At Passover of AD 30, the Lord Jesus Christ, the perfect, spotless Lamb of God, died as the perfect sacrifice to take away sins forever (Heb. 10:1-10; I Cor. 5:7; I Pet. 1:18, 19). After His death, the nation in general, rejected the Lord Jesus as their Messiah and sought salvation by their own works (Rom. 10). Thus, the nation’s sins were not forgiven.

    The Prophetic Significance of Yom Kippur

    The Feasts of the LORD recorded in Lev. 23 are for Israel, not the Church, and provide a prophetic outline for the re-gathering of Israel back to the Land of Israel (Isa. 11:11; 27:13) and their final salvation. The Lord Jesus, in His great Olivet Discourse, describes a future period of Tribulation for the nation of Israel. At the end of the Great Tribulation, the Lord will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, in order to gather together His elect [in the context, Israel, not the Church] from the four corners of the earth, back to the Land of Israel (Matt. 24:29-31). These ten days of gathering the nation back to the Land, will lead up to the Day of Atonement, when “they will look upon Me (the LORD) whom they have pierced” (Zech. 12:10-13:1). When was the LORD pierced? The Second Person of the Triune God was pierced on the Cross of Calvary when He voluntarily died in our place (John 19:34; Rev. 1:7; John 10:11, 14-18). It will be on this day in the future, that Israel shall “call upon the name of the LORD” (Jesus, God manifest in human flesh) and “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 10:8-13; 11:26, 27). Then, the nation of Israel will be born in a day (Isa. 66:8).

    The Book of Jonah and Yom Kippur

    Before Yom Kippur begins, the book of Jonah is studied by the Jewish people. As the sun is setting at the end of Yom Kippur the book is read in the synagogue. There are two reasons for this reading. The first reason is to show that one can not run from God; and the second is to show that God is gracious and merciful when people turn to Him.

    What to do on Yom Kippur?

    If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha-Mashioch, you can rejoice that all your sins have been paid for and completely forgiven: past – present – and future sins.

    If you have never trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as your sin-bearer, then you need to trust Him as the One who died for all your sins and rose again from the dead three days later. The resurrection demonstrated that sin has been paid for, death vanquished and Satan defeated. The Lord Jesus offers the forgiveness of sins, a home in Heaven and His righteousness to any who trust in Him and not in their own works or merits for eternal life (John 3:16; Isa. 53:6; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9; I John 5:13).

    Again for believers in the Lord Jesus today should read through the Book of Jonah. As you do, there are two thoughts to contemplate: first, “remember that we can run, but we cannot hide from God”. He knows where we are and what we are doing at all times (Ps. 139:7-10). Second: meditate on the grace and mercy of God. In Jonah 4:1-3 the people of Nineveh turned to the LORD; from the king in the palace all the way down to the beggar on the street (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32), yet Jonah was displeased with the results of his preaching and was angry with the Lord. Jonah knew his Bible. He knew all about the grace and mercy of God (4:2), yet he did not want God to show grace (giving them what they did not deserve) to these people by extending salvation and forgiveness; nor did Jonah want God to show mercy (not giving them what they did deserve) by executing judgment. Jonah was more interested in watching God nuke Nineveh, then seeing God forgive them. Thus embarrassed, he prayed to the Lord to take his life.

    How many times in our daily life do we do something wrong, and we know it’s wrong from the Bible, yet we try to justify our sin, or rationalize it away? We should contemplate the grace and mercy of God in our own life, because just like Jonah experienced another opportunity, Jesus is also the God of the second (and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, and …) chance (3:1). Truly He is gracious and merciful to His children.

    Bibliography

    Edersheim, Alfred

    1976 The Temple: It’s Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

  • Profiles in Missions Comments Off on ERASTUS: “Salt and Light” in the Government of Corinth

    By Gordon Franz

    Introduction

    In 1780, at the age of 21 years and two weeks, William Wilberforce was the youngest man ever to be elected to the British parliament. He was an eloquent orator, a gifted singer and was invited to join five exclusive clubs in London. He enjoyed the London social scene: dining, playing cards, dancing and the theater. Here was a man who “had it all” at such a young age.

    In February 1785 be began to read a book entitled The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul by Philip Doddridge. During that spring he traveled on holiday to the Continent with Isaac Milner, a tutor at the Queens College, Cambridge. As they traveled they discussed the book by Doddridge and other spiritual matters. It was not until November or December of that year that the “Great Change”, as Wilberforce describes it, took place. William Wilberforce put his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior from sin. What a change that was. Among other things, he was delivered from the power of darkness and conveyed into the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col. 1:13).

    With his decision to trust Jesus Christ as his Savior, he began to struggle within himself over the issue of whether politics was compatible with the Christian life. Whether serving in parliament was consistent with his spiritual walk with the Lord, or should he leave parliament altogether and go into full time Christian ministry? During this struggle, he visited an old family friend, John Newton, a pastor in London, and asked for his advice. The former slave trader and author of the famous hymn “Amazing Grace” encouraged Wilberforce to remain in Parliament. As a result of that conversation, Wilberforce wrote: “When I came away I found my mind in a calm, tranquil state, more humbled, and looking more devotedly up to God.” John Newton later wrote to his friend and fellow song writer, William Cowper: “I judge he [Wilberforce] is now decidedly on the right track. … I hope the Lord will make him a blessing both as a Christian and a statesman. How seldom do these characters coincide!! But they are not incompatible” (Metaxas 2007: 59-61). Please notice Newton called him a statesman and not a politician. There is a big difference between the two.

    As Wilberforce grew in his Christian life, his mind was transformed as he studied the truths set forth in the Word of God. He concluded that “all that was his – his wealth, his talents, his time – was not really his. It all belonged to God and had been given to him to use for God’s purposes and according to God’s will. God had blessed him so that he, in turn, might bless others, especially those less fortunate than himself” (Metaxas 2007:63).

    You know “the rest of the story.” Wilberforce, as a member of parliament, got legislation passed in 1807 to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain. But it was only on his deathbed in 1833 that he learned that legislation had passed that abolished slavery throughout all the colonies in the British Empire. Here was a very influential Christian who understood the truths of the Word of God, the inhumanity of slavery, and became “salt and light” in a corrupt world and changed the course of human history.

    The Apostle Paul wrote to the believers in the church in Corinth: “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called [to Christian service]. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence” (I Cor. 1:26-29).

    Let us examine the life of Erastus, one of the exceptions to the rule: “not many mighty”. Here was a “mighty” person in Corinth that God called to Christian service even while he was an important government official in the city, a man who was “salt and light” in his community for the glory of God.

    Erastus in Scripture

    The name Erastus appears only three times in Scripture. Scholars have debated whether all three passages refer to the same person, or if they are two or three different people. For the purpose of this paper, I will assume that all the passages refer to the same person, Erastus from the city of Corinth.

    We first meet Erastus near the end of Paul’s stay in Ephesus during his third missionary journey in AD 55. Dr. Luke writes: “So he [Paul] sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, but he himself stayed in Asia for a time” (Acts 19:22). There are two things to notice in this passage. First, Erastus ministered to Paul. He had a servant’s heart and helped Paul out in the work of the Lord in Ephesus. Second, most likely Timothy and Erastus were sent into Macedonia to organize the collection for Jerusalem. Erastus would have been a wise choice for this project because he had, as we shall see, a background in financial matters.

    We are not told when Erastus came to faith in the Lord Jesus as his Savior. Nor are we told his financial status. One could speculate that he came to know the Lord Jesus as his Savior while Paul, Timothy and Silas were ministering in Corinth during Paul’s second missionary journey (AD 50-52; Acts 18:1-17).

    Murphy-O’Conner speculates on how Paul might have met Erastus. He suggests: “Two aediles were elected each year, and ranked just below the duoviri, who were the eponymous magistrates of the city. Their responsibilities included the management of the public markets. It is not impossible that Paul first met Erastus in the latter’s official capacity – that is, when paying rent or taxes on his workspace, which would explain why he called Erastus ‘the treasurer’ of the city'” (1984: 155).

    Erastus seemed to have some wealth because he could afford to take time off and rejoin Paul when he was ministering in Ephesus during Paul’s third missionary journey (AD 52-55; Acts 19:1-20:1).

    After Erastus organized the collection for Jerusalem with Timothy he apparently returned to Corinth. He is not listed with the men that take the collection to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). When Paul later visited Corinth in AD 57 he wrote a letter to the church in Rome. He sent greetings to the believers in the church in Rome from the saints in Corinth, including Erastus. “Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother” (Rom. 16:23). In this passage, Erastus is called the “treasurer of the city” (ho oikonomos tes poleos). It is interesting to note, that even though this was an influential position, Erastus was actively involved in the assembly in Corinth that apparently met in the villa of Gaius. The second thing to notice is that Erastus was also missions minded. He asked Paul to send his greetings to the church in Rome. Apparently he knew some of the people in the church in that city. More than likely he knew Aquila and Priscilla from the time when they lived in Corinth after they were expelled from Rome in AD 49 (Acts 18:2).

    The third reference to Erastus is found in the last epistle that Paul penned during his second imprisonment in Rome right before his death in AD 67. He wrote: “Erastus stayed in Corinth” (II Tim. 4:20). He apparently decided to settle down and be “salt and light” within his community and be a help to the assembly in Corinth.

    The “Erastus” Inscription in Corinth

    In 1929, the excavator of Corinth, Theodore Shear, discovered an inscription that would become famous in Biblical studies. It was found on the edge of a public square near the theater.

    In his preliminary report, Shear describes his discovery this way: “On a long pavement block at the entrance of the square from the street are cuttings for letters that were presumably for bronze and were fastened in place with lead. The stone, which is 2.26 m. long, is cut away at both ends, but the spacing of the second line of the inscription is such that probably not much of the stone is missing. The inscription reads ERASTVS – PRO – AED / S – P – STRAVIT. ‘Erastus, procurator, aedile, laid the pavement at his own expense.’ The archaeological evidence indicates that this pavement was in existence in the middle of the first century AD. A procurator of Corinth named Erastus, who was in office at this time, is mentioned by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, XVI, 23. A Roman procurator of a great provincial city would normally be a man of wealth and influence and as an administrator of the city he would be opportunely situated for the execution of public works at his own expense. It is, therefore, most probable that the procurator Erastus who paved the square is identical with the Erastus who was ‘chamberlain of the city’ and a friend of St. Paul” (Shear 1929: 525-526).

    Cicero and Paul on Wealth and Generosity

    Cicero (106-43 BC), the great orator and political thinker, wrote a treatise on civic duties to his son who was studying in Athens in 44 BC and entitled it On Duties (2005). The early Church Fathers called Cicero “the model of the good pagan” (Everitt 2003: viii).

    Concerning wealth, Cicero wrote: “For the greatest privilege of wealth is, beyond all peradventure, the opportunity it affords for doing good, without sacrificing one’s fortune” (On Duties, Book 2.64; LCL 21:237). The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, put an eternal perspective on wealth and warned his son in the faith, Timothy, about it. He wrote: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness” (I Tim. 6:7-11). Wealth, in and of itself, is not evil, but if it controls the life of the believer in the Lord Jesus, it could cause the believer to stray from his or her faith and this would led to greed and sorrow. Paul wanted Timothy to emphasize the eternal aspect of life and pursue godly living and be content with food and clothing.

    Cicero wrote to his son about generosity in financial matters. He said: “Next in order, as outlined above, let us speak of kindness and generosity. … Now, there are many – and especially those who are ambitious for eminence and glory – who rob one to enrich another; and they expect to be thought generous towards their friends, if they put them in the way of getting rich, no matter by what means. Such conduct, however, is so remote from moral duty that nothing can be more completely opposed to duty. We must, therefore, take care to indulge only in such liberality as will help our friends and hurt no one. The conveyance of property by Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar from its rightful owners to the hands of strangers should, for that reason, not be regarded as generosity; for nothing is generous, if it is not at the same time just” (On Duties, Book 1:42-44; LCL 21: 47-49). One can not help but notice some modern political trends in what Cicero wrote: pay to play and spread the wealth around! Cicero said these things are not moral. That is why he is called the “model of a good pagan”!

    Civic leaders used to spend their own money on such things as banquets for their friends and entertainment for the masses. The latter usually came in the form of gladiatorial games. Juvenal, at the end of the 1st century AD, would coin the phrase “bread and circuses”, in other words “food and entertainment.” As long as the people were fed and entertained, they were happy and the politicians could do what they wanted.

    Cicero thought that spending money on food and entertainment was not a wise thing to do. He offered a better alternative for the civic leaders. He suggested: “Again, the expenditure of money is better justified when it is made for walls, docks, harbors, aqueducts, and all those works which are of service to the community. There is, to be sure, more of present satisfaction in what is handed out, like cash down; nevertheless public improvements win us greater gratitude with posterity” (On Duties, Book 2:60; LCL 21:233). In other words, Cicero believes that the investment of ones own money in public works projects, and not the taxpayers, would benefit more people over a longer period of time and was a better use of ones wealth. Apparently Erastus followed this advice and spent his own money on the pavement near the theater in Corinth when he was the “treasurer of the city.”

    The Apostle Paul wrote about the Christians relationship to the civil government (Rom. 13:1-7). He admonishes Christians to “Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same [civil authorities]” (Rom. 13:3). Perhaps Paul had Erastus and the pavement he gave to his community in mind when he penned these words.

    Application

    There are several important lessons that we can learn from the life of Erastus. The first lesson to be learned is that God’s ways are not always our ways. Generally, God uses the foolish things, the weak things, and the base things to confound the wise, the mighty and the noble. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Erastus was an example of a mighty person, in a very important civic position, that God used as “salt and light” in the government of Corinth. Christians are admonished to pray for all men including “kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (I Tim. 2:1, 2). When we hear of a Christian politician (I realize that is an oxymoron) we should pray even more for them, that they would be honest, have integrity and not be tempted towards corruption.

    The second lesson to be learned is that even though Erastus was an influential person in the city of Corinth, he did not neglect the Lord’s work in the city. He was actively involved in the assembly and he was missions minded because he had a concern for the Lord’s work elsewhere in the world.

    The third lesson has to do with the questions: Should a Christian be involved in politics? Or, should a Christian run for public office? The Bible does not give a definitive “yes” or “no” answer to these questions. The answer to these questions would be based on our motives. Why do you want to get involved in politics? Or, why do you want to run for public office? If the believers answer is: I want to run for fame, fortune, glory and power, then the motive is wrong and the venture should not be perused. If, on the other hand, the answer is: I want to be “salt and light” in a corrupt political system and want to be a “servant” to my community, state or nation, then the motives are proper and one should pursue this avenue of service.

    Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, trusted Jesus Christ as his Savior under the preaching of Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. Interestingly, the proconsul did not resign his post after he got saved but he continued to govern. He apparently did have a concern for the spiritual well being of his family and friends. Since he could not leave Cyprus, he sent Paul and Barnabas to his hometown of Psidian Antioch to reach his family and friends with the gospel (Acts 13:6-14).

    The fourth lesson to be learned from the life of Erastus is that we should give back to our community in a practical way. Erastus paid for the pavement and had his name placed on an inscription. Whenever he shared the gospel with fellow Corinthians they would remember seeing that inscription and say to themselves, “This man is genuine, he’s one of us, and I should listen to him.” Perhaps this is what Paul had in mind when he penned the words: “For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ” (II Cor. 2:17). “Peddling the word of God” has the idea of trying to sell something for personal gain. Erastus did not do this. He gave a practical gift to his community and this afforded him an opportunity for the gospel.

    I always tell my students, tongue-in-cheek, that the best business to be in is the religious business. You can sucker more people, con more people, in that business, than any other business in the world. The only drawback is that you will have to answer to the Lord for it at the end of the day!

    Believers in the Lord Jesus do not peddle the gospel. We are not trying to make money on it. We are sharing something that is free to any and all who would put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. We all have a problem, it is called sin. We have all come short of God’s glory, or perfection. If we were to pay for our own sins, we would spend eternity separated from God in Hell. That’s the bad news. The good news is this: the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in human flesh, died on the Cross and paid for all our sins. He rose from the dead three days later. This proved that sin had been paid for, death had been vanquished and Satan defeated. He offers His righteousness to any and all who would put their trust in Him. Over and over in John’s gospel, the word “believe” is used. The word means to put ones trust in, or rely upon, the Lord Jesus as ones Savior.

    What can we do to demonstrate to a cynical world that we are not peddling the gospel? A good practical demonstration to those around would be to give something back to the community. How can a church or individual do this? If there is a local disaster, the church can step in and help in a practical way: food, clothing, and shelter. A church could also have a day-care center for the community. If the church has a gym, allow the youths to use it for recreation. The church as a body could get involved in some civic project. I am aware of one church that was involved in the “adopt a highway” project. They clean a segment of one of the highways in the vicinity of the church. A sign was posted along the road saying: “Highway cleaned by (and the name of this church).” Or perhaps have a teaching English as a second language program. On a personal level, one could volunteer as a fireman, or ambulance worker, or in the library. Even a public school teacher is giving back to the community.

    Erastus was a “mighty” man in a very influential government position. He was “salt and light” in a corrupt city, but did not neglect his responsibility to the local assembly in Corinth. He was also missions minded and had a concern for the Lord’s work beyond Corinth.

    In a society that is starving for true heroes, Christians should talk about, and emulate such Christian statesmen as William Wilberforce, but also realize an example of a Christian statesman is grounded in Scripture: a good example being Erastus.

    Bibliography

    Cicero

    2005 On Duties. Vol. 21. Trans. by W. Miller. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb Classical Library 30.

    Everitt, Anthony

    2003 Cicero. The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician. New York: Random House.

    Metaxas, Eric

    2007 Amazing Grace. William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery. New York: Harper San Francisco.

    Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome

    1984 The Corinth that Saint Paul Saw. Biblical Archaeologist 47/3: 147-159.

    Shear, Theodore

    1929 Excavations in the Theatre District and Tombs of Corinth in 1929. American Journal of Archaeology 33/4: 515-546.

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »

Recent Comments

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