Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Shipwreck
Subjects in this Topic:
a term that occurs but twice in the New Test. in the verbal form íáõáãÝù , once literally (2Co_11:25) and once metaphorically (1Ti_1:19). We learn from the former of these passages that Paul had already three times experienced this mishap prior to his more notable instance on the way to Rome. The interest that centers around this latter event, and the light it sheds upon many points of Biblical history, geography, and archaeology, are so great as to justify a special treatment of the topic in addition to the remarks given under previous heads. It is a singular coincidence that another Jew, a contemporary of Paul, should have suffered a similar mishap on the same route, viz. Josephus (Life, § 3); but the account left is so brief as to afford but little illustration: of the case. Luke's narratives of the shipwreck of the apostle, on the contrary, is so full and graphic that we are enabled to trace the causes, progress, and culmination of the catastrophe in great detail; and his nice but artless discriminations show not only his truthfulness, but his careful habits of observation. His language, although of course not professional, is yet highly appreciative of the technical particulars to which he was an eye witness. We here present a brief outline of the results of the accurate and most interesting investigations of. Mr. Smith, of Jordanhill, in his work — On the Voyage and Shipwreck of. St. Paul (3d ed. Lond. 1866). A winter's residence in Malta afforded this learned writer ample opportunities for personal examination of the localities of the shipwreck. Having been a yacht sailor of more than thirty years' standing, and with much practical experience in planning, building, and altering vessels, he was able to bring a kind of knowledge to the interpretation of the passage which no commentator had possessed.
Paul's company embarked in a ship of Adramyttium, a seaport of Mysia on the eastern shore of the Aegean, opposite Lesbos. On the second day they touched at Sidon, sixty-seven geographical miles from Caesarea. Loosing from thence, they were forced, by contrary winds, to run under the lee of Cyprus. A ship's course from Sidon to Myra is W.N.W., leaving Cyprus on the right. The contrary wind must have been from the west, which prevails in this part of the Mediterranean in the summer. Under these circumstances, they left Cyprus on the left hand, doing as the most accomplished seamen of the present day would do under similar circumstances. Favored, as they probably were, by, the land breeze and currents, they arrived, without any unusual incident, at Myra in Lycia, then a flourishing city, now a desolate waste and about three miles from the sea. The company were there transferred to a corn ship from Alexandria bound for Italy. From the dimensions of one of these ships given by Lucian, they appear to have been quite as large as the largest class of merchant ships of modern times. Myra lies due north from Alexandria, and its bay is well fitted to shelter a wind bound ship. Their progress after leaving Myra was extremely slow, for it was many days before they came over against Cnidus, at the entrance to the Aegean Sea. As the distance between Myra and Cnidus is not more than 130 geographical miles, the delay was probably caused by unfavorable winds, which may be inferred from the words “with difficulty.” The course of a ship on her voyage from Cnidus to Italy is by the north side of Crete, through the archipelago, W. by S. But this would be impossible with a northwest wind. With that wind the ship would work up to Cnidus, because she had the advantage of a weather shore and a westerly current; but there the advantage would cease.
The only alternative would be to wait at Cnidaus for a fair wind, or else to run- under the lee of Crete in the direction. of Salmonie, which is the eastern end of Crete. As the south side of this island is a weather shore, they would be able, with northwest winds, to work up as far as Cape Matala. Here, however, the land bends suddenly to the north, and their only resource would be to make for a harbor. Fair Havens is the harbor nearest to Cape Matala. This was probably no more than an open roadstead, or, rather, two roadsteads contiguous to each other. The site of the city Lasaea is but recently known. It was now after the autumnal equinox, and sailing was dangerous. It was a question whether they should winter here or sail to port Phoenice, on the same side of Crete, about forty miles west. Paul strongly urged the officers to remain, but his advice was overruled. Pheenice, the harbor which they expected to reach, looks; (Luke says) “towards the southwest and northwest,” or, as Mr. Smith translates the preposition, in the same direction as, i.e. the point towards which, the wind Libs blows; so that the harbor would open, not to the southwest, but to the north east. It seems to have been the one now called Lutro, which looks towards the east. The. south wind, which now blew, is a fair wind for a ship going from Fair Havens to Lutro. The island of Clauda is exactly opposite to Lutro, the Claudos of Ptolemy, and the Gozzo of the modern charts. Sailing from Fair Havens close the land, they might hope, with a south wind, to reach Phoenice, in a few hours. But soon the weather changed; the ship, was caught in a typhoon which blew with such violence that they could not face it, but were forced, in the first instance, to scud before it. It follows from this that the wind must have blown off the land, else they would have been stranded on the Cretan coast. This sudden change from a south wind to a violent northerly wind is a common occurrence in these seas.
The Greek term typhonic means that the wind was accompanied by the agitation and whirling motion of the clouds caused by the meeting of the opposite currents of air. By this single word are expressed the violence and direction of the gale. The wind Euroclydon (according to the most ancient versions, Euroaquilo= east northeast) forced them to run under the lee of Clauda. Here they availed themselves of the smooth water to prepare the ship to resist the fury of the storm. Their first care was to secure the boat by hoisting it on board. Luke tells us that they had much difficulty in doing this, probably because it was filled with water. The next care was to undergird the ship. Only one naval officer with whom Mr. Smith had met had ever seen it put in practice. Mr. Henry Hartley, who piloted the Russian fleet in 1815 from England to the Baltic, mentions that one of the ships, the “Jupiter,” was wrapped round the. middle by three or four turns of a stream cable. Sir George Back, on his return from his perilous arctic voyage in 1837, was forced, on account of the shattered condition of his ship, to undergird her.
We are next told that, fearing they should be driven towards the Syrtis, they lowered the gear (not “strake sail,” which would be equivalent to saying that, being apprehensive of a certain danger, they deprived themselves of the only possible means of avoiding it). A ship preparing for a storm sends down upon deck the “top hamper,” or gear connected with the fair weather sails, such as the suppara, or topsails. When the ship was thus borne along, she was not only undergirded and made snug, but had storm sails set and was on the starboard tack, i.e. with her right side to the wind, which was the only course by which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis (q.v.). On the next day they threw overboard the ship's tackling. From the expression “with our own hands” Mr. Smith supposes the main yard is meant, an immense spar, probably as long as the ship, and which might require, the united efforts of passengers and men.
The storm continued with unabated fury for eleven days more. “All hope was taken away, probably not so much from the fury of the gale as from the state of the ship, their exertions to keep her from foundering being unavailing. At length, on the fourteenth night, the seamen suspected (to use the graphic sea phrase of Luke) “the land was nearing them,” probably from the noise of the breakers. No ship can enter St. Paul's Bay in Malta from the east without passing within a quarter of a mile of the point of Koura; but before reaching it the land is too low and too far from the track of a ship driven from the eastward to be seen on a dark night. When she does come within this distance, it is impossible to avoid observing the breakers, which are so violent as to form its distinctive character. On Aug. 10, 1810, the British frigate “Lively” went to pieces on these very breakers at the point of. Koura. Mr. Smith here goes into calculations in order to show that a ship starting late, in the evening from Clauda would, by midnight, on the 14th, be less than three miles from the entrance of St. Paul's Bay. A coincidence so close as this is, to a certain extent, accidental; but it is an accident: which could not have happened had there been any inaccuracy on the part of the author of the narrative with, regard to the. numerous incidents upon which the calculations are founded. or had, the ship been wrecked anywhere but at Malta. The number of conditions required in order to make any locality agree with the narrative are so numerous as to render it impossible to suppose that the agreement in the present case can be the effect of chance.
The first circumstance is that the shipmen suspected the approach of land evidently without, seeing it. The quartermaster of the “Lively” states, in his evidence at the court martial, that at the distance of a quarter of a mile the land could not be seen, but that he saw the surf on the shore. Another point is, this: the shipmen when they sounded found twenty fathoms, and then fifteen fathoms. Every ship, indeed, in approaching the land must, pass over twenty fathoms and fifteen fathoms; but here must not only the twenty fathom depth be close to the spot where they had the indications of land, but it must bear east by south from the fifteen-fathom depth, and at such a distance as would allow of preparation for anchoring with four anchors from the stern, which must have required some time. Now, about half an hour farther the depth was fifteen fathoms. Fearing lest they should fall upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern. This implies that there were rocks to leeward on which they were in danger of falling; but the fifteen-fathom depth is, as nearly as possible, a quarter of a mile from the shore; which is here girt with mural precipices, and on which the sea must have been breaking violently. Their only chance of safety was to anchor; but to do this in a gale on a lee shore not only requires time, but very tenacious holding ground. Is there such ground here? In the English Sailing Directions it is said (to repeat an important fact given under a previous article), “The harbor of St. Paul is open to easterly and northeast winds. It is, notwithstanding, safe for small ships, the ground generally being very good; and while the cables hold there is no danger, as the anchors will never start.” But why anchor from the stern? “The anchor is cast from the prow,” it being much easier to arrest a ship's way by the bow than the stern. Ships constructed like, those of the ancients, were, of necessity, amply provided with anchors and cables, It seems, too, from the figure of the ship in the picture of Theseus, deserting Ariadne, that they could anchor by the stern, as they had hawse holes aft, (a hawser is seen towing astern, it passes through the rudder port, and within board it is seen coiled round an upright beam or capstan in front of the break of the poop deck). The advantages, of being anchored in, this manner are that by cutting away the anchors, loosing the bands of the rudders, and hoisting the artemon (the foresail, not the mainsail), all of which could be done simultaneously, the ship was immediately under command, and could be directed with precision to any part of the shore which offered a prospect of safety.
But if anchored in the usual mode, she might have taken “the wrong cast” or drifted on the rocks. The number of anchors let go show that nothing was neglected. The shipmen, after taking a meal, lightened the ship, not only by pumping, but by throwing the wheat into the sea. When day broke, they knew not the land, but it had certain peculiarities: the shore was rocky, it being, in fact, skirted with precipices. They then discovered a creek with a sandy beach (the Greek word, in a restricted sense, means this, in contradistinction to a rocky coast). Into this creek they were minded to thrust the ship. They now cut their cables and left the anchors in the sea; and, loosing the lashings of the rudder and hoisting the foresail, they made for the creek. On the west side of the bay there are two creeks. One of them, Mestara Valley, has a shore. The other, though its sandy beach has been worn away by the action of the sea, was probably the scene: of the wreck. for here “two seas meet.” At the entrance of the bay, where the ship anchored, it could not have been suspected that at the bottom of it there was a communication with the sea outside. But such is the case. Salmone island, which separates the bay from the sea outside, is formed by a long, rocky ridge separated from the mainland by a channel of not more than a hundred yards in breadth. Near this channel they ran the ship ashore; the fore part stuck fast, but the stern was dashed in pieces. A ship impelled by a gale into a creek such as that in St. Paul's Bay would strike a bottom of mud graduating into a tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, while the stern would be exposed to the force of the waves. SEE MELITA.
The correspondence in the direction and distance is no less striking. A modern merchant ship can sail within six points. Taking the mean between these, we cannot be so much as a point wrong if we assume that an ancient ship would, under favorable circumstances, make good her course about seven points from the wind. But there is another element which must be taken into account when we calculate the course of a ship in a storm — it is the lee way, which in a modern ship, in a gale such as described in Acts 27, is about six points. Now, if we apply these elements to Luke's account of Paul's voyage, the result will be found to be very striking. The facts mentioned in the narrative are
(1.) The point of departure — Clauda.
(2.) The direction of the wind in the received text, Euroclydon, but since the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus the reading of the Vulg., Euroaquilo, east northeast (that is, a wind between eurrus, east, and aquilo), must be considered established.
(3.) The ship's course seven points from the wind, which, with six points of leeway added, must have been thirteen points to the west of east northeast, or west by north, which is as nearly as possible the bearing of Malta.
(4.) Distance; this is inferred from the ship's rate of sailing and the time consumed.In the voyage in question we know within very narrow limits the time consumed: it was “about midnight on the fourteenth night” (Act_27:27), and therefore thirteen days complete and a fraction. With regard to the rate at which a ship would drive under the circumstances described by Luke, Mr. Smith, in the work already alluded to, taking the mean from the determinations of skilful and scientific seamen, assumed that it would be about thirty-six and one twelfth miles in the twenty-four hours, and the distance ascertained from the nautical observations of admiral Smyth' is four hundred and seventy-seven miles to the nearness of a mile. Now a ship laid to, in a gale from east northeast, according to these calculations, founded on the incidental notices of the narrative, would — about midnight, “when the fourteenth night was come” of their being driven through ( äéáöåñïìÝíùí ), not up and down, Adria — have been exactly at Malta, and within two or three miles of St. Paul's Bay. Such were the results arrived at by Mr. Smith, and given in the first edition of his treatise on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Since then Dr. Howson in his researches discovered that admiral sir Charles Penrose had made a similar calculation, agreeing with the above to about four hours in time and six miles in distance but, as such results can only be approximations, a nearer agreement could not have been anticipated from the most accurately kept dead reckoning.
We here note an incidental fact with regard to Salmone, the east point of the island of Crete. In the account of Paul's voyage to Rome this promontory is mentioned in such a way (Act_27:7) as to afford a curious illustration both of the navigation of the ancients and of the minute accuracy of Luke's narrative. We gather from other circumstances of the voyage that the wind was blowing from the northwest ( ἐíáíôßïõò , Act_27:4; âñáäõðëïïῦíôåò , Act_27:7). SEE MYRA. We are then told that the ship, on making Cnidus, could not, by reason of the wind, hold on her course, which was past the south point of Greece, west by south. She did, however, just fetch Cape Salmone, which bears southwest by south from Cnidus. Now we may take it for granted that she could have made good a course of less than seven points from the wind, SEE SHIP; and, starting from this assumption, ye are at once brought to the conclusion that the wind must have been between north northwest and west northwest. Thus what Paley would have called an “undesigned coincidence” is elicited by a cross examination of the narrative. This ingenious argument is due to Mr. Smith, of Jordainhmil.(Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 73, 74, 2d ed.), and from him was quoted by Conybeare and Howson (Life and Epistles St. Paul 393, 2d d.). To these books we must refer for filler details. We may just add that the ship had had the advantages of a weather shore, smooth water, a favoring current, before, reaching Cnidus, a that by running down to Cape Salmone the sailors obtained similar advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as Fair Havens, near Lasaea.
See the monographs on the various incidents connected with Paul's shipwreck, cite by Volbeding, Index Programm. p. 84; and Danz, Worterb. s.v. “Apostelgesch.” No. 114-116; also the Journ. of Sac. Lit., “Josephus.” SEE PAUL.