I made progress last week in my goal to photograph all of the sites that Paul visited on his missionary journeys. After all I have done though, there are still many sites left. I was hoping to visit Malta and southern Italy in June with friend Gordon Franz but the timing just did not work out. Franz just emailed me with notice of a new article that he wrote on a “new discovery” on Malta. The new discovery is actually the latest fraud perpetuated by Robert Cornuke, and I appreciate Franz’s research to analyze Cornuke’s work. Previously, Cornuke claims to have discovered the real Mt. Sinai, Noah’s Ark, and the Ark of the Covenant, making him the heir to Ron Wyatt (who found all of the above plus more, and usually in different places :-)). Cornuke’s latest “finds” are the anchors from Paul’s boat that shipwrecked off of Malta. Ultimately Franz shows that Cornuke has a wish that he pretends is reality. If everyone ignored him, he wouldn’t be worth mentioning. But too many are sucked in, including, apparently, Josh McDowell, who claims this “is evidence that demands a verdict.” Is there evidence? Franz’s conclusion is that “there is no credible historical, archaeological, geographical or Biblical evidence to support [these] claims.”
My name is James Mulholland and I am a resident of Malta. I am a member of the Pauline Association in Malta and I have researched the shipwreck of Paul for the last fifteen years. As a life-long member of the Maltese community and an investigative researcher at numerous locations, I ‘ve driven, hiked and boated nearly every location on this 17 by 9 ½ mile island.
As part of my studies, I ‘ve recently read the following two works:
1. Robert Cornuke, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul, Global Publishing Service (2003).
2. Gordon Franz, The Sinking of “The Last Shipwreck of Paul” http://www.ldolphin.org/maltashipwreck.html (last revised May 15, 2005).
As a concerned voice in the Maltese community with specific experience in Maltese history, archaeology and topography, I felt it necessary to set the record straight on a few so-called observations made by Mr. Franz that appear to refute arguments made by Mr. Cornuke. Thus, I offer the following statements of fact:
1. On page 6 of his article, Mr. Franz tells us that Marsaxlokk Bay, the site of an ancient Roman harbor, “could be seen from the outer Munxar Reef.” Thus, “if the Apostle Paul ‘s ship was anchored near the Munxar Reef [as Cornuke suggests], when it was morning, the sea captain and the sailors immediately would have recognized where they were.” Since Luke, who was on the ship with Paul, testifies that they did not recognize where they were (Acts 27:39), Mr. Franz argues that “the Munxar Reef does not meet the Biblical criteria for the shipwreck of Paul.”
This is absolutely untrue. My experience in the local waters will corroborate any publicly-available nautical or topographical map – Marsaxlokk Bay is not visible from any portion of the Munxar Reef. Either Mr. Franz was taken to the wrong reef on his visit to Malta or he didn ‘t truly investigate the matter before going to print.
2. Again, on page 6 of his article, Mr. Franz tells us that the ancient Tas-Silg temple site is visible from the outer Munxar Reef. Again, the purpose for sharing this “observation” is to reveal that the experienced captain and sailors on Paul ‘s ship would have immediately recognized where they were when they saw the famous Roman temple on the hill above the cliffs. Thus, here ‘s more evidence that the outer Munxar Reef does not meet the Biblical criteria for the shipwreck of Paul.
Again, Mr. Franz is incorrect, or he ‘s looking at the wrong reef. Mr. Franz describes his hike to the temple ruins and then he “looked down and could see the waves breaking on the outer Munxar Reef.” Thus, this important landmark would be visible from those on Paul ‘s ship. I know these temple ruins well. And yes, you can see the inner Munxar Reef from a notch in the cliff just below the site. However, this is not the outer Munxar Reef where Mr. Cornuke places the possible anchor site. Yes, the temple could possibly be seen from the proposed shipwreck site, but there ‘s no possible way the ship ‘s crew could have seen the temple from the proposed anchor site. These are two distinct reefs. Without clearly defining this distinction, Mr. Franz ‘s observation is very misleading to the reader.
3. Throughout his paper, Mr. Franz attacks Mr. Cornuke ‘s overall thesis by focusing on many stand-alone, open-ended geographical/topographical assertions. For instance, when examining Acts 27:41, Mr. Cornuke points to the compelling “meeting of two seas” at Munxar Reef. After citing numerous sources related to translations of this scripture, Mr. Franz ends his response by stating that “there are other locations on the island that fit the description.”
Yes, there are. As a local resident looking at this wonderful mystery for years, there are other locations that could fit that single description, but what about the other necessary criteria for the site? What about the depths? What about the bay with a beach? What about the unrecognizable features? What about the existence of anchors?
Of course, we could pick each element of Mr. Cornuke ‘s overall theory and propose other locations that could possibly match that single element. However, that ‘s not the appropriate exercise here. The compelling nature of Mr. Cornuke ‘s theory rests in the fact that ALL of the elements come together in one location. I could show you a place on the western side of the island where the seas possibly meet. However, that means nothing, because the depth structure on the western side of the island doesn ‘t match the Biblical record. Therefore, that exercise is meaningless, and so are the open-ended assertions of Mr. Franz.
4. Throughout his paper, Mr. Franz makes a compelling argument – any location where the sea captain and the sailors could have recognized where they were is a location that must be thrown out as a possible site of Paul ‘s shipwreck. He spends a number of pages on this line of reasoning based on the reference to Acts 27:39.
I couldn ‘t agree more. This is why the other sites in the northern portion of the island, Mellieha Bay, St. Paul ‘s Bay, Salina Bay and Valletta Harbor, cannot be the authentic site of Paul ‘s shipwreck. It ‘s well-established that these ancient sites would have been well-known by experienced sailors.
Mr. Franz uses this argument to attack Mr. Cornuke ‘s theory, but, in doing so, he successfully critiques the well-known sites of tradition. In addition, as I stated in items 1 and 2 above, it ‘s most-likely that the topographical structures visible from the outer Munxar Reef would not be recognizable to experienced sailors of Paul ‘s time, and thus, lends absolute support to the overall theory proposed by Mr. Cornuke.
Respectfully submitted,
James Mulholland
Authorized Post under proxy, Randall Niles, http://www.AllAboutGOD.com