e. Trying to Reach Phoenix (27:12–13)
e. Trying to Reach Phoenix (27:12–13)
The pilot and captain (Acts 27:11) are more concerned about keeping the ship in good condition or, alternatively, about keeping the sailors happy for the winter than about immediate safety, at least so long as safety appears to them significantly more probable than not.521 (Fair Havens was perhaps not the best harbor, but at least the nearby islands offered some shelter whereas, if the ship faced a storm outside the harbor, they risked being driven out to sea.)522 Ultimately this decision will cause them to lose the ship (27:41).523
I. HOPING TO REACH PHOENIX (27:12)
Presumably no one was arguing that the ship should try to reach Rome before winter; most would have agreed had Paul’s objection been merely to this. But most thought that they could find a better harbor in Crete to spend the winter; they had ventured across the Aegean to Crete, and sailing a little farther if calmer winds arose seemed a fairly safe gamble. The ship itself would seem safer in a better harbor. Ancients could evaluate harbors according to wind conditions.524 One wind direction, χῶρος, means “northwest,” equivalent to the Latin caurus/corus.525 The term λίψ probably means “west” or (conjoined with χῶρος here) “southwest.” It usually meant “southwest” in classical Greek, “south”526 and very rarely “west”527 in the LXX, and (probably most important for a report perhaps overheard from Egyptian sailors) “west” in the papyri.528
Most of the southwest coast of Crete is extremely “steep and inhospitable,” but it has some “fertile coastal plains and at the western end, several very hospitable valleys leading up into the mountains.”529 Coastal cities included Lissos, with its Asclepius sanctuary, and, to its east, “ancient Phoenix, with its excellent harbour” in the vicinity of modern Loutro; Phoenix had two sister cities inland: Aradena, “above on a mountain plain,”530 and Anopolis, “600 meters above Loutro”531 and across “a spectacular gorge” from Aradena.532 Other inland sites less than ten kilometers from Phoenix reveal habitation in the Roman period. Thus Phoenix was a strategic destination, among fairly few.533
Strabo notes that Phoenix (Φοῖνιξ) lay on the southern side of a Cretan isthmus and that Phoenix belonged to the Lampians (Strabo 10.4.3). Notwithstanding our uncertainty concerning its precise location, its general location is not in dispute. Commentators estimate that it was as much as 50 miles west of Fair Havens, about 34 to 36 miles west of Cape Matala,534 and probably (Ptolemy Geog. 3.15 [3.17.3]) about 34 miles from the west end of Crete.535 A straight line from Cape Matala to Phoenix would be shorter, but since the ship would hug to the coast rather than sail straight for Phoenix, it was more than 80 kilometers (ca. 50 mi.) past Cape Matala.536
The exact location of ancient Phoenix is disputed today; seismic activity has changed the topography, reducing certain correlations with ancient descriptions.537 Near Phoenix is the rocky peninsula Cape Mouros, extending almost a mile (1.6 km.) into the sea and surrounded by two bays.538 The best harbor is the eastern one, where the small, modern fishing village of Loutro539 lies, but this harbor looks southeast whereas the winds Luke mentions indicate a harbor that looked west.540 Some, including Smith, have argued for the eastern bay.541 Most, however, argue that the right site is the west-facing harbor across from Loutro, still called Phonika (or Phineka) Bay, which faces southwest and is open to westerly winds. Its anchorage is not good today, but this situation stems from geologic changes in Crete in the past two millennia, possibly with silting from the two streams flowing nearby. In antiquity it was likely safer.542 This western bay is about 150 feet, or 25 fathoms (46 m.), deep and lacks reefs; although it is not used for a harbor today, it probably was in antiquity.543 This bay has two inlets: the one facing northwest has mostly filled in, but the other facing southwest remains 42 to 48 feet (7–8 fathoms; 13–15 m.) deep.544 This topography fits Luke’s claim that the harbor faced both southwest and northwest, a claim that seems unlikely on the southern coast of Crete but is supported by archaeological evidence. The line of seashells shows that the northwest area was once fourteen feet lower—that is, at the sea.545
Some scholars suggest “that Luke confused the two bays,” one facing east and the other facing west, since Ptolemy (Geog. 3.17.3) uses “Phoenix” for both the western bay (Φοινικοῦς λιμήν) and the city to its east (Φοίνιξ πόλις).546 Although this assumption is hardly necessary, there is no reason to believe that Luke traveled there or knew much about the site apart from what he heard sailors discuss, since the ship never reaches there. For this same reason, in the final analysis, knowledge of the site has little bearing on Luke’s narrative.547
Some ancients could relate the name “Phoenix” to the bird of that name, which was reborn every five centuries.548 Although the bird could be used to symbolize resurrection,549 there is probably no thought of such a symbolic connection here (well as it would work). Phoenix was, after all, a genuine city; the term refers even more to the date palm;550 and more important, one would expect a city to be named Phoenix because it was founded much earlier by the widely seafaring Phoenicians.551 Luke does not normally avail himself of opportunities to exploit potential allegorical associations of place names.
II. THE DECEPTIVE FAVORABLE WIND (27:13)
Calm before storms often appears in narratives of sea voyages in various genres.552 Sailors took advantage of favorable winds,553 and sometimes excessive optimism about current calm weather could breed danger.554 A south wind, mentioned here (νότου), would keep them close to shore, as opposed to winds from the north;555 west winds would hinder their progress.556 A south wind would help them stay with the coast as they rounded Cape Matala, four miles to the west, but then they may have sought to move west-northwest, across the Bay of Messara (Mesará), for some thirty-four or more miles toward Phoenix.557 Unfortunately, south winds in this region can easily “back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale.”558 For centuries, this kind of easterly gale, or gregale, had driven other ships in similar ways, and it remains a cause for concern today as well.559
Although mountains obstructed vision to the north and east as long as the voyagers remained in the harbor of Fair Havens,560 once the ship had moved into the Bay of Messara, those on board could view the shift in weather coming from the east, from the Platanos Valley, and from the north, from Mount Ida.561 They had seen such conditions before but did not anticipate the severity: the Platanos Valley generated unexpected conditions.562 This narrow, vegetated valley lay between two mountain ranges, each more than 1,200 meters high; this formation made the valley an ideal conduit for harsh gusts of air. The mountains constrict cool air flows, decreasing atmospheric pressure and raising the speed of the wind.563 Waiting just one or two more days in the harbor would have prevented their being blasted out to sea by such a wind.564
Sailors typically, as noted above, sought the favor of the gods; thus those in charge may have seen the wind as a providential benefaction from their deities. The whims of Greek and Roman deities, however, were often arbitrary.565 Once caught in the storm, the voyagers could only submit to it (Acts 27:15, 17); they would lose hope (27:20), except for the more modest hope of seeing day (27:29), until Paul offered them new hope (27:33).
They “weighed anchor”; the more general term Luke uses for this activity was widely used with this sense.566 A few miles of sailing brought them past the shelter of Cape Matala, keeping cautiously close to shore (as Luke observes). Now they would have only about thirty-four to thirty-six miles to Phoenix, a voyage they might normally complete the same day.567 The favorable wind could help them cross the broad Bay of Messara.568 This was the most precarious part of the voyage, requiring a favorable wind; once they had passed the shelter of Cape Matala, they lay unprotected in the wide bay.569 Unfortunately, it was at precisely this juncture that their gambit failed: the gale struck while they lay most exposed to it.
The narrative builds suspense as the situation grows hopeless (27:20). This situation provides the context for Paul’s assurance of God’s intervention (27:21–26), which appears all the more conspicuous for its contrast with the situation and the attitude of others on board.
Luke displays some interest in meteorology elsewhere,570 but such interest would be inevitable when one was confronting a storm at sea. “Not long after,”571 they encountered the “typhoon” called Euraquilo. What was Euraquilo?
Sailors knew four major winds, which together could be subdivided into twelve;572 the terminology for particular winds, however, varied among writers.573 Luke’s Εὐρακύλων is not difficult to account for; the Aquilo was normally north-northeast574 or northeast,575 known for driving rain from Italy to Africa,576 and the Eurus can appear as a southeast wind577 or sometimes an east wind.578 Together they may be east by northeast, or “north-one-third-east.”579 Sailing was a multicultural business, especially on Alexandrian ships voyaging to Rome, and so the mixing of Greek and Latin titles was not unusual. Seneca the Younger accepted the Greek title “Eurus” as already latinized (Nat. Q. 5.16.4). The apparent hybrid euroaquilo is attested on a twelve-point North African wind rose using Latin wind names.580
A northeaster was considered the most dangerous wind.581 Pleasant as the southern wind typically was, such winds in this region often unexpectedly back into a violent gregale, or northeaster.582 Mount Ida was eight thousand feet high, and perhaps the northeaster rushed down from there unobstructed across the Plain of Messara.583 It would have then caught them at their most vulnerable location, while they were past the shelter of Cape Matala and crossing the wide Bay of Messara.584 Despite what Luke would have heard from the sailors, this may not have been technically the Euraquilo normally experienced in this region of Crete.585 It may well have been a more specific, unusual phenomenon related to the structure of the valley north of Fair Havens;586 but because it was blowing them to the southwest, the sailors could well have used this name. For those wishing to sail northwest toward Phoenix, a sudden wind from the north would blow them out to sea; a persistent northeaster (what they apparently faced at greater length) could blow them toward the dangerous Syrtis (see comment on Acts 27:17). An ἄνεμος τυφωνικός involved “swirling clouds and sea caused by the meeting of opposing air currents.”587
Luke’s audience may surmise that the sudden wind at this most vulnerable location is more than coincidence. Ancients generally attributed the winds to deities. For example, Juno unbars the winds and points to the fleet, so that the winds prevent their advance (Val. Flacc. 8.322–27).588 But in Acts 27:4, 7, 13–15, 40, the winds are God’s instrument to provide Paul with an opportunity to testify.589
Although ancient writers frequently used storms and winds figuratively, this was not their primary application in narratives, particularly historical narratives (see introduction, above, to Acts 27). The literary setting and genre indicate literal disaster (with theological, moral, and apologetic applications), not an allegorical one. If there are any connections with figurative uses of such language in Luke-Acts, however, Paul is more like John the Baptizer, who was not a reed “shaken by the wind” (Luke 7:24), than like the Twelve, terrified by wind (8:23–25); Paul, unshaken, trusts God (Acts 27:21–25). A contrast with the positive “violent” wind of Pentecost (2:2; cf. 27:41) is also possible;590 both 2:2 and 27:15 use forms of φέρω with the wind. In both cases the “wind” plays a role in leading God’s agents for the spread of his message among the nations.
b. Driven past Cauda (27:15–16)
Unable to control the ship against such a coercive wind, the voyagers were driven by it. The best the sailors could do, when momentarily sheltered by the island of Cauda, was to haul the ship’s boat aboard. This boat will later prove important to the story (27:30–31).
Those driven off course by northerly winds sometimes had to settle for destinations farther south. Thus one novel tells of a ship headed for Italy that was driven to Sicily and from there embarked again to Italy from Syracuse (Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.1; cf. Acts 28:12).591 Being at the mercy of the winds was a common feature of stories about storms at sea,592 perhaps because the most dangerous storms at sea typically included this peril (although often explicitly articulated for narrative suspense). Repetition of the point in the circumstances of 27:17 reinforces the portrait of their helplessness.
Most ships had just one mast and mainsail, “sometimes supplemented” by two smaller sails.593 Because ancient ships’ mainsails were cut square, they could not easily face into a headwind and hence had “to make very wide tacks, or to wait for a change in the wind. If caught in a storm, they might not be able to keep their head to the wind, and would remain exposed to heavy seas on their broadside.”594 Although ancient ships could (against some earlier writers) with effort sail against a wind,595 this was no ordinary wind. Luke’s ship was larger (though smaller than Lucian’s three-mast Isis) and hence had a second mast carrying the foresail (mentioned in Acts 27:40). The foresail projected forward and was used for driving and steering; it was likely so employed as the ship gave way to the wind (27:15), and was “hoisted to the wind” in 27:40.596
II. RESCUING THE BOAT NEAR CAUDA (27:16)
The probable location of Cauda (modern Gavdos),597 considered the southernmost Greek island, is more than twenty miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara, after they had passed Cape Matala.598 This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there.599 Cauda provides an anchorage, but not on the part of the island (east-northeast) they would have been passing.600 Although they were unable to secure the ship near Cauda, the brief respite that its leeward side provided from the wind gave them momentary opportunity for maneuvers.
The island was inhabited in this period,601 although this would have made no difference for the voyagers unable to land there. It was much smaller than islands where ships that Paul used usually put into port;602 at much less than fifty square kilometers (20 sq. mi.), less than a tenth the size of Samothrace, it appears as a geographic marker.603
Sailors would use the dinghy, a small boat, for landings or for pulling the ship’s head in the right direction during tacking.604 Normally the ship would tow its dinghy behind the stern,605 usually with a sailor in it.606 In a storm, however, this practice risked the smaller boat’s loss,607 and so it was safer to haul it on board. At times during a storm a shipmaster could board the skiff—which was attached to the boat with a rope—to pull the ship in the right direction.608 The present storm, however, was too severe for this maneuver to succeed.
Luke’s “we” (27:17) suggests that he participated in hauling in the boat; in contrast to some technical tasks that only sailors could do, passengers could be drafted (or could volunteer, as in 28:3) to help.609 Because it was now full of water, it would be heavy, and hence they were “scarcely” (μόλις) able to retrieve it.610 Luke’s audience will soon hear of this boat again, when it will prove better surrendered to the sea (27:30–32).
c. Avoiding the Syrtis (27:17)
Conzelmann wonders if Luke’s transition to the third person here is a careless slip.611 Instead, it reflects Luke’s precision; only the sailors (or at least others who did not include Luke) performed the activities noted here. In the same way, in the next verse (27:18), all those aboard (hence “we”) were tossed by the storm, but only the crew (hence “they”) tossed cargo overboard. As in the “we” material more generally, Luke reserves “we” exclusively for activities in which he (along with others) participated, rarely intruding himself into the narrative’s action.
The ship would in fact ultimately “run aground” (the same term appears in 27:26; for nautical usage, see BDAG), but not in a location as dangerous as the voyagers feared. The shoals of the Syrtis could ground a ship, but too far from land for the passengers to have any hope for safety.
Ships often followed a south wind between Cyrene and western Crete (Strabo 17.3.21), but the danger lay in the unusually expansive area of shallows and shoals to Cyrene’s west. Strabo noted that the Syrtes (the Greater and the Lesser) were near Cyrenaea and the Libyan and Sicilian seas (2.5.20).612 The area in general was thought difficult for sailors: Romans had found the area of the sea between Sicily and Libya particularly dangerous (Polyb. 1.37.1–3), the Libyan coast was thought to have fewer inlets and bays than any other coast (Pliny E. N.H. 5.1.1), and many feared death on “the Libyan (sea)” (Philodemus On Death 33.7).
The Greater Syrtis was not far west of Cyrene (Polyb. 3.39.2), and its head was the southernmost part of the Mediterranean (Strabo 2.5.25), some 600 miles (1,000 km.) from Carthage.613 The modern Gulf of Sidra (Sirte) stretches roughly from Benghazi to Tripoli (Arabic Ṭarābulus).614
According to ancient estimates, the Lesser Syrtis was estimated to be about 1,600 stadia around, with the islands of Meninx615 and Cercina at its mouth. The Greater Syrtis was much larger, sometimes estimated at 5,000 stadia around and 1,800 across or, more conservatively, 4,000 and 1,500 stadia respectively (2.5.20).616 It was the Greater Syrtis, rather than the Syrtis minor (farther west than their trajectory), toward which the vessel’s trajectory was driving them.617
Towns did lie on the land adjoining these shoals,618 but the Syrtis rendered use of local bays problematic (Pliny E. N.H. 5.4.26). Strabo 17.3.20 notes that some ancients took these risks. It appears that despite these dangers, maritime trade prospered with “the Three Cities of Sabratha, Lepcis Magna, and Oea, which also functioned as outlets for the semi-arid hinterland and trans-Saharan trade; and the ports of south Tunisia, such as Tacape, were of some importance.”619 Yet even sailors who knew the region would scarcely want to face it at the mercy of the gale, unable to navigate their own course.
The Syrtis was known as a terrifying place620 and a hazard for sailors to avoid.621 The danger of the Syrtis was shallow waters at places, leading to boats becoming stuck in the shallows during the ebb and flow of tides (Strabo 17.3.20).622 An early Roman fleet, unaccustomed to this region, grounded on shoals at low tide in the Lesser Syrtis, though the Romans escaped when they lightened their vessels and the tide rose.623 Storytellers could depict the Syrtis as a three days’ voyage inland but warned that once a boat had entered, it would be trapped and destroyed there (Dio Chrys. Or. 5.8–9).624 Locals who knew the shoals were said to plunder the ships stranded there (Quint. Curt. 4.7.19).
The nearer Syrtis was the Greater Syrtis, at this point still nearly 400 miles (over 600 km.) away; by forcing the ship in a southwestern direction, however, the wind was driving Paul’s company toward the Syrtis.625 It was to avoid this very danger that Alexandrian ships en route to Rome preferred sailing north to Lycia (Acts 27:5–6) instead of west, too close to the Libyan coast.626 Sources from this period reflect “an obsessional fear” of the Syrtis.627 Thus sailors off the coast stayed as far as possible from the Syrtis, “taking precautions not to be caught off their guard and driven by winds into these gulfs,” one even traveling thirty days by land to go around it.628 So terrifying were the Syrtes that western Mediterranean literature regularly linked them with the mythical dangers of Scylla and Charybdis.629 (In historical times, though, most associated Scylla and Charybdis geographically with the Strait of Messina off Sicily.)630
Even Greek writers could speak of a Scylla-like monster lurking near the Syrtis. Dio Chrysostom tells (or invents) the myth of an African kind of monster preying on animals and people near the Syrtis (Or. 5.6–7). Each of these monsters looked like an exquisitely beautiful woman on top (5.12); the rest was a snake, with a snake’s head (5.13).631 Whereas they would catch other creatures by speed, they would seduce men (5.14). Once a man came close for intercourse, the concealed serpent (ὄφις) part would sting and kill him, then eat him (5.15, 27).632 One traveler from Libya to Egypt went by land, avoiding the dangers of the Syrtis at sea, and discovered a monster’s tomb (Lucian Dipsads 6). For sailors who had never navigated these waters, such stories may have provided supplemental terrors; but the dangers of such land creatures could not be realized if, as seemed likely, they might never even reach land. Again, though there were figurative uses of these images,633 Luke’s narrative at this point is primarily literal, and those aboard the ship would know stories of grave dangers ahead. Luke’s point is the dangers through which God preserved his message for Rome.
The sailors’ particular maneuvers are more difficult to reconstruct. It is clear that mariners sometimes girded a ship with a rope to help it withstand the hard sea (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.367–70); the verb ὑποζώννυμι is elsewhere used of bracing ships.634 In rough waters, frapping cables were used “around the outside of the hull, and in the case of merchantmen, under it” (BDAG, s.v. ὑποζώννυμι). Older Athenian triremes had employed “bracing cables” called ὑποζώματα, what one employed to accomplish the bracing implied in Luke’s cognate verb in 27:17.635 What is much less clear is the method used for this vessel.636 Egyptian art nearly two millennia before Luke apparently illustrates a method of stretching a rope above deck between the stern and the prow to hold them together and prevent the ship from breaking up.637 More likely, the crew used these cables to brace the hull and protect the keel.638 Perhaps sailors accomplished this by wrapping the cables around prow or stern, then from either side of the deck slackening and pulling them back around the hull until they were ideally positioned and could be fastened in place.639 As commentators note, Luke’s use of βοήθεια fits common nautical usage for such supports, though his verb’s allusion to the cognate ὑποζώματα is more explicit.640 Pliny the Elder mentions that one danger of typhoons (see Acts 27:14) is that they could shatter not only spars but even the hull (N.H. 2.132).
Such undergirding was in fact routine before steel hulls came into use. In his dissertation on ancient Mediterranean navigation, Danny Davis points out that whereas “long, narrow warships employed these long cables longitudinally to prevent the stresses of hogging and sagging in moderate and heavy seas,” merchant ships like Paul’s “rigged them around the hull laterally to prevent plank joinery from splitting and seams from opening as a result of the twisting and flexing of the hull in exceptionally harsh sea states.”641
More difficult is the “vessel” (σκεῦος, an unfortunately very generic designation, like the English “object” or “thing”; cf. Luke 8:16; 17:31; Acts 9:15) that the sailors “loosen” or “lower” (χαλάσαντες).642 Some scholars suggest that it refers to a sail, perhaps a mainsail (cf. the same term in Acts 10:11, 16; 11:5); this would prevent the wind from driving the ship as quickly.643 (But surely they would have taken down all rigging before passing Cauda [27:16]?) They would seek to tack as far against the wind as possible to counter the drift southwest toward the Syrtis.644
During severe storms, sailors would “clear the decks of unnecessary gear,”645 “lower the yard to drop the ship’s center of gravity,”646 “shorten the sail(s) or replace the mainsail with a smaller nothos (‘bastard’) sail to maintain headway,”647 and so forth. Thus Luke may refer here to lowering the “yard, the mainsail lashed to it and the fair-weather topsail (supparum)” to prevent “the mast from cracking” and allow sailors to set up “a storm sail closer to the deck . . . for maintaining steerageway.”648
Others suggest attempts to mitigate the wind’s force by using anchors and cables. The anchors had nothing to catch on here (in contrast to 27:29) but functioned as drags.649 Stone anchors appear as early as the Bronze Age,650 with wooden anchors by the seventh century B.C.E. (Romans giving them lead cores, and Greeks stone);651 iron anchors, noted as early as Herodotus (Hdt. 9.74), appear commonly from the first century C.E. forward (as attested in shipwrecks).652 The Seleucids had employed the anchor as a dynastic symbol, found on Judean coins.653
Meanwhile the voyagers were being “driven” along, the wind against their starboard, drifting at an estimated mile and a half each hour, “about eight degrees north of west,” toward what appeared possible destruction.654
d. Discarding Cargo and Equipment (27:18–19)
Life matters more than possessions (Luke 17:31–32), and reduced to desperation, the crew is now ready to abandon the precious cargo for which they initially risked sailing late in the season.
I. THROWING CARGO OVERBOARD (27:18)
Emergency conditions require jettisoning part of the cargo. The term χειμάζω, used only here in the NT, is related to a term for winter weather (χεῖμα) and appears in ancient literature both for difficult storms at sea (as here) and for figurative ones (see examples in BDAG). The specific activities Luke reports in Acts 27:18–19 are not borrowed from prototypical storm scenes, but such scenes normally do report operations undertaken to attempt to save the ship.655
Alexandrian grain ships were normally full when they set out on their voyage to Rome.656 Merchants and shipowners, chronically underfunded, frequently borrowed money to purchase cargoes, then repaid the loans after selling the cargo. The high-risk insurance caveat in this arrangement was that if the ship was destroyed, the loan would not need to be repaid; this justified expensive loans (with interest of sometimes up to 30 percent of the price).657 To jettison the cargo is a drastic act unless they expect to lose the ship in any case (27:10)—or view it as necessary to save their lives, whatever the owner’s loss. Many members of Luke’s audience, whatever their status, might have little sympathy toward shipowners, navicularii, who often belonged to the municipal elite and were often nouveau riche freedmen.658
In the face of a rough storm, a crew might lighten the ship, reducing the likelihood of being sunk, by throwing unnecessary objects overboard. To throw overboard instead the expensive cargo659—the transport of which constituted the reason for the long voyage—demonstrates the extent of the crew’s current desperation to save their lives.660 Aristotle remarks that sometimes discarding the cargo is necessary; no one would discard his property under normal circumstances, “but to save his life and that of his shipmates any sane man would do so” (N.E. 3.1.5, 1110a).661 Comparing a political crisis, Cicero notes that in a storm one must throw everything else overboard (Quint. fratr. 3.8.1). At a helmsman’s order, desperate passengers in a storm might throw overboard even gold and silver, and merchants might discard their own goods in which they had hoped for profit (Ach. Tat. 3.2.9). In other settings, Luke also valued preserving one’s life at the expense of one’s property (Luke 17:31–32; cf. 1 Macc 2:28).
Some scholars argue that the jettison of cargo in Jonah 1:5 LXX is Luke’s closest verbal model.662 (On proposed Jonah background, see the discussion, above, at the beginning of Acts 27.) Yet jettisons are typical for storm scenes (and, undoubtedly, storm experiences) in ancient literature.663 This is true of storm scenes in histories as well as in other genres.664 They happened commonly enough for later laws to regulate the practice.665 Later rabbis told a story that a crew threw one of Nicanor’s doors for the temple overboard during a storm, and when they prepared to discard the second one, Nicanor begged them to throw him in with it. As the story went, the sea then calmed and the other door was also recovered (b. Yoma 38a, bar.). Luke may have derived two words from Jonah’s phrase ἐκβολὴν ἐποιήσαντο, though even here we cannot be sure that Luke thought of a specific source; ἐκβολή is a recognized term for the activity depicted,666 and the phrase appears elsewhere.667
The imperfect ἐποιοῦντο (contrast Jonah’s aorist) allows for the action to be completed later (Acts 27:38), although, given the surrender of even (apparently) the ship’s tackle in 27:19, one could suppose that the wheat discarded in 27:38 could be food kept for their own needs—that is, only a small part of the cargo. Then again, the participation of at least some passengers as well as crew in 27:38 (cf. 27:36–37) may suggest that more effort was needed, but this could simply reflect the access of all aboard to the wheat (since they were eating it, 27:36) or the physically weakened condition of those aboard (27:33).
Even had Luke said nothing about some cargo remaining, however, we should not imagine that the entire cargo was discarded on the first day that the sailors began to do it. Some of the largest ships—and this must be one of them (27:37)—could carry more than 250 tons;668 ships carrying government cargos often ran to 340 tons, and some grain vessels to 1,200 tons.669 Grain ships bound for Rome carried a minimum of 68 tons in this period, and the massive Isis carried at least 1,000 tons.670
A second- or third-century C.E. letter indicates that dockside unloading took about twelve days.671 Unloading might take less for ships like this one than for some others: Josephus’s ship had more than twice as many passengers as Luke’s vessel (Jos. Life 15; Acts 27:37); fitting all (?) the sailors into a single boat (Acts 27:30) suggests a much smaller ship than the Isis with its massive crew.672 But it was still no easy enterprise, nor would it be accomplished all in a single day, especially without the equipment used in the docks. It has been suggested that the crew here jettisoned only the upper cargo, perhaps above deck or in the upper levels of storage.673
Throwing items overboard would consume less time than carefully unloading them, but the speed would still depend on how the grain was stored. Such ships held partitions in their hold to separate individuals’ lots so that the owners could be compensated if their merchandise was lost. Probably the grain, at least the grain they began discarding this day, was stored in sacks.674 Grain piled six feet high exerts a vertical pressure of close to 240 pounds per square foot. But “if not sacked or binned it could ‘flow’ in rough seas, exerting sudden lateral pressure upon the hull of up to 160 lbs. per square foot at places and threatening breach or capsize.”675 Even if it was in sacks, however, sacks of such weight were not easily moved. It is not surprising that some of the task remains in 27:38.676
III. DISCARDING EQUIPMENT (27:19)
Keeping track of the number of days at sea was probably common677 and could well be particularly likely in such a dramatic situation. That the crew acted “with their own hands” (αὐτόχειρες) is emphatic, perhaps ominously implying the “increasing danger.”678
Scholars debate the precise meaning of the claim that the voyagers “cast down” (ἔρριψαν) the “object” (σκευήν; the term may be more specific than its cognate in 27:17, but that is not saying much).679 Some have suggested (with the Old Latin version) the use of another anchor as a brake. More likely Luke refers to “the yard, an enormous spar which could be almost as long as the vessel itself” and which needed “to be lowered to the deck and either secured properly or cast adrift.” This was a difficult task requiring many workers.680 A mast could be jettisoned when “it de-socketed itself with the rolling, yawing and heaving of the ship in rough seas and high winds,”681 or because it was a quick way “to lighten the ship . . . with a few swings of the axe.”682 Such an extreme measure left only the artemon (foresail),683 but it was frequent enough for later Roman law to address monetary issues surrounding accidental or deliberate demasting of ships.684
Circumstances became so grave (particularly the inability to see sun or stars), Luke emphasizes, that those aboard lost hope.685 This loss of hope excepts Paul (27:21–26), whose faith the contrast highlights. This loss of hope also climaxes the description of the terrible situation, thereby dramatically underlining the reality of the miracle that follows.
“Many days” highlights the danger;686 “no small storm” is litotes, a literary way to say “a great storm.”687 Sailing at night, with diminished visibility, raised the chance of shipwreck (Diod. Sic. 31.45.1); this was all the more the case when nothing was visible both night and day.688 Some descriptions of particularly dangerous storms at sea mention that no stars were visible (Ovid Metam. 11.520–21).689 Sailors in the Mediterranean normally could use the stars for navigation, but not during this long-term storm; a meteorologist notes that this problem characterizes “autumnal storms that ravage the Mediterranean during the time of low-index weather patterns.”690
The obscuring of both sun and stars691 was particularly terrifying (Isa 13:10; Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:10; 3:15); see discussion of darkness at Acts 2:20.692 Stars enabled one to determine the hour of the night (Polyb. 9.15.7); but more important here, they were necessary to plot location693 and determine if Paul’s ship was still at risk of being driven to the Syrtis (Acts 27:17). That they were obscured illustrates the storm’s intensity. Indeed, one reason for avoiding winter travel was the difficulty storms posed to navigation.694 The obscuring of the sun invited observers’ attention both in eschatological descriptions (Acts 2:20; Luke 21:25) and in historic judgment miracles (Luke 23:45; Acts 13:11). Perhaps it similarly invites attention to Paul’s message here (cf. Jonah 1:15–16). Many Gentiles considered the sun and stars to be deities (Acts 7:42–43; see comment there); but the true God is sovereign over them.
Miracle stories often build suspense by emphasizing the grave danger that precedes the relief;695 the same was true of sea rescue stories.696 Sea voyages in general often mention the disappearance of hope;697 of course, in the circumstances Luke describes, such a disappearance is intrinsically probable, in any case,698 but mentioning it adds suspense. Sometimes in ancient texts storms even function as omens of impending doom.699 By now the crew undoubtedly realized that they would drift too far south to reach Sicily, but they could not hope to survive being driven onto the Tunisian coast in a storm.700
In this context Luke regularly uses σωτηρία (Acts 27:34), σῴζω (27:20, 31), or διασῴζω (27:43, 44; 28:1, 4) for deliverance from a storm. God’s power to save physically provides a suitable metaphor for his power to save spiritually (e.g., 4:9, 12; Luke 8:36, 48, 50; 17:19; 18:42). Luke’s description of their plight—terror over the obscuring of sun and stars—suits a foretaste of eschatological trauma:701 signs in the sun, stars, sea, and waves (Luke 21:25) would lead to people fainting from fear (21:26). But believers should show courage and not abandon it (21:28)—fitting Paul’s role in the following paragraph (Acts 27:21–26).
Luke’s wording was also natural language for physical deliverances702 or safety,703 including in childbirth,704 military situations,705 and, as here, at sea.706 This designation appears frequently for deliverances in ancient sea voyage literature.707 Luke often uses “hope” in a natural sense as well (Luke 6:34; 23:8; Acts 16:19; 24:26). It is not impossible that, as in the case of deliverance, natural hope could offer a useful analogy for the hope of Christ (Luke 24:21; Acts 2:26; 23:6; 24:15; 26:6–7; 28:20), as in the “hope” for eschatological “salvation” in Pauline literature;708 but even when “hope” and “deliverance” terms are conjoined, they can refer to natural circumstances.709
Deaths at sea were counted particularly tragic (e.g., Pliny Ep. 5.21.3).710 Some ancients believed that those who died at sea never descended to Hades but that their souls wandered endlessly above the waters where they died (Ach. Tat. 5.16.1–2). What was most terrible about death at sea was the impossibility of burial,711 and what some may have dreaded most about lack of burial was the tradition that the unburied could not enter Hades.712 It was also believed that the unavenged ghosts of those who died violently could wander or haunt places;713 thus, burying a deceased person’s remains might appease a spirit and end its haunting.714 (Romans called the dead who were not buried Lemures, and believed that they haunted areas, disturbing the living.)715 In addition to such considerations, of course, drowning was a hideous way to die.716
5. Paul Shares the Angel’s Message (27:21–26)
After setting the dramatic stage of deadly peril and others’ loss of hope (Acts 27:14–20), Luke reports Paul’s faith and encouragement stemming from an angelic revelation (27:21–26).
Because many individual elements of Paul’s speech appear straightforward but particular questions apply to the pericope as a whole, it is helpful to survey these questions in an introductory manner here: the literary character of this pericope as an indirect revelation report (unusual for Luke); the question of whether Paul’s voice could be heard during a storm; whether other passengers would heed him and the nature of his speech; and Luke’s positive portrayal of Paul’s courage in the face of danger.
Why does Luke recount only Paul’s report of the vision rather than the vision itself? Luke normally reports visions directly (7:55–56; 9:3–5, 10–16; 10:3–6, 10–16; 18:9–10; 23:11), but he diverges from that pattern here. This divergence could serve the purpose of literary variation, but it may also point to Luke’s historiographic method. Where his sources report visions, he follows their reports.717 In the more detailed “we” material, where he himself was present, however, he can recount more credibly Paul’s report of the vision than an experience to which he himself was not privy.718 The one exception to this pattern is 16:9, but in this case Luke was apparently directly involved in the discussion and interpretation of the dream (16:10). That this difference in narrative texture accounts for the character of the secondary report here seems to me likelier than not, though one dare not insist on it as certain (the “we” material does cover less space than the rest of the narrative, offering fewer examples for comparison).
Most scholars doubt that Paul could have addressed his companions during a storm.719 It has been noted that such speeches fit a literary convention of storm scenes.720 Some draw from this observation the conclusion that Luke composes the account according to literary convention; although such a conclusion is plausible, we should also keep in mind that the ancients knew sailing conditions on their own vessels better than do most modern critics. If such scenes were impossibilities, would the incongruity never have occurred to ancient writers?721 Or did such accounts implicitly praise the speakers’ ability to project their voices? Rhetoric highly valued this ability to project the voice.722
Given literary freedoms concerning speeches, it is certainly possible that Luke has dramatized the account.723 Alternatively, we may consider that the storm’s intensity would vary from day to day, and Paul may have chosen to speak out during a lull in its noise. (For noise other than the storm being audible at some point, see comment on Acts 27:27.)
Another possibility also merits consideration, although it more debatable than the possibility of a lull in the sound of the storm. Given the weather, perhaps not everyone aboard would be on deck all the time, and the scene could be envisioned as being below deck.724 (If a grain ship’s cargo required hundreds of passengers to sleep on deck,725 the situation might be somewhat different after a difficult storm and with some of the grain discarded; 27:18.) Paul’s “standing among them” in 27:21 implies that the rest were seated; perhaps especially the crew worked on deck during much of the storm whereas many others would be beneath the deck.726
Because most remains of vessels are from their bottoms, ships’ superstructures are difficult to reconstruct.727 Nevertheless, from what we know, under normal circumstances most people would not want to stay below deck; when prisoners were transported there, this experience was depicted as enduring continuous darkness and listed among their torments.728 Because grain was stored below deck and water-swelled grain could rupture the ship’s hull, a watertight hatch sealed off the grain below, and the crew would want to continue to protect it.729 Paul was obviously above deck in 27:30–31.730
But while there would likely be “tight hatches, planking and bulkheads” below deck to prevent the flowing of grain (whether it was sacked or poured in), there could well be some room where people could huddle there in emergency conditions.731 This could especially be the case if some of the discarded cargo in 27:18 had been from below deck.732 Justin Leidwanger, a specialist in maritime archaeology teaching at Stanford, remarks that while passengers normally stayed above deck, “I suppose I don’t have any trouble imagining passengers huddling below deck fore or aft in a pinch. . . . I’m consistently amazed at how many people can fit in small spaces in the holds of ships these days, particularly when (unfortunately) quite desperate, so 276 might be doable in a pinch,” especially given that Josephus shows that some ships could transport more than double that number.733 There was even sometimes accommodation below deck in steerage, though the number who could fit there would be limited.734
Even if Paul speaks below deck, however, we do not know how many people would hear him. People could hear Paul more easily below deck than above it, but would all 276 people (27:37) be able to gather in a single place? (One must consider particularly the limitations imposed by bulkheads that compartmentalized different batches of grain sacks.)735 This was, presumably, not a rowing ship,736 but on older triremes, officers could communicate with their 170 rowers737 (though presumably the rhythm was often managed through expedients such as drums rather than voices).738 Perhaps not all people were, in fact, present, including even Luke himself; although Luke has just used the first person plural (27:15–16, 20; and revisits it immediately afterward, in 27:37), in 27:17–19, 21 and 27:33–36 he uses the third person.739 (Luke is not above using hyperbole even when explicitly saying “all” [cf. 19:10], as later in 27:33.) In 27:33–36 he may have even addressed primarily the soldiers just mentioned in 27:32 (or perhaps also sailors in 27:30, 38–40), although the repetition of “all” in 27:37 (from 27:33, 35–36) might suggest that Luke intends to depict all the voyagers at least on the latter occasion (but see comment there). On the latter occasion, the weather may have been more suitable for hearing above deck (see comment on Acts 27:27). In that instance, the imperfect form παρακάλει could allow for Paul moving around and exhorting people in smaller clusters (27:33), although his movement would be limited if he remained chained.740
Nevertheless, whether Paul was above or below deck, we may imagine analogous acoustic problems with a general addressing tens of thousands of troops before battle; yet such scenes are so pervasive in ancient literature741 that we dare not doubt that generals offered such addresses742 (though certainly not everyone heard them).743 (In more recent times, John Wesley spoke to thousands; similarly, Ben Franklin performed an experiment showing that more than thirty thousand could hear Whitefield preaching at one time.)744
If Demosthenes practiced projecting his voice against the waves (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 1) and a regular speaker knew how to project his voice (see comment on Acts 21:40), it is possible that Paul could make himself heard among some or many of those on deck or gathered in the largest area below deck. Luke in any case thought the scene plausible, and he or (on other views) his source was on the ship.
In any case, both the circumstances and literary effectiveness suggest this location for such a speech. In other literature, such speeches typically occur “at a high point in the storm and at a low point in the fortunes of the sea travelers.”745
How likely is it that Paul would be able to command his fellow passengers’ attention? Concern for plausibility on this point is less pressing than concerns about volume or accommodating most people in one location on board. Danger weakens convention746 and allows natural leaders to rise to rapid prominence; stories are told of such events in more recent times.747 Then as now, leaders whose plans brought disaster faced criticism;748 presumably most of the passengers would by this point be angry with those who made the decision to set out to sea, and Paul’s contrary wisdom, once known, would earn respect.
Paul had considerable practice leading and speaking to voluntary followers (as opposed to, e.g., the centurion’s experience with direct subordinates), perhaps more than anyone else aboard. Especially if Paul’s Roman citizenship, his special treatment by Julius, and, most important for religiously sensitive ancients, his previous warning against setting out were widely known, he could command a hearing. Undoubtedly people had been crying out to their gods749 (at least until they gave up hope in Acts 27:20), since human effort could no longer help them.
It is doubtful that the setting calls for a rhetorically polished speech, but to the extent that anyone would have sought to classify the speech, it would be more deliberative than anything else.750 But Paul’s speech is unlike the many more literary speeches cited as parallels among storm speeches (most of which concern preparation for death).751 Words of assurance are common in miracle stories, including accounts about Jesus752 as well as those about divine men or others.753
Although Paul was presumably afraid at times,754 his own lists of sufferings also reveal a character determined to accomplish his mission regardless of the cost, and this is the side of his character on which Luke here focuses. Luke emphasizes Paul’s fearlessness in a manner comporting with expectations for a sage. The Stoic wise man could exercise caution but not its negative counterpart, fear, which was considered irrational.755 A philosopher should remain unafraid when facing dangers.756 Even the fear of death was deemed irrational757—a belief shared by Stoics758 and Epicureans759 alike. How bravely a philosopher dies, ancient observers often maintained, is a real test of his beliefs and character.760 Cicero praises one who faced hardship “with the serenity of a philosopher” (Fam. 6.14.3).761
This general expectation applied to sea voyages as well; the courageous man who does not fear death would remain serene on a wind-whipped sea in a furious storm.762 How a philosopher acted in a storm at sea was considered a real test of his genuineness (Aul. Gel. 1.2.11).763 Epictetus thus takes to task those who claim philosophy when lecturing but fear death during shipwreck or other dangers.764 If a ship goes down, a philosophically minded person’s responsibility is to “drown without fear, neither shrieking nor crying out against God, but recognizing that what is born must also perish.”765 Lucian cites Peregrinus’s fear during a storm to prove his inauthenticity as a philosopher (Peregr. 42–44).766 By contrast, Pyrrho the Skeptic (ca. 360–270 B.C.E.) allegedly remained unperturbed during a storm at sea that unnerved the others aboard (Diog. Laert. 9.11.68). (Even if such depictions were conventional in antiquity, some such accounts were firsthand,767 and those whose convictions protected them from being visibly shaken during a storm have also impressed subsequent generations.)768
Thus a truly great philosopher would not be shaken or terrified by things that terrified others.769 Philosophic literature abounds with examples of philosophers’ virtuous perseverance.770 Pythagoras kept philosophizing calmly regardless of circumstances, unafraid even of death (Iambl. V.P. 32.220). The most commonly offered example was Socrates, refusing to compromise at his trial or flee before his execution. If a steersman faced death bravely at sea, refusing to jump ship, how could Socrates fear death (Max. Tyre 3.7)? Socrates’s endurance of various hardships, some argued, demonstrated that he was a sincere teacher (Xen. Mem. 1.2.1).
The Stoic and Epicurean ideal of tranquility under duress (even torture) was hardly universal; Aristotle, for example, counted it absurd.771 Honest Stoics might also admit that even philosophers struggle with the fear of death, though they must overcome it.772 In practice, many philosophers fell short. Some who acknowledged that many or most fell short praised “genuine” philosophers all the more who displayed endurance (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.11.5–6). As the story went, when Aristippus (ca. 435–350 B.C.E.) became anxious during a storm, others aboard, not afraid, mocked his comparative cowardice. “The lives at stake in the two cases are not comparable,” he replied.773 When, during a storm at sea in the second century C.E., Aulus Gellius found a Stoic philosopher as pale as everyone else (though not screaming), he discovered that the philosopher was afraid (Aul. Gel. 19.1.4–6). The philosopher explained that many Stoics allow initial fear as long as one overcomes it (19.1.11–21).774 Most relevant for Luke’s Paul here, however, might be Jesus’s ability to sleep during a storm (Luke 8:23–24), though Luke might not make a direct parallel (Paul is not asleep here, despite reference to a nocturnal revelation in Acts 27:23, and Luke’s depiction of Jesus appears less emphatic about him sleeping during the storm than is the language of Mark 4:37–38).
b. Paul’s Message of Hope (27:21–26)
Paul does not still a storm like Jesus (Luke 8:24), but he does trust that it will not prevent the fulfillment of his calling (Acts 27:24), exceeding the confidence of the disciples in Luke 8:24 (they are reproved in 8:25).775
I. PAUL’S ASSURANCE (27:21–22)
In the face of the others’ hopelessness, Paul reminds them that he spoke the unhappy truth before (Acts 27:21) and therefore ought now to be believed as he speaks a happier message of assurance (27:22). Their failure to eat (27:21a) stems not from having thrown all food overboard (cf. 27:33–36)776 but, rather, from seasickness,777 mortal anxiety (see esp. 27:36),778 or both.779 Not eating here sets the stage for how Paul later encourages them to eat and causes them to take heart (27:33–38).780
For the address “men,” see comment on Acts 2:14; Luke employs the interjection “O” (ὦ), introducing addressees, far more rarely than the address “men” and nowhere else conjoins it with “men.”781 Although Luke uses it to address Theophilus, whom he honors (1:1), all his other references appear in rebukes (13:10; cf. 18:14), including—perhaps relevant here—rebukes to those slow to believe God’s truth (Luke 9:41 [cf. Mark 9:19]; 24:25). Pauline literature also employs the interjection in various ways782 but usually in rebukes (Rom 2:1, 3; 9:20; Gal 3:1).783
To the extent that the speech follows any rhetorical conventions, Paul does offer in Acts 27:21 a brief survey of events leading up to the current situation, functioning as a narratio.784 Retroactive criticism of sailors’ folly in setting out under dangerous conditions was not unique to Paul (e.g., Polyb. 1.37.10), but he had warned them in advance.785 “Gaining” injury and “loss” may be an ironic touch,786 attracting attention like an oxymoron.787 The loss of the ship, perhaps previously viewed as disastrous, now appears as a small price in an assurance of their survival (Acts 27:22).
II. ANGELIC APPEARANCE (27:23)
Perhaps in view of the amount of his scroll remaining, Luke now introduces an incident through Paul’s speech without having recounted it first. Such retrospectives were common enough in literature; one could hark back to unrecorded events of the preceding day that were now necessary to be reported.788 Given claims of divine deliverances by other deities in antiquity (see comment on Acts 28:11), Paul is careful to indicate that he serves “God”—that is, the highest God (for the majority who would by now know him, this would mean the true God, the only one worshiped by the Jewish people).789 As in other passages, when Paul speaks to those who do not know Israel’s God, he begins with monotheism (14:15–17; 17:23; 1 Thess 1:9; cf. Rom 1:19). It is also clear, however, that when people are in need, Paul is ready to help in God’s name without requiring prior faith in his God (cf. also 28:3, 8–9).
Whether Paul was asleep or not during the revelation is not clear,790 especially if it is the same night when he is addressing others on board, as might be suggested by “this night.”791 The agents of revelation in dreams or night visions vary in Acts: a man in 16:9, the Lord in 18:9 and 22:18, and an angel here. Angelic revelations are prominent in Luke’s infancy narratives, which are unique among the extant sources (Luke 1:11–20, 26–38; 2:9–15),792 and appear in the resurrection narratives (24:4–7, 23; cf. Matt 28:2, 5; John 20:12). They also bring divine messages in Acts 1:10–11 (to the disciples), 8:26 (to Philip), and 10:3 (to Cornelius); elsewhere they bring deliverance (e.g., 5:19; 12:7–9). An angel brings encouragement in testing (as here) to Jesus in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43). The language is familiar: an angel stands (παρέστη), as in Luke 1:11 (ἑστώς), and encourages the recipient not to be afraid, as in 1:13, 30 (μὴ φοβοῦ in all three cases, as also in the risen Lord’s words in Acts 18:9).793
Communications from angels appear common in early Christianity, although they are reported according to their genre; in Revelation (e.g., Rev 1:1; 17:1; 21:9) they function as we would expect in a typical apocalypse, whereas in Acts they are closer to their role in most OT narratives (Gen 31:11; 1 Kgs 19:5; Zech 4:1) and other early Christian narratives (Matt 1:20; 2:13, 19). Revelations from angels are also common in other early Jewish sources,794 and they sometimes appear in night visions.795 Often God sends them in response to prayers.796 Gentiles also affirmed the reality of divine messengers,797 some of whom communicated with mortals in dreams.798 Even later Platonists, for whom the divine was invisible to mortal sight, allowed δαίμονες as intermediary messengers.799
If there is any Jonah allusion in this chapter, as many scholars think, its focus here would be a contrast. Whereas in Jonah, a prophet sailing to the west, was running from his God and endangering all the Gentiles with him (Jonah 1:6–10), here one who serves God and goes west in obedience to God saves the lives of those with him. (For “serve” or “worship” [λατρεύω], see comment on Acts 26:7.)
Not only will God fulfill Paul’s mission; his fellow voyagers’ lives will be protected on his account (which is of greater interest to Paul’s audience in the narrative world).800 (The fulfillment of this promise would certainly commend appreciation for Paul’s God to his hearers, although they might simply regard this deity as a particularly powerful one among many.) The irony of a prisoner aboard saving all by his divinely mandated upcoming trial is hard to miss, perhaps suggesting a theological narrative parallel with Jesus’s execution as a means of salvation.
The angel addresses Paul by name, as was common in OT assurance oracles801 (cf. also the angelic revelation in Acts 10:3; Luke 1:13, 28). “Fear not” also appears in Luke’s first angelic revelations (Luke 1:13, 30); this is his final one. For Luke, the divine message in Acts 27:24 provides a reliable theological perspective on the events in the narrative.802 The message fits a triple affirmation of divine necessity in Paul’s trip to Rome, divinely revealed in three different ways in or close to times of crisis. By the Spirit, Paul decided that he “must” (δεῖ) see Rome (19:21); the Lord promised that Paul “must” (δεῖ) testify in Rome (23:11; and hence would survive his current hardship); now, at another time of hardship, an angel reaffirms that Paul “must” (δεῖ) stand before Caesar (27:24).803 In the larger plan of Luke-Acts, such a hearing provides a further opportunity to fulfill the promise of testimony before royal courts in Luke 21:12–13.804
“Before Caesar” presumably means before his tribunal.805 By Nero’s day most of the cases were in fact delegated to others.806 Nero himself apparently avoided personal jurisdiction of cases before 62 C.E., and it is not clear that even then he chose regular involvement in them.807 Paul nevertheless will bring the Christian message before the Roman government, seeking, presumably, its cognizance and approval (cf. Phil 1:7, 12–13; 4:22).808 Whether or not he would succeed in gaining its approval, his long detention raised the visibility of the movement in the heart of the empire, and Paul may have reasoned, like some modern marketers, that even negative publicity was publicity that could promote the movement in the long run (Phil 1:12–14). Publicity is also Luke’s own strategy through the writing of Acts; he probably thinks that he is carrying further Paul’s wisdom. Paul may not have guessed that this approach would take a few centuries to prevail, but even during Nero’s subsequent persecution in Rome, high-intensity publicity probably helped propagate the movement, albeit at the cost of many of its adherents’ lives.
The angel in Acts 27:24 corrects Paul’s words in 27:10, where Paul expected many lives to be lost. Although Paul might have been simply mistaken on this detail in 27:10, there is no need to view his words in 27:10 negatively even had he prophesied. Scripture already used the language of God changing his mind in view of repentance (see comment on Acts 27:10; cf. 1 Kgs 21:27–29; Jer 18:7–11; Jonah 3:9–10) or prayer (Exod 32:10–14; Jer 26:19; Amos 7:3, 6; cf. Gen 18:26–32; 2 Sam 24:16). That God has “granted” Paul the lives of those aboard means, at the very least, that God has altered the natural expectation of the situation.
That God has “granted” (perfect tense, already settled) Paul’s fellow voyagers could be an answer to Paul’s prayers (cf. Luke 1:13).809 (Compare 2 Macc 3:31–33, where God “granted” [κεχάρισται, 3:33, as here] Heliodorus’s life in answer to Onias’s prayers.)810 The verb, common for benefactions in honorary inscriptions, need not imply an answer to a request, but it sometimes does bear this connotation.811 If we should infer that Paul’s prayers were involved (Luke is not quite explicit here), Gentiles also believed that prayers for safety at sea could be answered (e.g., Ach. Tat. 3.5; cf. Jonah 1:14–16). Ships endangered at sea were often believed to be rescued by divine intervention.812
Gentiles also believed that a pious or blessed person’s presence could protect a ship, and so they will know how to apply Paul’s words. For example, Caesar was said to have instructed his fellow travelers not to fear, for they carried not only him but his luck.813 Apollonius reportedly preserved the ship he was traveling on (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.13);814 as mentioned earlier, Pythagoras’s presence on a boat reportedly provided good sailing conditions (Iambl. V.P. 3.16). Also as mentioned above, in some Jewish accounts, God saved a Gentile ship because of a Jewish boy aboard.815 This narrative offers a stark contrast to the Odyssey, where Odysseus tragically lost all his companions, mostly at sea,816 but given the great variety of sea stories (with varying rates of survivors),817 there is no reason to infer that the contrast is deliberate.
Paul expresses the sort of faith praised in Luke 1:45, trusting that matters will turn out as God has spoken (cf. Luke 2:20; 22:13; contrast 1:18).818 For Paul’s faith in the midst of danger, see comment on ancients’ philosophic “heroes” in the introduction, above, to Acts 27:21–26. Paul encourages his fellow travelers as the angel has encouraged him (“Do not fear,” Acts 27:24), twice repeating his exhortation to courage (εὐθυμέω appears in both 27:22 and 27:25 and only once elsewhere in the NT, the LXX, and the Apostolic Fathers, i.e., in Jas 5:13).
V. AGROUND ON AN ISLAND (27:26)
Paul’s final words might seem like bad news but, in the context of the promise of survival, are simply anticlimactic. Almost everyone believed that deities who worked deliverance (including the biblical YHWH; e.g., Exod 10:13; 14:21; Num 11:31) could do so through means within creation.
An island was sometimes a storm-tossed ship’s final hope. In a great storm, Apollo was said to have sent lightning so that mariners could see an island and reach it quickly (Apollod. Bib. 1.9.26). The necessity (δεῖ; as often in Acts, presumably divine necessity) of grounding on an island would seem frightening, but coupled with the promise of their survival, it would become (provided an island confirmed Paul’s prediction by appearing!) their only plan for survival (Acts 27:39).
Given the difficulty of even bringing the ship’s boat under control (27:16), it is by no means certain that the crew had sufficient opportunity to attempt to ground their ship near Cauda, and had they been able to do so, it might not have appeared survivable. Nevertheless, it is possible that they could have done so but did not want to risk the ship, its cargo, and many of the lives on board. Desperate to avoid the Syrtis (27:17, the alternative place to run aground [ἐκπίπτω]),819 they now have no alternative but to try to ground themselves near an island first, provided they find one.
Some commentators note that Paul’s words are inexact, as in 27:10, since the ship is grounded on a reef rather than the island itself.820 It is not likely that anyone would have complained, however. Indeed, some hearers may have even suspected such a scenario, since the reef was attached to the island below the water, and it would be hard to run “aground” and so lose the ship all the way out of the water anyway. Moreover, Luke’s audience will be accustomed to inexact yet fully authoritative prophecies (e.g., Gen 37:9–10 [cf. 35:18–19]; Isa 37:29, 36–37; see comment on Acts 21:11).
6. Paul’s Leadership Approaching Land (27:27–38)
Throughout the narrative Paul’s influence has increased, until now the soldiers (Acts 27:31–32) and passengers (27:34–36) are heeding him.
a. Spying Land in the Sea of Adria (27:27)
That many of the sailors were awake at midnight implies the dramatic intensity of the situation (see comment on Acts 16:25); the time would have to be estimated from the last light seen through the clouds (see comment on Acts 27:39).
How did the sailors surmise the approach of land? Was there now sufficient moonlight (without the moon itself being visible) to make out land projecting above waves in the distance?821 Some crew members were normally assigned to watch from the prow and stern (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.9).
More often scholars suggest that the crew noticed a change in sound, hearing the breakers battering land over the sound of the wind and earlier waves.822 If they were on a westward trajectory toward Malta’s Saint Paul’s Bay, they would have “passed within a quarter of a mile of the low rocky point of Koura, where the breakers are particularly violent in an easterly gale. They would have seen the breaking foam, but nothing of the shore or its configuration.”823 If the wind was not currently at gale strength, a ship approaching from the east could have heard the breakers at Koura Point from a mile and a half away.824 Rocks near the surface would normally indicate land somewhere near, as opposed to the deepest seas.
If a strong northeast wind kept driving the ship leeward, minimizing its advance as it tacked starboard,825 fourteen days would be just about right to bring the ship to about this location.826 A nineteenth-century mariner estimated that to traverse the roughly 470 nautical miles827 from Cauda to Koura (see comment on Acts 27:28), under conditions described in the narrative and at a drift of about one and a half miles per hour, would take 13 days, 1 hour, and 21 minutes. (We should allow some variation for the size of the vessel, our lack of precise knowledge of the wind speed, and so forth, but the margins for error on various points tend to cancel each other out.)
Given the ship’s persistent attempts to tack north to avoid the Syrtis (and a possible shift of wind allowing the ship to make more progress northward), the ship could have approached Malta toward Saint (or Sant) Paul’s Bay; a ship that passed Cauda in an evening would be within three miles of this bay by the midnight of the fourteenth day.828 Luke’s description here is not the work of an active imagination but recounts, directly or indirectly, the observation of someone who survived the storm that Luke depicts.
Some modern readers have complained that Luke’s use of “the Adriatic Sea” (τῷ Ἀδρίᾳ) is imprecise, since our Adriatic does not extend south of Italy. This objection has led some to favor an Adriatic site, the island of Mljet, for Luke’s “Malta” (Μελίτη) (see comment on Acts 28:1), though this is an impossible location for a ship driven by a northeast wind.
That premise about the Adriatic, however, rests on an anachronistic reading of current language into ancient texts. Just as some ancient literature extended the Ionian Sea across the entire east-west length of the Mediterranean, some ancient texts described the seas from as far north as Venice to as far south as North Africa as the Adriatic.829 Ptolemy describes all of the region as far south as Sicily and Crete as the Adriatic Sea (distinct from the Adriatic Gulf to the north).830 Other geographers include the Ionian Sea in the Adria (Strabo 2.5.20, though including the region from Crete to Sicily in the “Sicilian Sea”) and include the Strait of Messina (across from Rhegium, Paus. 5.25.2), between Italy and Sicily, as the meeting of the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas (5.25.3).831 Various additional texts are explicit about a boundary farther south than the modern Adriatic,832 and most scholars concur that these larger boundaries include Malta.833 Josephus also, in a voyage toward Rome, was shipwrecked in the “Adriatic” (κατὰ μέσον τὸν Ἀδρίαν, Life 15)—which is as implausible as Luke’s claim would be unless we use the definition of that sea then current.834
b. Approaching Land (27:28–29)
As evidence reveals that they are approaching closer to land, anxiety increases about the danger of landfall at night, with barely any visibility.
The term βολίζω (here the aorist active participle βολίσαντες) was the normal nautical “term for taking soundings”—that is, for determining the depth of the water.835 Pliny the Elder assumes the typical practice of soundings when he notes that soundings have never reached the deepest part of the sea.836 Archaeologists have recovered some lead weights used for such soundings; the undersides of these leads contained a hollow area smeared with grease or tallow so as to pull up samples from the sea floor below (cf. Hdt. 2.5).837
Conzelmann thinks that the depth of “twenty fathoms” here is just for effect: “Luke hardly stood by and counted as they were taking soundings!”838 Yet standing by and counting (or rather, listening to the sailors do so) might be exactly what a good historian would do, not to mention anyone on deck highly invested in knowing the voyagers’ progress (for survival’s sake) and competent to understand what was happening. (Even our brief “we” narratives reveal that the narrator had lived near north Aegean seaports and had voyaged before.)
In fact, the soundings fit external data. A mariner’s observations suggest that only about half an hour would pass between the soundings of twenty and fifteen fathoms. Twenty fathoms fits the location where they surmised land, and as they proceeded further to prepare to anchor (Acts 27:29), they would reach a location about fifteen fathoms deep in about half an hour.839 As one expert in ancient sea travel notes, the soundings in 27:28 show that “the water was shoaling dangerously fast.”840
II. TRYING TO DELAY UNTIL MORNING (27:29)
Although Paul warned his hearers that the ship would run aground (24:26) and the voyagers would survive (24:24), the crew fears841 to run aground on the “rough places” (τραχεῖς τόπους) so far from shore.842 Rugged terrain near land without established harbors could wreck incoming ships,843 and sailing in the dark increased the risk of a fatal collision with rocks (Philost. Hrk. 31.6). In the morning light, when they can see well enough to navigate better, they will try to reach the bay (Acts 27:39) but will be grounded on a reef instead (27:41).
They are shoaling too quickly (27:28), and so they throw out anchors to prevent being driven onto rocks they cannot see.844 (That anchors did not always prevent shipwreck is attested by the number of anchors found in shipwrecks from the first century C.E. forward.)845 Some sailors might be designated as normally in charge of anchors (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.9), although they may have needed some other sailors’ help for this more complex operation. Normally the sailors would not throw out anchors from the stern. Modern ships cast anchors from the bow; this was also the usual ancient practice, but they were also able to cast from the stern.846 Here they face a special sort of situation, seeking to drive the ship aground in the morning; unlike ships anchoring in harbor, they plan to resume course once visibility permits.847 Had they anchored from the bow, the ship could have been driven around so that its stern would crash against the rocks.848
Meanwhile they “prayed” (or perhaps “wished”; εὔχομαι can mean either; see BDAG) for daylight, when (able to see more clearly) they would try to steer the ship as close as possible to land. This experience echoes what was now traditional literary language (especially since Hom. Od. 9.151, 306, 436, though these occasions are not at sea per se),849 but it was probably also common practice.
c. Retaining the Sailors’ Expertise (27:30–32)
In Acts 27:30–32, Luke emphasizes both Paul’s insight (recognizing both that the sailors will abandon the ship and that it cannot be saved if the sailors abandon it) and his increased status. By this point, Julius and his soldiers, who have had close contact with Paul, trust him more than they trust the maritime experts (cf. 27:9–11). This is not to dismiss the sailors’ value: Paul’s reason for retaining them is undoubtedly to keep their expertise in bringing the ship close enough to shore (cf. 27:39–41) for others to survive, and these sailors will do this only if they are aboard with their lives, too, at stake. Only by abandoning the lifeboat, a hope for just a few, are the many ultimately saved through obedience to Paul’s God.
Often sailors had little stake in a ship.850 In some cases, they might not even be sailors voluntarily; in many cases, sailors were the shipowner’s slaves or were rented from other slaveholders for the voyage.851 The sailors here more likely signed on to make a living, but in any case, saving their own lives could take precedence over the ship and its other passengers. Several sailors ought to have been sufficient for the supposed maneuvers, but loading the dinghy with a significant proportion of the crew necessarily looked more suspicious, since one would not expect the entire crew to be needed for the maneuvers.852
Many scholars think that Luke’s suspicion of the sailors’ motives is unfounded, though we can infer this conclusion only because Luke correctly reports the incident. Some argue that the dinghy could not fit the entire crew (though we know the size of neither)853 and any attempt to reach shore in such a small boat would be precarious after dark.854 Given the strong wind, some argue, the sailors would indeed have to cast anchors from the bow by boat.855 Certainly anchors from the bow were normal and would be safe now that the stern had been secured. Certainly, also, such large ships were not easily maneuvered, and the skiff was used for maneuvers, including “to tow or push the ship into and out of berths and through confined waters.”856 But the bow was conveniently also in the direction of land, and it is questionable whether the boat needed most or all of the crew.
Although maneuvers might be necessary, it is possible that the passage rightly construes these sailors’ motives. If these sailors expected that the ship might not reach land the next day, it made more sense to try to steal away in the boat (which risked capsizing but not grounding) at the only time they could do so undetected—at night. (If they had reached the shallows of the Syrtis that they feared in 27:17, they may have held out little hope for the ship itself.) The very possibility that such maneuvers were at times attempted would lend plausibility to their claim that they were departing only temporarily, while they could use this departure as a ruse to attempt escape in the likeliest means possible.857 The nocturnal trip was hardly safe,858 but a mariner provides modern examples of sailors risking such attempts when the alternatives to such risks appeared worse.859 Luke has already implied that those aboard are not certain that the anchors will hold until daybreak.860
If they waited for day and the dinghy was the only means of reaching land, there could be conflict over who would come to use it, and the soldiers, being fully armed, presumably would win.861 One novel illustrates the competition that could ensue for places on a dinghy once a helmsman gave up the ship. Calling for the other sailors, he climbed down the ladder into the boat:862
They jumped in close after him, and then was confusion worse confounded and a hand-to-hand fight ensued. They who were already in the boat began to cut the rope which held her to the ship, while all the passengers made preparations to jump where they saw the helmsman holding on to the rope; the boat’s crew objected to this, and, being armed with axes and swords, threatened to attack any who leaped in.
Better to escape before others clamored for the same boat! With land nearby, another approach might have saved more lives: individual sailors or small groups of sailors could ferry passengers to land in successive trips.863 Nevertheless, ferrying 276 people would have required an enormous number of trips, and if the trip proved too dangerous, the boat might survive only so many trips.864 (Even a single attempted trip, laden with crew during a severe storm, could prove fatal.)865 These sailors, by escaping together, might improve their own chances of survival—while unfortunately reducing that of others.
It is difficult to know to what degree the account would match ancient stereotypical expectations of sailors; it does not necessarily conform to expectations for a particular genre. Some (probably mainly of the leisured class)866 viewed sailors as untrustworthy (Plut. Dinner 18, Mor. 161C) or as incompetent in emergencies (Ael. Arist. Or. 2.12, 65–67).867 It is not clear that everyone would have shared this opinion. (Other stereotypes included foolhardy exposure to danger—a view held by some afraid of the sea—and the sexual activity of visitors in local ports.)868 Beyond stereotypes, however, criminal elements apparently abounded, and sailors were known for violent behavior, including robbing passengers on board.869 Some even suggest that “most if not all participated in the seedy underworld that characterized the waterfronts of ancient harbor cities.”870
Flight in ships’ boats is not a regular novelistic motif, but it does appear (Petron. Sat. 102; 114.7; Ach. Tat. 3.3.1–4).871 That some would flee before a ship could sink, however, is reasonable (presumably a reason for novelists to have sometimes thought of it).872 If Luke presents these motives for the sailors, he presumably believed his presentation correct; he is certainly not glorifying Paul’s ability to persuade everyone on the ship873 (though he is portraying a natural level of confusion and fear aboard, which maintains a level of suspense). Still, Luke’s description will not put off his audience; sailors did not have the best reputation, as noted above, and Luke writes for hearers who can respect Rome’s soldiers.
Whether Luke understands or misunderstands the motives of the sailors, what is most striking is that the boat, which could save only a few and seemed the best means for survival,874 was not necessary to save anyone. God (cf. Acts 27:24) allowed everyone to reach land safely (27:43–44), even those who could not swim (27:44). Only by abandoning the slim natural hope posed by the boat for a few were the many ultimately saved by God.
Paul’s earlier promise of survival for all (27:22–24) is now seen to be a conditional prophecy, but Paul is continuing to listen to God and is ready for the condition (27:31).
Paul’s concern about the sailors’ departure could have been right whether or not the assumption of 27:30 is correct; whether the sailors would abandon the ship (so 27:30), would endanger their own lives, or would execute a maneuver in a fatally wrong way, their act could have endangered others aboard, who had no idea how to guide the ship forward in the morning (27:39–41).875 (By not specifying the sailors’ plan as Luke himself does in 27:30, Luke allows Paul’s words within the narrative to avoid openly shaming the sailors.)876
Paul’s warning could involve any of these possibilities and remain plausible, and it is not surprising that the centurion at this point would follow his counsel.877 Paul has warned against setting out (cf. 27:10–12, 21) and accurately predicted the island that they now approach (27:26); as one now likely viewed as a prophet or divine agent (the centurion knew Paul’s religious commitment from the first), he would now have more credibility than personnel who chose to set out. Further, Paul has probably been the only voice offering hope (27:20, 22–24), and thus his counsel would seem the only hope the voyagers have.
On one level, Paul may appear to have achieved virtual command of the ship,878 but such an appearance should not be exaggerated; not everyone necessarily shares the centurion’s sentiments (the sailors, most obviously, do not). Moreover, Paul remains vulnerable to abuse as a prisoner (27:42). How may the reader balance 27:31–32 with the danger in 27:42? It is important to remember that the centurion values Paul as a divine spokesman;879 the soldiers may accept Paul’s accuracy yet not wish to risk incurring punishment if he escapes (27:42). Indeed, as a divine spokesman he might be all the more able to escape, and such an incident would not always turn out well for the guards (cf. 12:19). Yet ancient tales are also full of deities defending and avenging their agents (just as nations did), and so the centurion will wisely seek to preserve Paul’s life, in any event (27:43). Another way of balancing these scenes is also possible; perhaps the soldiers are thinking only of killing other prisoners in 27:42, but the centurion (27:43) knows that their inconsistency might be difficult to justify in retrospect.
III. THE SOLDIERS’ FAITH (27:32)
Although there is no necessary thought of exclusive monotheistic faith here (or even personal allegiance; see comment on Acts 27:31), the soldiers do believe that Paul speaks divine truth. As elsewhere in his work, Luke portrays soldiers with at least partial faith (Luke 3:14; 7:2, 9; 23:47; Acts 10:1–7).880
In a later story, a crew escaping in a boat cut it loose from the ship and tried to escape while the passengers, left behind, tried to sink it (Ach. Tat. 3.4.2).881 Paul did not in fact command the cutting off of the boat here but only implied the demand that the sailors stay on board; cutting loose the boat would, however, prevent the sailors from escaping in it (and hence from removing their needed expertise along with the boat) without the need to threaten them directly and risk more aggressive confrontation. It would not require a great deal of speculation to suppose that the sailors resented this action (though they might have expected the soldiers to seize the boat for themselves in the morning otherwise); but in any case, their own lives now depend on the same factors as the lives of the rest of the people on board, and so their expertise will help drive the ship as close as possible to the shore.
What is most significant here is the reverence that Paul now commands. All on board would recognize that the boat could be useful in ferrying people to shore should they draw near land too rugged for harboring. By cutting off this limited hope, in obedience to Paul, Julius and, apparently (or at least by obedience to Julius), his soldiers ultimately stake everything on the promise of Paul’s God. Even in captivity, God might favor his servant (cf. Gen 39:4, 21–22; Dan 1:19–20).
d. Encouraging Others to Eat (27:33–38)
Paul remains calm and in control like a genuine philosopher,882 the sort of intellectual hero Luke’s audience could readily respect. Storms, shipwrecks, and pirates were frequent settings for verifying philosophers’ true character;883 this was why philosophers used catalogues of their hardships.884 Meanwhile Paul pastorally cares for all those aboard, helping to ensure their survival.
Susan Marie Praeder finds in sea voyage literature no parallels to Luke’s account in Acts 27:33–38. There are no invitations to share meals under such conditions in other literature; the obvious parallels instead are to Christian meals in Luke-Acts.885 Likewise, earlier in Luke’s work, Jesus, after a crisis has passed, also urged one to eat (Luke 8:55).
Some scholars find in this passage a type of the Eucharist,886 especially since the food is for their “preservation” or “salvation” (σωτηρίας) in Acts 27:34 and similar language appears in Luke 22:19. “Salvation” in Acts 27:34, of course, refers to physical survival (the term’s most common meaning in normal Greek and in this context), but Luke is ready to use it for double entendres elsewhere (4:9–12). Other scholars respond with skepticism toward a Eucharist here. Witherington offers several objections:887
The cumulative force of most of these arguments is sufficient to establish that this is not a eucharistic meal within the narrative world; such a claim does not, however, imply that Luke’s audience would see no connection or instruction for their practice of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is part of a broader pattern of eating together in Luke-Acts, and this broader pattern in turn affects how we read the Lord’s Supper (cf. Luke 22:17, 19; Acts 27:35).889 The symposia with tax collectors and sinners in Luke’s Gospel also indicate that the fellowship meals are open to everyone, not exclusively for the righteous. (See further comment on Acts 27:35–36.)
II. ENCOURAGING THEM TO EAT (27:33–34)
Luke continues to emphasize Paul’s ēthos, displaying his care for all, whether believers or not.890 Such a persona would commend Paul in a forensic context or any other and does appear consistent with the warm, pastoral relationship Paul’s letters suggest that he had with many congregations and with those he guided into the faith.891
(1) Their Failure to Eat (27:33)
Fourteen days is a long time without food but, under the circumstances (see comment on Acts 27:20), believable.892 Eating after so long a time893 would be hard on their digestion, but even with the ship somewhat more stable than usual (Acts 27:29), the voyagers would probably eat only lightly. Nevertheless, they would need some short-term energy for the struggle ahead (27:43–44). Passengers may have feared to finish the limited rations they had brought for the voyage, uncertain how long their drifting would last. But while the cargo wheat was neither prepared nor belonged to them, survival could have taken precedence over such considerations. More critically, their lack of eating may reflect both seasickness and anxiety (see comment on Acts 27:21–22); the latter may be occasioned by the threat of death (27:36) and exacerbated by the cultural horror of death unburied (see comment on Acts 27:20). In the face of anxiety,894 they also may not be sleeping much in anticipation of the approaching dawn, when Paul addresses them (cf. 16:25).
If we press the imperfect force of παρεκάλει, it might mean that Paul was exhorting passengers regularly, probably individually and in small groups (cf. 20:20) rather than all together as depicted in his previous speech (27:21–26). Perhaps many are now on deck. Although Paul is doing this before dawn, most of the passengers are apparently awake; anxiety is likely a factor for most,895 but in his case he serves them pastorally, trying to make certain that all survive (cf. his labors day and night in 20:31). Such an image of Paul is consonant with Luke’s emphasis on social ministry (e.g., 2:44–45; 11:29–30) and Luke’s respectful approach to the empire.896 Paul has presumably embraced these people, even without their conversion, as part of his “shepherdly” responsibility (cf. 20:28 for the converted).897 He does not discharge his “ministerial duty” only at expected professional moments but uses every opportunity in his life to serve others. Non-Christian Gentiles would also view this activity as virtuous. It was good for citizens of a city to work for the common good, just as all those in a ship must work together for the common safety (Dio Chrys. Or. 48.7). Paul cares about others in the ship, fitting ancient ideals of virtue.
That none of the voyagers would die, and that food was necessary for their survival, suggests the tension between divine sovereignty and human obedience in the rest of the narrative (the unconditional promise of Acts 27:22–24 has a condition in 27:31). Perhaps, in Luke’s view, the prophecy was conditional from the start; or perhaps the conditions must be met, yet in this case God’s larger promise takes into account God’s knowledge that the conditions will be met.
In this context Luke frequently uses σωτηρία (27:34), σῴζω (27:20, 31), and διασῴζω898 (27:43, 44; 28:1, 4) for physical deliverance; this was the most common usage of such words. On a less theological level, the claim of divine deliverance would be intelligible to Paul’s fellow voyagers. “Save” could mean “preserve”899 and could apply to salvation (deliverance or protection) of the state900 or deliverance in battle.901 Gods were called “saviors,” especially Zeus.902 Most relevant is that “gods” were thought to “save” people at sea.903 This appears equally in Jewish sources.904 “Soteria” also became the title of “a sacrifice or festival celebrating deliverance from danger.”905 (See fuller discussion at Acts 27:20.)
But for Luke, God’s saving acts for individuals in the present foreshadow God’s greater plan of eschatological salvation in Christ. Thus the traditional biblical notion of salvation from enemies (Luke 1:71) both is literal (1:74, probably at Israel’s restoration; cf. Acts 1:6–7) and includes present salvation by forgiveness (Luke 1:77).906 A paralytic’s healing through Jesus’s name (Acts 4:9) becomes evidence that Jesus’s name is the exclusive means of salvation (4:12).
Going without food was vain (cf. 23:14) unless it was fasting conjoined with prayer (13:2; 14:23), as perhaps it had been in Paul’s case (cf. 27:24). Food will provide the voyagers strength for what is ahead (27:43–44; cf. 9:19) and, in such circumstances, is preferable to fasting (1 Sam 14:26–31).907 Thus, for example, Odysseus urged the people to stop fasting (from mourning), lest they be too weak to fight (Hom. Il. 19.156–70, 231–33). Luke’s audience may recall Jesus’s compassionate concern that people be able to eat (Luke 9:13–17; cf. Mark 8:3).
As the least significant and smallest part of the body, a hair was the most dispensable;908 to promise that not a hair would be lost was a graphic Semitic (including OT) way of promising survival.909 Likewise, “not a hair on the head” of Daniel’s three friends had been burned when they emerged from the fire, nor was the smell of smoke on them (Dan 3:27; 3 Macc 6:6). The most immediate allusion for Luke’s readers is Jesus’s promise about persecution (Luke 21:18, in the context of 21:16–19),910 although, if physical, it must be hyperbolic (21:16; cf. 12:4). The text here depicts a different situation, but Luke can still draw on Jesus’s principle. Paul’s favor with God is sufficient to carry all of his fellow passengers to safety, even though most of them are not worshipers of his God. If none of them would perish, they could release their despair enough to eat and cooperate with their promised survival. They had food available before but lacked courage to eat (27:36).
III. PAUL AND HIS HEARERS EAT (27:35–36)
Paul’s example encourages others to eat, in a scene that might remind Luke’s audience of other fellowship meals in Luke-Acts (though the circumstances here are quite different).
Given the urgency of the situation, it is not likely that 276 people aboard could access the cooking area and prepare food. Probably some had food (such as bread,911 dried figs, and so forth) available that would require minimal preparation; passengers without much money would need to bring their own food on a ship.912 Whether most people still had some food of their own or whether some shared their bread, the setting and Paul’s exhortation seem to underline that the passengers shared their situation in common. It could seem reasonable to construe 27:38 as if it was especially grain they were eating, since only after they finished did they discard the grain into the sea. In this case the issue is emergency strength in the face of hunger (cf. Luke 6:1). But while people can eat raw wheatberries, raw and unprepared wheat can be difficult to digest, especially if it has not been soaked overnight (though Luke knows that it is edible; see again Luke 6:1).913 Paul’s food here, however, is plainly bread (Acts 27:35).
Although this meal is not the Lord’s Supper, it belongs to Luke’s fellowship meal theme, of which the Lord’s Supper is one part (see the introduction, above, to Acts 27:33–38). The occasion here is closer to Jesus’s eating with “sinners” in the Gospel (Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:2; 19:7; cf. 7:36–37; 11:37–38; 14:1), inviting all to God’s banquet (14:13–14, 21–24), which the Lord’s Supper also foreshadows (22:18).914 Like Jesus, Paul also assumes something like the role of host,915 although unlike Jesus he does not provide most of the bread (Luke 9:13–17). Presumably Paul, like Jesus in the Gospel (15:1), spoke openly about God among the voyagers, at least after they landed (Acts 28:9). But even in the highlights described, he glorified the name of his God (27:23, 35) among these Gentiles.
People poured libations to deities at the beginning of banquets,916 so Paul’s thanksgiving in 27:35 would be intelligible in a Gentile context. Paul gives thanks publicly, demonstrating public faith in the midst of hardship, as in 16:25 (cf. 28:15).917 As is probably also implied in 16:28, his response to hardship has made him the de facto spiritual leader of the ad hoc community of which he has become a part. This picture praises Paul, but it also suggests that part of Luke’s ideal for the expansion of Jesus’s movement is that God’s agents should view every encounter with others in need as a potential opportunity for ministry to them. As in the case of Jesus at times in Luke’s Gospel, this ministry was often most effective when the minister shared the same sufferings or outsider status.
Giving thanks for food (Luke 22:17, 19; 1 Cor 10:30; 11:24) was a standard Jewish meal custom.918 Indeed, 1 Tim 4:3–5 and, still more clearly, Did. 9.2–3; 10.3 recall the usual Jewish benediction over a meal.919 Bread was a standard staple of the ancient Mediterranean world.920 Although people generally honored their deities when beginning meals, it will be clear that Paul’s God, whom he thanks, is the one to whom he has already attributed their coming deliverance.
This is Paul’s fourth intervention; although he was unheeded during his initial attempt, everyone obeys him by this time (Acts 27:36).921 Given the events Luke has narrated, this submission is the response we would expect. Nevertheless, this response does not suggest that everyone has faith, even with the ship’s having approached land; eventually approaching land somewhere was one thing, and everyone on board making it safe to shore another (and even Paul himself regarded the promise as conditional, though he helped ensure that the condition was met, 27:31).
IV. THROWING WHEAT OVERBOARD (27:37–38)
The large number of people aboard (highlighting the miracle) could require a massive amount of food, but they might make use of the grain on board.
Why Luke includes the number of passengers precisely here, in the midst of the feeding report, is unclear; perhaps the people had to be numbered before being fed (cf. Luke 9:14),922 or perhaps Luke simply wanted to narrate the initial response to Paul’s speech before turning to the number of those whose survival Paul had just predicted. Some scholars point out that the number 276 is triangular (with a base of 23);923 Pythagoreans made much of significant numbers924 such as triangular numbers, and they appear at some other points in the NT (John 21:11; Rev 13:18).925 Had Luke said “about” (as in some MSS; but “ὡς with an exact statement of number is inappropriate”),926 we might have expected that he rounded to the nearest “significant” number (cf. Acts 19:7; perhaps Luke 8:42) although he or his sources usually rounded to the nearest multiple of ten, fifty, or a hundred (cf. Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:36; 13:18, 19; Luke 3:23; 9:14). But he omits such a qualification (and even had he included it, he might simply have left a margin for error, having counted as accurately as possible).927 Moreover, one wonders why the triangle of twenty-three would have been deemed particularly significant and how quickly his hearers would have recognized it.928 Given Luke’s lack of interest in symbolic numbers (or most Pythagorean themes) elsewhere, the triangular number is likely a coincidence.929 The crew may well have had an exact count, especially given the current circumstances.
Some scholars are skeptical of the number,930 but the literal estimate is by no means problematic;931 we know, indeed, of many ships much larger.932 Although Josephus is known for his unverifiable, exaggerated estimates in Judea, he expects his claim of six hundred voyagers aboard his ship (of whom eighty were fast swimmers) to be credible (Life 14–15).933 (The ship in Josephus’s account wrecked only a few years after the one in Luke’s narrative.)934 On the massive Isis (Lucian Ship 5), which may have carried 1,000 to 1,300 tons, and other large ships, see further comment on Acts 27:18. Transatlantic European and American ships were not as large as the Isis until “the beginning of the nineteenth century.”935 Scholars specialized in the study of ancient navigation typically accept Josephus’s number here, and some suggest that Paul’s ship would have held more had they not been sailing off-season.936
“When they had eaten enough” (κορεσθέντες) recalls everyone’s being filled after Jesus supplied food (Luke 9:14, 17).937 Unlike Jesus’s meal, the present meal is not miraculous, but it constitutes an act of faith in what God is accomplishing. After eating, the voyagers were free to discard what they could of the rest, acknowledging that they would not need it anymore: they would have one chance at survival and no more.
Some scholars suggest that the grain here jettisoned was kept back from Acts 27:18 as ballast or for food,938 but the amount needed for food would be negligible in terms of such a ship’s weight.939 A grain ship bound for Rome could carry hundreds of tons of wheat,940 and so it is highly unlikely that they could have already finished the job started in 27:18941 (whether to retain ballast or simply from sheer exhaustion and inability). (Normally ballast was sand or stone,942 necessary only on the route back to Alexandria, when the ship lacked grain.) It is unlikely that they are able to discard all the grain even now; each sack was an average load that a man could carry, but disposing of a typical grain ship’s cargo required the disposal of some 7,500 sacks,943 probably impossible during the few remaining hours of the night.944
Discarding the grain might show faith that the voyage was nearing its completion; it also may constitute an important factor in getting the ship close enough to land to allow the passengers to swim or float ashore (27:39–44). The grain in the hold could weigh the ship down, making it more likely that the ship would ground on rocks before reaching shore. If the hull ruptured, the immediate problem would be water filling the ship, but even if the breach was contained, wetted grain in one part of the ship would have eventually caused disaster. A long-term risk in grain becoming wet was “germination, infestation or rotting,” but a more immediate problem was that it could swell to even double its original volume, potentially rupturing the plates of even the ships of our own era.945 The primary and urgent problem now, however, was to avoid grounding the ship too far from shore. Excessive water on the decks could seep through their boards to lower compartments. Eventually, as “force or chain pumps” could no longer remove all the water, “the crew and the passengers” could reduce excess weight only by discarding “part or all of the cargo.”946 The cargo, once so precious (see comment on Acts 27:12), has now become completely expendable (see comment on Acts 27:18).947
7. Reaching Land Safely (27:39–44)
The sailors manage to bring the ship close enough to shore to provide hope of passengers reaching it safely, but the ship itself can go no further. Despite the urgent situation, Julius saves Paul and, on his account, the other prisoners from the soldiers’ fears about escapees. In the end, despite the circumstances, all 276 persons aboard the ship reach shore safely.
a. Grounding the Ship (27:39–41)
Attempting to ground the ship proves partially successful in that the voyagers move closer to the beach (27:39–40), but the ship ultimately wrecks perilously before reaching shore (27:41), which maintains suspense.
Even if they could still not see the sun (27:20), this limitation would not impose zero visibility; storms can obscure the sun without shrouding all its light. An island could mean salvation to a storm-tossed ship at sea (e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.9.26). Their attempt to reach the beach is what we would expect, and might even fulfill Paul’s warning that they would “run aground” on an island (Acts 27:26); it turns out, however, that the running aground occurs at a reef before the beach (27:41). Luke employs different nautical terms in both cases; the prophecy to Paul does not specify where they will run aground, nor does it obviate the importance of human effort and cooperation along the way (27:31).
Malta has a number of natural bays, including a large bay on the southeast and a number further north on the eastern coast. One is a place of two harbors, with modern Valletta between them; 7.5 miles (12 km.) farther north is “St. Paul’s Bay.”948 The three fairly large northern bays on Malta, toward the northwest, are (moving northward) Salina Bay, Saint Paul’s Bay, and Mellieha Bay.949
Today Saint Paul’s Bay on northeast Malta lacks a good beach;950 also, the sea level may now be three to five feet (1–1.5 m.) higher at places than in Paul’s day.951 But on the whole the topography fits Luke’s description, and the vast majority of scholars currently accept this identification.952 (Some have argued this especially from the place of two seas in 27:41,953 but some other data, such as the proximity of Kouros to Saint Paul’s Bay, seem stronger.) Some point to “a flat strand on the southwestern side of the bay” as where the sailors may have attempted to run the ship aground, “and a sandbank just inside the entrance, locally called St. Paul’s Bank, could be where the ship” grounded.954 Luke’s audience might recall the beach in 21:5, where Christians knelt with Paul to send him off to face danger; here the narrative recalls that he has survived many dangers. It is possible that a beach appears in both passages, however, simply because some places where sea and land meet have beaches, including these two locations.
Malta was a common stopping point for Alexandrian grain ships,955 but even if some of the sailors might have recognized the main harbor in good weather, they were approaching the island from a very different direction and not coming to a major port.956
II. TRYING TO REACH SHORE (27:40)
To reach shore safely required maximum effort all at once, with nothing held back in reserve; they would have at most one opportunity to bring the ship to land, and if they failed, there would not be another. The sailors attempted three complex maneuvers together: releasing the stern anchors, releasing the rudder, and raising a sail.957
First, they had to release the anchors on both sides of the stern. They apparently simply cut them and released them into the sea, perhaps for the sake of urgency; at this point there could be no concern about preserving them for reuse at a later time.958 Another first-century Mediterranean shipwreck reveals that the crew dropped five identical anchors in a straight line. On the basis of this evidence, one analyst (who thinks that Luke’s other details sound authentic) suggests that Paul’s ship likewise dropped the anchors in succession, intending to hold the ship in place until they could save even the ship. On this view, the problem was that through the night, three of the four anchor ropes gave way, requiring the sailors to release the final one during daybreak.959 Although Luke was not a sailor and could have easily conflated some details (he sometimes does this on land as well),960 he was aware of the general anxiety of those on board, eager for day (27:29).961 Since Luke (or, according to other views, his source) was there and we were not, he may be correct even on this detail: they did not trust the anchors to hold indefinitely and preferred to attempt reaching land by day. A prophet (Paul) had also mentioned grounding on an island (27:26), which they might construe as reason for this attempt to come closer.
Second, they unbound the rudders, which had been tied to prevent unwelcome movement. Now they would need the rudders to steer as best they could toward the beach, a difficult maneuver. Ancient ships used “steering-paddles” or oars as rudders and had two, joined by a crossbar but controlled by one helmsman.962 The helmsman would pull the long tiller toward him or push it away to control the two steering oars.963 The sailors may have removed these paddles from the water when they were not being used and lashed them to the hull with ropes.964 Some scholars think that here instead they dismantled the steering, allowing the wind to drive the ship.965 Although this would be an interesting point theologically (cf. the design of the “arks” in Gen 6–8 and Exod 2:3, depending completely on God), it is a far less likely way to construe the words.966
Third, they hoisted a sail,967 undoubtedly a foresail (see BDAG, s.v. ἀρτέμων),968 to catch wind toward the beach and enable them to maneuver. The ship probably had two masts; the second, the smaller foresail (the artemon) at the bow, was used for both steering and driving.969 When a ship was slowing down, as when it was approaching harbor, the artemon might be removed;970 here, however, they need all possible speed to reach land while they can.
III. GROUNDED PERILOUSLY (27:41)
Luke displays his literary skill by directly evoking Greek literary traditions. Although Luke uses πλοῖον in all his other fourteen references to vessels on the voyage to Rome, his term for the ship here, ναῦς, may well evoke older usage,971 and the verb ἐπικέλλω was poetic. Neither term appears elsewhere in the NT or in the Apostolic Fathers, but they appear together in Hom. Od. 9.148, 546 (cf. also 13.113–14), as scholars widely note.972 The verb for the prow’s973 “sticking fast,” ἐρείδω, also appears in Homer.974 Ancient writers liked to describe ships crashing into rocky land,975 perhaps the way modern action viewers are enamored of spectacular explosions. Apparently, however, many relished the literary opportunity more than Luke did. For example: “Our vessel . . . drove unexpectedly on to a rock hidden under water, and was utterly broken in pieces; as she slipped off the rock the mast fell on one side, breaking up part of her and carrying the rest beneath the water.”976
To claim that Luke borrows appropriate literary language to describe an event is not to claim that he invented the event itself; he simply recognizes it as a good story that merits worthy telling. His account here is plausible, though the details remain obscured by the debate over the exact path through which they drove the ship (i.e., which proposal is more plausible), an uncertainty fueled by two millennia of geological change.977 Is διθάλασσον here a flow of water between land masses or a strip of land between water? Despite James Smith’s careful examination of the topography, the term more likely indicates the latter, something like a sandbar.978
Smith viewed it as a channel, no more than a hundred yards wide, between the island of Salmonetta, which shelters Saint Paul’s Bay on the northwest, and Malta’s mainland.979 (The “two seas” might then mean the place where the Mediterranean Sea meets the bay, although this seems an odd way to describe the bay.) A ship entering this channel would strike mud graduating into clay, which could explain the prow’s being immobilized.980 But why would any crew try to navigate their ship through such a narrow passage, given their efforts to bring the ship under control (Acts 27:40)?981
The place of two seas is probably a sandbar, shoal, promontory, or some other ridge dividing the water.982 This could be Saint Paul’s Bank; the shoal is twelve meters underwater but was probably more substantial two millennia ago.983 In any case, instead of reaching the island’s shore they struck another body, wedging in the front of the ship so that they could not advance. Meanwhile, the stern lay exposed to the full force of the waves, which at this location are particularly violent. If the ship could not advance to shore, those on board would have to do so without the ship if they hoped to survive (27:42–44).
As for the fate of the ship, some of its planks disappeared immediately (27:44); at lower sea level and in a less rainy season, local inhabitants might have salvaged some of the wood, since the ship was not far from shore.
Not only does Julius spare the prisoners for Paul’s sake; as God promised, God spares all aboard for Paul’s sake, making Paul a benefactor par excellence.984 The survival of many this close to shore might be likely, in any case, but the survival of all without exception (including the aged, the infirm, and perhaps children), especially in their weakened state (27:33), is utterly extraordinary apart from divine intervention, just as Paul promised. In contrast to tragic narratives, Luke’s storm scene has a happy upturn at the end.
I. KILLING THE PRISONERS (27:42)
The prisoners could hardly escape if chained;985 but neither could they swim to shore if chained, and so the alternative to killing them would be either to let them drown (and hope that none could break free unsupervised)986 or to unchain them and risk their escape. Obviously no one could accompany them to shore and keep them under guard during the flight. If prisoners drowned and their bodies were not recovered, they would still be considered unaccounted for, risking the suspicion that they might have escaped (and presumably, by now the centurion, at least, trusts Paul’s expectation that all will survive, 27:24). The reader may recall that Paul’s influence apparently prevented an escape before (16:28), but the soldiers in the narrative world would not know about that.
Luke knows that some soldiers might seek their own interests (Luke 3:14). The soldiers’ plan to kill the prisoners987 may have seemed reasonable to them if most of the prisoners were slated to be fed to beasts in Rome anyway; death by sword might seem more merciful. But they were not taking Paul into consideration.988 Though charged with a capital offense, he had not been convicted, may have been sent with instructions for generous treatment (cf. Acts 24:23; 26:31–32), may have appeared to hold significant status, was not a likely escape threat (he had, after all, appealed to Caesar), and had said that his God wanted him to appear before Caesar. But consistency might suggest treating all the prisoners the same way; Julius may have a difficult time explaining why he spared one prisoner while killing the others. Thus Paul is indirectly responsible for preserving (or at least prolonging) the lives of his fellow prisoners.989
Guards might prefer suicide to court-martial for the charge of dereliction of duty (Acts 16:27; Petron. Sat. 112); most commentators note the Roman custom of the guard’s responsibility for his prisoners, a custom that Luke’s attentive readers in particular will surely recall (cf. Acts 12:18–19).990 Justinian’s later code formalized the principle that a guard whose prisoner escaped would fulfill the prisoner’s sentence (Justin. Cod. 9.4.4).991 The degree of penalty was, however, connected with the measure of the guard’s culpability992 and the significance of the prisoner(s). Thus, for example, if a slave escaped, the guard simply had to compensate the slaveholder for the loss.993 The shipwreck and storm would probably be sufficient to absolve the soldiers of legal liability for any of the prisoners escaping, but if they failed to prove this, they could be executed for negligence.994 Given such stakes and given the unpredictability and political considerations of superiors, it could appear safer to kill the prisoners.
They could do so, however, only if the centurion acquiesced; moreover, they may have felt that they could not justify sparing prisoners selectively;995 unlike higher magistrates, even the centurion was not technically authorized to make such choices. Even the centurion apparently did not value the other prisoners enough to spare them if Paul were not there.996 Again, this concern is understandable; although they might evade punishment for an escaped prisoner under the circumstances, there was no point taking such a risk with potentially arbitrary officials, given the stakes. Julius is ready to venture the minimal risk to their lives, however, to protect Paul.997 Knowing what he now knows about Paul, he might count angering Paul’s powerful deity a more proximate risk. His recognition of Paul’s special spiritual status here contrasts with his neglect of Paul’s counsel in 27:11.998
The centurion wishes to “save” (διασῶσαι) Paul; ironically, Paul is the cause of all those aboard being “saved” (the same verb) as well (Acts 27:44; 28:1). By sparing Paul, the centurion becomes an agent fulfilling God’s promise to Paul (27:24), just as some other Roman officers have been (21:32; 23:24).
Julius acts courageously. Centurions who crossed their soldiers in emergency situations sometimes incurred grave hostility. Centurions had the responsibility for discipline in the Roman army and could beat soldiers; many soldiers therefore hated them and, in mutinies, sometimes killed them.999 These soldiers, however, seem to be on better terms with their centurion, and may even concur with his decision (cf. 27:31–32).1000
The soldiers could not well carry the prisoners to land in the water, even if they trusted them to come voluntarily. (The proposed view that some escaped not on “things from the ship” but “people from the ship”1001 in 27:44 is implausible;1002 “from the ship” here is extraneous if Luke refers to people.) Once some soldiers had reached land (27:43), it might be difficult for prisoners emerging from the water to get past them (27:42)—though admittedly not at all impossible, given the number of passengers (27:37) and likely reduced visibility (cf. 28:2; earlier, 27:20). The soldiers presumably could not have brought their swords if trying to swim instead of floating on wood,1003 but they perhaps could count on other passengers cooperating with them rather than with the prisoners.1004
Although the centurion’s orders here respond to the concern of the soldiers in 27:42 (and hence address soldiers and prisoners), Luke may also depict him as issuing these orders to everyone on board (since “in this way,” οὕτως—through the people’s swimming or paddling or riding wave-propelled planks to shore—“all” came safely to land in 27:44; perhaps relevant even if the advice narrowly concerns the prisoners, as some might infer from the third person). The pilot and the captain once wielded the most authority on board (27:11), but Paul’s advice, executed through the centurion, now proves the primary political force on board. As noted above, a centurion would not control a ship’s nautical matters; he would, however, control the only fully armed contingent on board and would thus wield considerable power in such an emergency. Julius is now exercising his emergency authority in the service of one whom he regards as giving God’s instructions (27:24), as already in 27:31–32. The survival of everyone vindicates this wisdom (27:44). Luke’s point seems to be that God made his agent known and that even a worldly authority could have the sense to act on the truth that agent offered. Julius’s own initiative may also serve a function in fulfilling the divine purpose here.
Swimming, especially in such waters, could demonstrate physical prowess,1005 but it would prove too difficult for many. Soldiers at sea sometimes had to swim; in one naval battle, only those Athenians who swam ashore escaped alive (Thucyd. 2.90.5).1006 Survival for those swimming to safety could be viewed as providential. When a ship was going down, those in it who were wise should throw themselves overboard and swim to safety (Corn. Nep. 12 [Chabrias], 4.3), leaving behind anything that could weigh them down (Phaedrus 4.23.11–15).1007 In one probably true account,1008 a friend jumped into the sea to save his friend who fell overboard; through most of the night they floated on corks, but toward daybreak they found the gangplank, then floated on that to land.1009 Although those who were shipwrecked had to try to swim, they often drowned instead.1010 Perhaps Julius expects the healthier people to swim ashore first so that they can help to receive others coming ashore, or intends to keep the waters less congested with bodies aiming for the same stretch of land. (Survival would appear much easier here, however, with waves washing people ashore, than were they in the deep sea.)
Some would be unable to swim, if for no other reason than that they are weakened from hunger (27:33). Most have also had little sleep, likely including during the night they have just endured (if we may read παρεκάλει in Acts 27:33 with its full force, Paul has been exhorting them before dawn). They had eaten nothing for fourteen days (27:33) and needed strength even to digest the food they had eaten that night (27:36, 38). The ability to struggle at all underlines the miracle contained in everyone surviving. That people could make such an effort, however, is believable.1011
After weeks of uncertainty about survival and inability to eat, the survivors are undoubtedly quite traumatized and their nerves on edge.1012 But no one could help but marvel that even the weakest have survived (out of 276 persons, 27:37) or that Paul predicted this survival (27:24). By this point, presumably nearly everyone aboard would regard Paul as a hero with special power from God (cf. his favor with God in 27:23–24). Thus it is not surprising that only the locals suspect him of being an object of divine vengeance (28:4), that Julius would share hospitality extended to himself with Paul and his companions (28:7), or that word would spread quickly about Paul’s supernatural abilities (28:8–9).
Presumably neither the swimmers nor the paddlers had to dive from deck (for all the narrative’s action, Luke offers no explicit indication that the ship was sinking rapidly in 27:41); more likely, they climbed down ropes into the frigid waters. Assuming that the ship grounded in a shoal, the swimmers would be moving from shallow to deep to shallow water again, but in poor weather conditions. Presumably the planks were from the ship. Wreckage from the stern would fit other narratives but reduce the certainty of all paddlers having access to them;1013 the other possibility is wood deliberately taken from the ship before descending. These might be pieces of a mast or other items,1014 but this is not the usual sense of σανίς (board);1015 some scholars have suggested that they were boards used in the cargo hold for storing grain.1016
Those who survived shipwrecks, both in fact and in fiction, sometimes remained afloat by holding on to timbers from their broken ships.1017 Such timbers were notoriously flimsy, however (e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 12), so that a weak argument in court was compared to a piece of a broken ship (Val. Max. 8.1.abs.12). After a shipwreck near shore, it could be expected that many things would be washed ashore; this was common enough to merit mention in law.1018
Despite the disadvantages of the rough weather, waves would help propel people toward the shore. The Mediterranean Sea lacks tides in the technical sense applied to oceans, but storms can generate swells that today are used even for surfing off some parts of the coast of Malta, including Mellieha Bay. Especially given its modern topography, Saint Paul’s Bay would not be useful for surfing, but floating would be a different matter. The momentum of waves propels to shore whatever rides them.1019