Paul's Last Journey Underway


Acts 27:1-8

After a period of unstated duration, the governor sent Paul to Rome. He committed Paul and some other prisoners, evidently headed for Rome as well, to the care of a centurion named Julius, whose mission was to escort them all to their destination. In keeping with a reasonable chronology for the Book of Acts, we will set the trip in the late summer of 60 (see Appendix 1).

Julius is identified as a member of the "Augustan cohort,"1 a probable reference to a unit of auxiliary troops recruited from Syria and stationed there.2 The title "Augustan," marking them as soldiers of Caesar,3 seems to have been generally bestowed on Syrian units,4 perhaps to honor them for their proven loyalty to Rome, a foreign power.5 Julius himself was probably not a Roman, but a Syrian.6

The reappearance of the pronoun "we" indicates that Luke came along as Paul's traveling companion. Another member of their party was Aristarchus of Macedonia. That the Romans allowed Paul to be attended by his personal physician and at least one other man was consistent with their dealings with him later in the journey.  Never did they treat him like an ordinary prisoner.

The ship they all boarded came from Adramyttium, a city on the northwest coast of Asia Minor.7 The intent of the ship's captain may have been to follow a course back to his home port. Yet the centurion enlisted all his company as passengers anyway, probably because this vessel was the first available transport to Myra, where he could catch a much better ship. Myra, a major port directly north of Alexandria, was a customary stopping place8 for ships that regularly supplied Rome with grain from Egypt, Rome's breadbasket.9 The strong westerly winds on the open sea made the northward detour worthwhile, for after reaching Myra, the grain ships could, with a boost from more helpful winds, follow a less troublesome path along the northern edge of the Mediterranean.10


Pondering a Question


Who was Aristarchus?

This companion of Paul as he sets out from Caesarea has appeared twice before in Luke's narrative of Paul's career. In Ephesus, when Demetrius the silversmith incited his fellow tradesmen to riotous protest against Paul's ministry, one of Paul's assistants that they caught and dragged to the theater was Aristarchus, the Macedonian (Acts 19:29). Later, when Paul embarked for Jerusalem in the company of church delegates bearing money for the poor in that city, Aristarchus joined him as a representative of Thessalonica (Acts 20:4). Evidently he completed the journey, for now, after passage of another two years, he takes ship with Paul to travel back across the Mediterranean.

Further light on the man is shed for us by epistles that Paul wrote at the end of his career, when he was held prisoner in Rome. In Colossians, Paul names him as a fellow prisoner and relays his greetings (Col. 4:10–11). A natural inference would be that he sat enchained near Paul, but before leaping to the conclusion that he was an actual prisoner whose case had somehow become linked with Paul’s, we must consider another text. In Philemon, written right before or after Colossians, Paul includes Aristarchus among his companions called "fellowlabourers" (Phlm. 24) but says nothing to suggest that this loyal servant of Christ is in bonds.

The opposite is true of Epaphras. At the end of Colossians, he is only another helper in Rome who wishes to salute readers of the epistle (Col. 4:12), but in Philemon, he is a "fellowprisoner" (Phlm. 23).

So what may we conclude? One possibility is that Paul's friends, forbidden to remain long periods with him as a whole group, rotated their attendance upon him. The man called a fellowprisoner in a particular epistle may have been the one who, on the day of writing, actually sat by his side to give him personal care and fellowship. Calling him a fellowprisoner was Paul's way of paying tribute to his self-sacrificing loyalty.

It appears that Aristarchus remained as Paul's helper throughout the early part of his confinement in Rome, but had departed by the time Second Timothy was written (2 Tim. 4).


Delving Deeper


Other companions

Although Luke singles out Aristarchus for mention, he, as always, places himself in the story only by using first-person pronouns. These tell us that Luke also took ship with Paul.

Another likely fellow traveler was Trophimus, the gentile from Ephesus whose presence alongside Paul in Jerusalem provoked the charge that he was, contrary to the law, taking gentiles into courts of the Temple restricted to Jews (Acts 21:27-29). Paul speaks of Trophimus in Second Timothy, saying, "But Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick" (2 Tim. 4:20). This epistle was, as we will argue later, Paul's last, written from Rome. The meaning of his comment must be that Trophimus accompanied Paul on his final journey, but went no farther than Miletum (same place as Miletus in Acts 20:15). In fact, the ship bearing Paul did not reach Miletus. As we will see, it struggled along the southern coast of Asia Minor only as far as Cnidus before it turned southward toward Crete. But Paul does not necessarily mean that Trophimus stayed at the port where he separated from the other men. Traveling onward from Cnidus to Miletus was just a short voyage of about fifty miles. The meaning of Paul's comment, "have I left at Miletum," is that Miletus is where Paul counseled Trophimus to halt rather than finish the journey to Rome. Maybe he specified Miletus as a good stopping place because he knew of believers there who would be willing to care for a sick man. It is perhaps because Trophimus did not finish the journey to Rome that Luke does not name him as a member of Paul's party at Caesarea.


Delving Deeper


Whereabouts of Timothy

One prominent helper of Paul who did not accompany him to Rome was Timothy. The reason is that he was not even in Judea at the time of Paul's departure. He had apparently left sometime earlier on a mission to the church at Philippi (Phil. 2:19–23), and afterward he never rejoined Paul within the time frame of New Testament documents.

Three pieces of evidence point to this conclusion.

  1. He does not appear on Luke's list of fellow travelers when the apostle embarked from Caesarea. Elsewhere in the Book of Acts, Luke routinely takes notice of Timothy whenever he accompanies Paul.
  2. In none of his Roman epistles does Paul name Timothy as a present companion. On the contrary, Timothy is the person he addresses in Second Timothy, his last letter written from Rome. The only evidence of Timothy's presence in Rome is the inclusion of his name in the salutatory introduction to Colossians (Col. 1:1). We will, in our discussion of Colossians, explain this reference to Timothy.
  3. At the time Paul wrote his second epistle to him, Timothy was unaware that Trophimus had failed to complete the journey to Rome (2 Tim. 4:20).

Delving Deeper


Missing companions

In his Roman epistles, Paul speaks of several companions besides Luke and Aristarchus. The other attendants during his house arrest include Mark and Demas (Col. 4:10, 14; Phlm. 24), although later, Mark departed on an errand for Paul (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11) and Demas forsook him (2 Tim. 4:10). Another member of Paul's group was Tychicus, who in one journey carried to their destination the epistles of Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–8; compare Phlm. 10 with Col. 4:9). Two more fellow workers were Justus (Col. 4:11) and Epaphras (Col. 1:7–8; 4:12–13; Phlm. 23). Nothing more is known about Justus. Some have equated Epaphras with Epaphroditus, the messenger who delivered Paul a gift from the Philippian church (Phil. 2:25–30; 4:18). Although the shorter of these names was probably a contraction of the longer,11 they need not refer to the same person. Paul connects Epaphras with Colosse (Col. 1:7–8; 4:12–13), not Philippi.

We know that Luke, Aristarchus, and Mark were not natives of Rome. Since the rest—Demas,12 Tychicus,13 Justus,14 and Epaphras15—have Greek or Jewish names, they were probably not Romans either. We therefore surmise that they all traveled to Rome by ship. Since most had long devoted themselves to gospel ministry, we may surmise that they went to Rome for the express purpose of standing at Paul's side during his time of need. But since Luke omits them from his account of Paul's final journey, we also may surmise that they did not travel to Rome on the ship that bore him but, either individually or as a group, found other transport.

From Caesarea, Paul's ship sailed northward about sixty-nine miles to the port of Sidon.16 There Julius treated Paul with special courtesy, allowing him to go ashore and meet with Christian friends. After all, Paul was far from being a condemned criminal. He had not been convicted of any crime by the lower court in Caesarea, and he was going to Rome as a result of his own appeal to Caesar. So, the centurion did not seek to restrict his liberty.


Pondering a Question


Why was Paul treated so courteously?

Perhaps the reason is that Julius was a sympathizer with the Christian "way," although not an actual believer. Yet the consideration he granted Paul throughout the journey went beyond mere courtesy or sympathy. He treated Paul with respect, even as a distinguished person.

Why? It was doubtless no secret to Julius that Paul was a former leader of the Jewish nation who, as an apostle of a new religious movement, had won a large following in many provinces, earning even a reputation as a miracle worker; furthermore, that although in public appearances he was not a polished orator or an athletic figure, he was nevertheless a formidable presence; and that as a result of his dramatic impact on society, he was treated with pronounced respect even by several Roman rulers including King Agrippa.

The ship reembarked and sailed "under Cyprus."17 The meaning is that the ship sailed on the lee side, opposite the prevailing winds, which came from the southwest.18 In other words, it escaped contrary winds by rounding the island on the northeast. To make headway, it drew in close to the coast of Asia Minor and took advantage of favorable land breezes and sea currents.19 After passing over the sea fringing the provinces of Cilicia and Pamphylia (the two running east to west along the southern shore of Asia Minor), the ship at last reached Myra, about 250 miles from the northeastern tip of Cyprus and 400 miles from Caesarea.20 So far in Paul's journey, the trip had taken perhaps ten to fifteen days.21


Delving Deeper


Smith's classic study

Luke's log of the journey is so rich in detail that it invites, even demands, verification. The classic work establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the closing chapters of Acts are an eyewitness account of an actual voyage in antiquity is James Smith's The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, originally published in England in 1848. An expert yachtsman himself, Smith was singularly qualified to evaluate Luke's account on the basis of all relevant evidence. This he drew from extensive research. He scoured ancient sources for information on ships and sailing practice in Roman times. He consulted modern works on hydrography and climate. He questioned modern sailors familiar with the Mediterranean. And he visited the island of Malta, where Paul's ship wrecked. In his careful comparison of Luke's account with established fact, he verified every detail of travel recalled in chapters 27 and 28. The routes, the times of voyage from one place to another, the winds and weather conditions encountered along the way, and the effects of these upon an ancient sailing vessel—all are indisputably authentic.

At Myra, Paul changed ships. The centurion transferred his prisoners to a large Alexandrian vessel loaded with wheat (v. 38) and bound for Italy. Like others in the same fleet, this was privately owned but, as we would say, under contract with the Roman government. In return for compliance with government oversight, the shipowner was covered by insurance in case of ship damage or loss of cargo.22

Soon the new ship set sail and moved slowly westward, taking many days to cover only 160 miles23 before the travelers finally came to Cnidus, a town at the end of a long peninsula jutting out from the southwestern corner of Asia Minor. There they lay about 110 miles north of Crete.24 The reason for the delay was a strong wind blowing against them from the northwest, the same prevailing wind which dominates the eastern Mediterranean during late summer.25 To escape it, they headed south, the intent being to skirt Crete on the lee side.26 The plan proved feasible, for perhaps on the same day, they were able to reach Salmone at the eastern end of the island, turn west, and hover near the coast. Mountains to the north then moderated the prevailing wind. But moving ahead was still a tough job requiring nautical skill, and progress was slow.27


Delving Still Deeper


"Hardly passing it" (v. 8)

This phrase, coming after Luke's statement that the ship had reached Salmone, has produced two interpretations. Does he mean that the ship had difficulty rounding the eastern point of the island and gaining the lee shore? Or does he mean that advancing along this shore was a struggle?

The term "passing," παραλεγομενοι, is more precisely translated either "sailing past" or "coasting along."28 Here we gain no help, because "sailing past" favors the first interpretation, "coasting along" the second.

But in favor of the second we can cite another consideration that would seem to be decisive. The larger structure of the sentence, "And with difficulty παραλεγομενοι [present participle29] it we came to a place," leaves the clear impression that they came to the place while they were παραλεγομενοι. Luke could easily have modified the verb tenses to set the obstacle to progress clearly before, not during, their approach to Fair Havens.

Besides, it is unlikely that with a northwest wind at their backs, they would have found it hard to sail beyond the eastern point of the mainland. The challenge came afterward, when they had to turn right, draw close to the southern shoreline, and then maintain a westward course.

Finally, after sailing about ninety miles along the southern coast of Crete,30 they came to a friendly harbor, a small bay called Fair Havens close to the city of Lasea. Beyond, the coast turned northward and ceased to serve as a wind buffer. Therefore, recognizing that the travelers could not continue until the contrary wind had subsided,31 the captain halted and waited for better conditions.


Paul's Warning Ignored


Acts 27:9-14

The conditions he hoped for never developed. Time crept onward until summer was gone. Any attempt to cross the Mediterranean after the coming of autumn was dangerous and foolhardy. The Roman writer Vegetius stated that navigation on the open sea fell off after 14 September, came to a complete halt after 11 November, and did not resume until 10 March.32 Pliny set the opening date a month earlier, on 8 February.33 Paul, noting that the fast had already gone by, was concerned about proceeding with the voyage. The fast or feast he had in mind was the Day of Atonement. Its Julian date varied from year to year, but fell generally in October. The date was 24 October if the year of the voyage was in fact AD 60.34


Delving Deeper


Year of the voyage

Bruce and other scholars have argued that Paul's reference to the fast provides decisive evidence against placing the voyage in 60.35 In that year, the fast supposedly fell somewhat earlier than 5 October, leaving a gap between Paul's departure from Crete and his arrival in Italy that cannot be filled by the intervening events reported by Luke. The fallacy, of course, is that these scholars have dated the fast incorrectly. It was 24 October, a placement that fits the narrative perfectly (see commentary on Acts 28:11).

No doubt under the direction of the Holy Spirit, Paul now gave wise counsel to the men in command. These were the centurion as well as "the master and the owner," wording that probably signifies two men, the second being the shipowner himself and the first being an expert sailor hired to serve either as steersman or actual captain.36 Paul advised all three to go no further, but to remain where they were for the duration of the winter. He warned that if the voyage continued, the result would be disastrous. The ship would sustain ruinous damage, bringing great loss not only of cargo, but also of human lives.

Since the ship was in the service of the Roman government, the person highest in command was not the owner or the captain, but the centurion. It was therefore his decision whether to sail onward. But lacking the nautical experience of a professional sailor, he naturally attached great weight to the judgment of the men who controlled the ship, and they assured him that it would be safer to winter somewhere else. They probably claimed that at Fair Havens, they were exposed to a full semicircle of winds, although in fact the harbor was well protected by islands.37 Viewing it as "not commodious to winter in," they recommended sailing a short distance farther along the southern coast of the island until they reached Phenice (actually, Phoenix), a harbor that was much better sheltered. No ancient sources of information tell us exactly where Phoenix was located,38 but the name, the general location, and Luke's comment that its haborage faced northwest and southwest strongly suggest that modern Phineka Bay, about forty miles beyond Fair Havens, is the same site.39

Although the time for good weather was slipping away, a soft breeze suddenly came up from the south, exactly the sort of wind that was good for making the transit to Phoenix. Therefore, the ship set sail and cruised smoothly along until it reached Cape Matala, just six miles to the west.40 Then, where the coastline veered northward, they turned northwest and began crossing open water toward their destination. It appeared that all was going well. The remaining distance they had to cover by a straight path was only about thirty-five miles.41

But no sooner had they gone beyond the possibility of safe retreat to Fair Havens than they were swallowed up by catastrophe. A tempestuous (literally, "typhonic"42) wind known to ancient mariners as Euroclydon descended upon them. Luke's way of introducing the name suggests that he first heard it from the sailors struggling against this sudden attack by forces of nature. Otherwise unattested in ancient writings, the name is an apt description fusing the word for east wind (euros43) and the word for waves or rough water (klydon44). We might informally describe it as an east waver.45

It is likely that the sailors were familiar with Euroclydon because many had experience in sailing these waters. A recurring hazard to navigation directly southwest of the island, it was a monstrous wind that swept out from beside Mt. Ida, the imposing beshadowed peak rising eight thousand feet above the rim of Crete at a point about twenty miles from the voyagers' path.46 The ancient sailing vessel, bearing no large sails besides the mainsail, was not equipped to deal with any extreme of wind or weather, and suddenly the peaceful voyage collapsed under great peril, becoming instead a frantic struggle to survive.


Getting Practical


The true expert

The centurion received advice from two men, a man of God and a man viewed by his fellowmen as a nautical expert. The centurion chose to believe the expert. The folly of his choice soon became evident.

Yet how many today are equally foolish? Wherever the theories of modern science contradict the Bible, most people suppose that scientists are experts and the experts, not God, must be right. When the disappointments and pains and problems of life become overwhelming, most people shun counsel based on the Word of God. Instead, they shop around for a doctor who will prescribe a quick fix in the form of a pill. Or they link up with a self-help guru who will reduce the solution to some easy-to-follow formula. Or they seek out a professional counselor who builds on the idea that the purpose of life is to actualize the desires of self. Yet all these experts in the world's eyes will fail to provide truly satisfying relief. No counsel can be better than God's. What any godless man thinks is worthless if at odds with what God thinks, for God created and controls everything.

Joining Battle with the Mighty Sea


Acts 27:15-20

After Euroclydon caught the travelers in its mad rush, the captain's first response was to try turning the ship into the wind and holding it steady. But in this he failed. To obtain forward thrust from a headwind is possible only by setting the sail in such a manner that driving force is small compared with tipping force.47 Trying to face a typhoon was therefore a fool's option, leading to the ship capsizing. The captain's only alternative was to run ahead of the wind. The fierceness of the storm left no opportunity to make adjustments. The sailors could only let the ship scud along at breakneck speed while they held on tight.

About twenty-five or thirty miles to the southwest they came to a small island named Clauda,48 the same as modern Gavdhos, or Gozzo.49 There they were able to slip "under" it—that is, to the leeward side50—and find calmer water.


Delving Deeper


The exact nature of the wind

We have persuasive evidence that in Paul's day, Euros signified a southeast or east-southeast wind. Critics therefore find the term Euroclydon rather dubious. The implied direction of its impact cannot seemingly be reconciled with its effect upon Paul's ship. After being caught by the tempestuous wind, the ship ran directly to Clauda, which was mostly west but also slightly south. From the ship's storm-driven flight we can compute the wind’s angle of attack rather precisely. It must have slammed them from E.N.E. (east-northeast). Smith estimates that it was north of east by 25°.51 The ship's path would appear to exclude any possibility that the wind came from the southeast or east-southeast. It must have been a northeast wind.

In a few Greek manuscripts, Eurakylon takes the place of Euroclydon. The Latin form of Eurakylon is Euraquilo, which combines the names Eurus (Latin form of "Euros") and Aquilo, the latter designating a north or northeast wind.52 Thus, Eurakylon must refer to a wind like the east-northeast wind that overwhelmed Paul's ship. Critics therefore feel justified in treating Eurakylon as the correct reading.

A train of important considerations leads us, however, to the conclusion that the correct reading is truly Euroclydon.

  1. Lack of manuscript support for Eurakylon.
    1. Eurakylon does not appear anywhere in ancient copies or quotations of Scripture except in three Alexandrian codices (aleph, A, B), all dating from the fourth or fifth centuries.53
    2. The same term is missing from all sixty-two Greek minuscules which Aland et al., editors of a principal modern edition of CT, describe as exhibiting "a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition [basis of TR]."54
    3. Euroclydon does, however, appear in the writings of Chrysostom (c. 349–407),55 who elsewhere demonstrates familiarity with ship travel on the Mediterranean.56
  2. The older meaning of Euros. The name Euros probably comes from eos (ηως or εως), the Greek word for "dawn" or simply "morning"57 or even "morning wind."58 Perhaps for this reason Euros has in some usages the plain meaning "east wind."59 In fact, if we search for the word in surviving ancient literature, we find that it dates back at least to the time of Homer, who, in both the Odyssey and the Iliad, reduces all motions of the atmosphere to four primary winds, Euros being the one from the east. The others are Zephuros from the west, Notos from the south, and Boreas from the north.60 Pliny acknowledges that "the ancients noticed four winds in all, corresponding to the four quarters of the world (this is the reason why even Homer mentions no more)."61 Perhaps in Euroclydon we meet a very old word retaining in Paul's day the original meaning of Euros—from the east, not the southeast.
  3. The strong possibility that Euroclydon accurately describes an unusual storm that troubled navigation near Crete. The word Euroclydon suggests that the wind so named by sailors had the property of stirring up unusually dangerous waves. What weather phenomenon off the Cretan coast where Paul was sailing could have generated ferocious waves from the east? We must consider the geography of Crete. At Cape Matala just a few miles west of Fair Havens, the coastline turns directly north and continues on a northward path for about ten miles before angling to the west. About ten miles north of this coastal vertex rises Mt. Ida, which is by no means a lonely spire in the sky. Rather, it is the highest in a central axis of peaks stretching through the island from west to east.62 If a gale from the northeast swept down on the island, it seems likely that as a result of hitting the mountainous barrier, it would have generated secondary currents. One no doubt traveled up the northern slopes and descended some distance beyond. But another probably became a strong easterly current running through the valleys along the southern rim of the high ridge. This current, coming at last to the ten-mile stretch of shoreline north of Cape Matala, would have emerged from land as a powerful blast warranting its reputation as tempestuous. One of its byproducts would have been unmanageable waves exploding from the east. Hence the name Euroclydon.
         It is doubtful that Paul's ship was directly offshore when struck by the wind. A course set for Phineka Bay would have taken the travelers slowly away from the coastline. Thus, we may surmise that when they felt the power of the wind, it had regained its original character as a gale from east-northeast. But the question is not whether Euroclydon gives a precisely accurate picture of the storm's dynamics when it reached them, but whether it preserves the storm's traditional name.
  4. Light from the context. One way to distinguish a corruption from an original reading is to see which reading the context favors. In Acts 27:14, Luke says, "a tempestuous wind called Euroclydon." His choice of words furnishes two strong clues as to the right name for the wind.
    1. He evidently believed that being tempestuous was a peculiar feature of this wind. The ordinary northeast wind known as Eurakylon was not necessarily tempestuous.
    2. If he intended the ordinary northeast wind, he had no reason to introduce it as "a wind called Euroclydon." The word "called" implies that he expected its name to be unfamiliar to readers. On the only other occasions when he refers to a wind by name—specifically, on the three occasions when he speaks of Notos, the south wind (Acts 27:13, 28:13; Luke 12:55)—he states the name outright, omitting "a wind called" or any similar explanatory words.

Far from sounding like someone's incompetent attempt to improve on the original text, the name Euroclydon has a loud and clear ring of authenticity.


Delving Still Deeper


Meaning of Euros in Paul's day

In his treatise Meteorology, a fascinating excursion into the scientific realm, Aristotle presented an elaborate wind compass with no less than ten points. He defined Euros as a wind distinct from Apeliotes, the east wind, instead placing its origin where the sun rises at the winter solstice. Although some understand him to mean that Euros was an east-southeast wind, he saw it as intermediate between Apeliotes and Notos, the south wind, even saying that it "borders on Notos." Euros was therefore a southeast wind.63 Much the same vision of atmospheric currents prevailed among the Romans. Pliny in his Natural History accepted Aristotle's analysis, placing "two winds in each of the four quarters of heaven." The southeast wind—the wind approaching from a direction between the origins of Subsolanus, which he equates to Apeliotes, and Auster, which he equates to Notus (that is, Notos)—is Eurus (Latin form of Euros64).65

Any doubt as to the meaning of Eurus in Paul’s day evaporates in light of an ancient Latin inscription found in the modern town of Thugga, which is about fifty miles below the coastline in north central Tunisia.66 There on a mosaic depicting a wind rose, names are given to winds originating at twelve points of the compass.67 Reading clockwise from septentrio (unquestionably, the north wind68), we come in order to aquilo (a general term for the north wind, although in derivation and often in usage it refers more specifically to a northeast or north-northeast wind69), euraquilo, [uu]lturnus (despite the eroded letters, clearly the word volturnus, which in Pliny signifies the southeast wind,70 though here it must be strictly a wind from the east), eurus, leuconotus, and auster (unquestionably, the south wind71). It is evident from its place in sequence that Eurus on the wind rose named an east-southeast wind.


Delving Still Deeper


Evidence that Eurakylon is a corrupt reading

We have stated before that textual corruptions may be viewed as noise interfering with accurate transmission of a verbal message. Except when the corruption is an intentional expansion of the text, the effect is generally to reduce complexity. Four common types of simplification are illustrated by the metamorphosis of Euroclydon to Eurakylon.

  1. Abbreviating sound structure (or perhaps offering a simpler spelling of the original sounds). On this basis alone, the nineteenth-century scholars W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, in agreement with another cited authority, decided to retain Euroclydon, which they judged to be "the more difficult reading."72 Not only is Euroclydon phonetically more elaborate, Eurakylon appears to be the remains of Euroclydon after it has been slightly pruned.
  2. A more familiar word replacing a less familiar. Although the appearance of Euraquilo on the wind rose found at Thugga in north Africa assures that the Greek counterpart in Alexandrian texts is not simply a scribal error, we are left with a salient possibility that it is also not the original word, but a rough synonym that in Alexandria, in north Africa as well, was more familiar than the original word. Copyists probably substituted what they knew for what sounded strange. Their motive was probably to correct what seemed like an error, but their attempt at improvement merely introduced a real error.
  3. Slippage to lower information content. Whereas Euraquilo is a general term for any northeast wind, Euroclydon speaks of a weather phenomenon off the coast of Crete. Therefore, it conveys information that is far more specific. Paul Coones has voiced a similar argument, to the effect that "such a name is more apt for a local and occasional meteorological phenomenon than one which alludes to a cardinal direction."73
  4. Language that is mundane supplanting inventive or colorful language. Eurakylon (Euraquilo) rather unimaginatively combines the names for two winds (Eurus and Aquilo), rather as we do today in terms like northeast wind, etc. Euroclydon is a more inventive concept because it creates a picture of the storm being named. Its unusual character, pointing to the approach of dangerous waves, testifies to someone's first-hand experience. It does not sound like a casual mistake by a sleepy copyist in a dark room.

We have dwelt at length on the choice between Euroclydon and Eurakylon because it is a crucial test case for the theory that now dominates evaluation of the readings found in New Testament manuscripts. In obeisance to a firmly established critical tenet, modern editors give preeminence to the readings in a handful of poorly crafted and consequently discarded manuscripts from Alexandria. The clear superiority of Euroclydon shows that the theory is bankrupt.

After coming to some shelter, the voyagers immediately took all possible measures to make the ship more seaworthy in a storm.

First, they hauled in the small dinghy that had been trailing behind. Luke's use of the first person suggests that he himself helped to pull the boat aboard. His remark that it was hard work suggests that the boat was full of water, as it would naturally be under the circumstances.74

Then the crew undergirded the ship with cables, here called "helps." Because an ancient ship carried only a single stout mast with a long yard at the top, it was poorly designed for strong winds. The swaying mast was a lever against the hull, applying forces sufficient to break it apart. Scholars have debated how the cables were employed, but Smith argues that they were most likely wrapped around the ship's middle at right angles to the length. The same technique has been used in modern times to hold together an endangered ship.75 Other techniques have been less common because they are less effective.

Finally, "fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands," they "strake sail." A better translation of verse 17 shows clearly what peril the ship faced and what expedient the captain adopted. "Quicksands" is the place name Syrtis, which referred to shallow sandbars just off the African coast.76 "Strake sail" should be rendered "lowered the gear."77 Luke is informing us of a new danger on the horizon. If the captain allowed the ship to continue racing before the wind in a southwesterly direction, it would wreck on sandbars and shoals a few hundred miles away. To save the ship, the captain ordered all superfluous gear in the top to be lowered, likely including the yard and mainsail.78 With these on deck, the ship was easier to manage in a heavy wind. But he did not let the ship drift without sail, or it would still have gone straight to Africa, although at a slower pace. So, he must have set a storm sail or sails that would carry the ship westward on a starboard tack (that is, with the wind on the right side).79 Besides the mainsail, many ancient ships owned one or more lesser sails.80 The most common was a foresail mounted on a forward-leaning mast in the bow.81 Its purpose was to assist steering. Later in his account of the frightful storm, Luke mentions that their ship retained a sail named artemon (v. 40), which was likely a foresail.82 Perhaps this was also the storm sail used to maintain control of the ship's direction.

For three days a great wind drove the ship along. On the second, they lightened the ship by jettisoning some of the cargo. It is likely that on an Alexandrian ship headed for Rome, the cargo was mainly bales of grain (v. 38). On the third day, they cast overboard some of the tackling. The wording "with our own hands" leaves no doubt that Luke, and possibly Paul as well, did his share of the work. The need for the assistance of both passengers and crew suggests that what they discarded was the yard.83 It was a huge beam that, when brought down, spread over much of the deck. Getting rid of heavy gear was critically necessary because water was entering the ship and causing it to ride lower through the sea.


Getting Practical


Being always ready to help

We see here that no believer should be a stranger to necessary work. Not even the Apostle Paul was too important or too pious to get his hands dirty. When the need arose for him and Luke to pitch in, they did not hang back, hoping that others would fill all the slots. Rather, they took the lead. They were the first to grasp the beam. We see the same readiness to help later in the story, when the ship reached Malta. There, Paul busied himself with picking up sticks for the fire (Acts 28:3).

Are we equally willing to help with menial tasks? Do we come forward when chairs need to be moved, dishes need to be washed, or weeds need to be cleared away? Or do we stand back, waiting for a more glorious role in the life of the church? Do we work as hard in the shadows as we do in the limelight?

The storm raged on day after day. After many days with no sun or stars visible in the shrouded sky, it appeared that the ship would most certainly come to a tragic end and be remembered as lost at sea.


Words of Hope


Acts 27:21-26

For a long while Paul said nothing to the whole company. After they rejected his earlier counsel, he waited to speak again until events proved him right. Now the grievous peril he had foreseen had come to pass, and they faced almost certain death, so he judged that they were ready to listen to him with greater respect. He therefore stood before the soldiers, passengers, and crew and announced a new message from God. Although he began by saying that they should have heeded his warning before they sailed from Fair Havens, he was not seeking to score a point at their expense. He was not smug in attitude, and his goal was not recrimination. Rather, he was solemnly exhorting them to accept his authority as God's spokesman.

Then, with the intent of encouraging them, he proceeded to share the new message, which offered hope. An angel had appeared to him during the night and declared that God would not allow the storm to keep Paul from appearing before Caesar. But God’s loving intervention would not be limited to saving Paul’s life. He would also save the lives of Paul’s fellow travelers. The ship would be lost, but every soul aboard the ship would escape alive. The angel said that God had given the apostle all of his fellow travelers. Paul offered no explanation of this mysterious promise, but evidently the angel meant not only that there would be no casualties, but also that all unbelievers on the ship would come to faith in God through Paul’s witness.

Even though a great tragedy would be averted, they still faced an ordeal. The ship would be wrecked, and they would be cast upon an island.


Land Ho


Acts 27:27-32

For two weeks, the storm drove the ship westward "across"84 (not "up and down") the sea of Adria. This was not the same as today's Adriatic Sea, which separates Italy and former Yugoslavia. Rather, it lay southward, holding all the waters between Italy, Sicily, Greece, and Crete.85 Midway through the fourteenth night, the sailors believed that they were approaching land. They could not see in the darkness, so the first indication of a shore nearby was doubtless the sound of breakers.86 Immediately they took a sounding and measured twenty fathoms. The Greek fathom, orguia,87 which refers to the distance spanned by a man's outstretched arms, is roughly equivalent to six feet.88 Sea depth according to their first sounding was therefore 120 feet. A short while later, they took another and measured fifteen fathoms, or ninety feet. In the meantime, they had busied themselves with preparations to anchor the ship, for they feared being driven onto rocks. As soon as they were ready, they cast off four anchors from the stern (the rear). Normally, boats are anchored from the bow, but on this occasion the captain wished to keep the prow forward of the wind so that the ship would be easier to control when the anchors were lifted.89

The sailors could not determine where they were, but in fact they had entered a bay on the northeast side of the island of Malta. In memory of the events we are retelling, the inlet is known today as St. Paul's Bay. On their left side, they had just passed the point of Kura, the rugged face of a narrow strip of land jutting out from the coast. From there came the sound of breakers. Now when they cast anchors, they were standing about a quarter mile from this point and about two and a half miles from the bay's farthest edge, which was on their port side and off to the southwest.90 Most of the straight courses inward from their position led to a rocky precipice.91


Delving Deeper


Realistic travel data

The distance from Clauda to the point of Kura is about 475 miles.92 If we assume the voyagers left Clauda in the evening of the first day and reached the point of Kura at midnight of the fourteenth day, their average progress per day was about thirty-six miles. As Smith has argued convincingly, this is in fact the probable speed of an ancient ship drifting before a gale of mean intensity.93

Although they knew that land was near, it was still dark, and they could not fully assess their situation. When Luke says, they "wished for the day," he conveys the great anxiety of everyone on board. The ship was so weakened that it might sink before day arrived, or they might discover in the morning that the shore afforded no place to land. The crew talked secretly together and decided that their best chance of survival was to abandon ship without delay. But the only means of escape was the dinghy taken aboard earlier, which was large enough for the crew only. The crew therefore lowered it and prepared to get in, under the ruse that they were going to let out anchors from the bow. The soldiers believed them at first, but Paul perceived the crew's plan and alerted the centurion, warning him that if the crew escaped, everyone else on board would be lost. At the centurion's orders, the soldiers rushed to the side while the boat was still empty and cut its ropes so that it fell away. We need not assume that they were following Paul's advice. On the contrary, what they did seems like an impulsive reaction. It would have been more prudent to reserve the boat for possible use later.94 Yet their foolishness made it possible for God to perform an even greater miracle when, on the next day, He delivered them all from certain death.


Again, Timely Advice


Acts 27:33-38

Before daybreak, Paul stood up again before the whole company and gave last-minute directions in anticipation of the critical moment when they would all have to move quickly to save their lives. By now, the soundness of his counsel had won everyone's respect, and they were willing to do his bidding. He instructed them all to take food.


Pondering a Question


Was Paul exaggerating when he said that they had not eaten in fourteen days?

The key to proper understanding of Paul's speech may be recognition that voluntary abstinence from food was an accepted religious practice among both Jews and Christians. Among the hundreds on board the ship were doubtless some of the former and perhaps some of latter. When they found themselves at death's door, these worshipers of Israel's God may have devoted themselves to prayer and fasting in the belief that such measures were the best way to secure divine deliverance. For a healthy adult to fast for a period of fourteen days is not life-threatening. If a person drinks enough water to meet bodily needs, he can survive without food for at least four weeks.95

In reporting Paul's speech, Luke gives us what he truly said, but for each quotation, he does not tell us exactly which people Paul was facing and addressing. We may divide his recorded speech into three parts, each no doubt summarizing a much fuller message of advice and encouragement.

  1. He started by beseeching "them all . . . to take meat" (v. 33a).
  2. He then especially exhorted the abstainers from all food to cease depriving themselves (v. 33b). He naturally singled them out for such advice because they were suffering the greatest hunger and weakness.
  3. He then turned again to the whole company of people on board and urged them all to take food (v. 34). During the last two weeks, eating had been catch-as-catch-can. Among his audience were the men who had been constantly engaged in the struggle to keep the ship afloat and, to the greatest extent possible, under control. In their moment-by-moment battle to avert disaster, they had been too busy or too overwhelmed to get as much food as they needed. Yet all the ordinary passengers were hungry as well, because there had been no chance to observe regular mealtimes, and many had been unable to eat anyway because of emotional distress or seasickness.

Through lack of food, everyone on board was in a weakened condition. Paul's purpose in urging them to eat was no doubt to make them stronger for the great physical exertion that might soon be required. Lest anyone had succumbed to a sense of despair that would keep him from eating, he used a vivid figure of speech to assure them again that they had nothing to fear. Their preservation would be so complete that not one hair would be lost from anyone's head. Then, to set an example, he took nourishment for himself. He broke bread, thanked God for it, and partook of it in their presence. The others were greatly cheered by his words and ate bread also.


Delving Deeper


The true intent of Paul's words

Some commentators, finding sacramental overtones in Paul's actions, have decided that members of the ship's company who received the bread broken and blessed by the apostle were in some measure partaking of communion (in the language of Baptists and similar groups) or celebrating the Eucharist (in the language of more formalistic churches).96 But there is nothing in Luke's account to suggest that Paul was doing anything more than praising God for the food still available on the ship and for their coming deliverance. His thanksgiving was meant only to serve as both testimony and example.97

To find any larger significance in his words accuses him of violating guidelines that he himself had set down. Most who ate the bread then distributed to all were not believers in Christ. Therefore, they were not eligible to partake of communion (1 Cor. 11:27–30), yet under the circumstances, it is impossible that Paul would have withheld bread he had just broken from anyone nearby who desired it. Also, Paul himself had taught that it was inappropriate to use the Lord's Supper for relieving hunger (1 Cor. 11:34).

We now learn that the ship’s company was somewhat larger than a modern reader might assume. No less than 276 people were on board. Luke's main purpose in providing this information was likely to help us appreciate how miraculous their deliverance was. Yet we suspect that he also wanted us to understand that the crew conducted a head count right before the last meal. They needed to know the total number to be fed before they divided the rations still available. Care was required so that everyone would receive a portion, however small. Perhaps another reason for the head count was to assist the crew later when they had to determine whether everyone had come safely to land.


Pondering a Question


How could so many people fit aboard an ancient ship?

The most familiar drawings of ancient ships give the impression that they were small vessels. But literary evidence establishes that some were quite large. The writer Lucian, who lived in the second century AD, recalls his visit to the ruins of a ship recently driven aground at Piraeus, a port city a few miles from Athens. Like the ship that carried Paul, it was transporting grain from Alexandria to Rome.98 Lucian conveniently tells us the ship's measurements. It was 120 cubits (that is, about 180 feet) long, thirty cubits (about forty-five feet) wide, and twenty-nine cubits (about forty-three feet) from deck to bottom. He further conveys to us how amazed he was at the size of the mast and yard.99 By way of comparison, the Mayflower that brought about 130 people to the shores of Massachusetts was about a hundred feet long and twenty-five feet wide.100

Any doubt that the head count reported by Luke is realistic vanishes when we consider Josephus's story of a voyage he once took which also ended in shipwreck. He speaks of six hundred fellow passengers.101

The last preparation for leaving was to throw everything loose or detachable overboard, including all the remaining food, so that the ship would ride as high as possible in the water. As a result, it would run aground nearer the shore.


Successful Escape


Acts 27:39-44

At the first light of day, every eye stared anxiously at the dimness ahead. Soon it was obvious that they had come to a place wholly unfamiliar to captain and crew. The shore did not appear to offer any refuge for a foundering ship. Much of it was rocky. Yet, to their relief, as they scanned the ground enclosing the bay, they spotted a creek with a sandy beach. It was only about one and three-quarter miles due west.102 Judging that it might be a good place to land, the crew prepared to move the ship inward. First, they slipped the anchors. "Taken up" means "cut away."103 In other words, they cast off the anchors because they added weight to the ship. Also, they loosed the "rudder bands." These were two large paddles, one emerging from each side of the stern. Used for steering, they had previously been lashed in place to prevent uncontrolled movements while they sat stationary in the wind. Now they were unlashed to help direct the ship toward a safe landing.104 Lastly, the crew hoisted a small sail to catch the wind. It was a foresail, not the mainsail, which, along with the yard, had been jettisoned many days earlier.105 Then after every precaution within their power, they started off for the shore.

The wind carried them until they entered water "where two seas met." Luke is probably remembering that as they approached the creek, a narrow channel suddenly appeared to starboard, showing open sea beyond. It divided the mainland from a small island, today called Salmonetta, which sheltered the bay by stretching eastward and furnishing the last coastline in the bay's northern rim.106

Evidently at the intersection of two competing water flows consisting of waves and tides—one linked to the sea east of the bay, the other linked to the channel—a shoal had formed. "Place where two seas met " is τοπον διθαλασσον,107 which probably refers to "a sandbank at some distance from the shore, with rather deep water on both sides of it."108 Coming upon this shoal before reaching the beach, the ship ran aground, the forepart sticking fast in the mud.109 As a result, the hinder part, held rigid as it received the violent pounding of powerful waves, began to break apart.110 If any were to survive the shipwreck, they had to flee quickly. But escape was difficult, because the water was still not shallow enough to permit wading to land.

The centurion now had to decide how to handle the prisoners. Remember that there were others, perhaps many others, besides Paul (v. 1). The soldiers, seeing that the prisoners could not be removed under guard, advised Julius that the best course was to kill them. They knew that they would be held responsible if any ran away after gaining dry ground; also, that the Roman military command dealt severely with failure in guard duty. As we have discussed elsewhere, a soldier who allowed a prisoner in his charge to escape was severely punished. If the escapee had been accused or convicted of a capital crime, the negligent soldier was executed.111 Therefore, the proposal to kill the prisoners would have merited consideration under other circumstances. But the centurion did not support it. He saw the immense injustice in killing Paul, a man whose counsel served them well, a man with indisputable credentials as a mouthpiece for God, and, of course, an innocent man. The centurion therefore ruled that all the prisoners should be given a chance to flee ashore.

By his orders, the first to forsake the ship were all who could swim. Many of these no doubt stayed in the water to give help as needed. Then came all the rest, keeping themselves afloat by hanging onto boards or onto wooden pieces of the disintegrating ship. The boards may have come from below deck, where had been used to assist storage of cargo.112 After everyone passed from rough water to dry beach, it was found that nobody was missing. As Paul predicted, every life had been saved.


Getting Practical


The storms of life

Paul's ordeal as he rode in a ship battered by moaning gales and rocked by surging waves is a picture of every believer's experience in our sin-cursed world. We must all go through frightening storms. Yet like Paul, we belong to the Lord. Therefore, we can be sure that just as He brought Paul and all his company safely to land, where they found security and rest, He will also deliver us from whatever affliction or persecution or temptation now disturbs our peace.

Who is our Lord? He is the One so mighty that the disciples asked, "What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him" (Luke 8:25). The best answer to their question is that the man Jesus was the very Creator of winds and water. By His word they came into existence, and so by His word they also grow or diminish. Since His ruling motive is always love, we know for a certainty that they will grow only if their effect upon us is, in the long run, beneficial (Rom 8:28), and that they will diminish as soon as their good work is done. Our greatest comfort is that someday they will disappear forever (Rev. 21:3–4).

Footnotes

  1. Arndt and Gingrich, 283.
  2. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.—A.D. 135), A New English Version. rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1973), 364; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 511; Marshall, 423; Bock, 731.
  3. Bock, 731.
  4. Schürer, 364; Bock, 731.
  5. Ibid.; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 511.
  6. Bock, 731.
  7. Ibid.; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 512.
  8. Bock, 732.
  9. Suetonius Claudius 18–19; Jos. Wars 2.16.4; Seneca Moral Epistles 77.1–2.
  10. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 513.
  11. Arndt and Gingrich, 283.
  12. Ibid., 177.
  13. Ibid., 839.
  14. Ibid., 381.
  15. Ibid., 283.
  16. Ibid., 64; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 512; Bock, 732.
  17. Berry, 535.
  18. Smith, 66–68.
  19. Ibid., 68–70.
  20. Payne, 126–127.
  21. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 512; Bock, 732.
  22. Bock, 732.
  23. Payne, 117.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Smith, 74–76.
  26. Ibid., 76–81.
  27. Ibid., 77–79.
  28. Arndt and Gingrich, 625.
  29. Analytical Greek Lexicon, 304.
  30. Payne, 117.
  31. Smith, 84.
  32. Vegetius On Military Affairs 4.39; Longenecker, 559; Bock, 733; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 515.
  33. Pliny Natural History 2.122; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 534.
  34. Parker and Dubberstein, 47.
  35. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 515.
  36. Bock, 734.
  37. Smith, 85.
  38. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 517; Bock, 734–735.
  39. Longenecker, 559; Marshall, 428; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 516–517; Bock, 735; Polhill, 394.
  40. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 518; Bock, 735.
  41. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 516; Bock, 735.
  42. Berry, 536; Arndt and Gingrich, 239.
  43. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 332.
  44. Arndt and Gingrich, 437.
  45. Unger, "Euroclydon," Dictionary, 328.
  46. Smith, 97 (map), Payne, 117.
  47. Ed Rickard, Physics: The Foundational Science (Pensacola, Fla.: A Beka Book Publications, 1990), 145–146.
  48. Payne, 117.
  49. Ibid.; Polhill, 385; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 519.
  50. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 519; Polhill, 385.
  51. Smith, 101.
  52. Pliny Natural History 2.46; E. A. Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1851), 127; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 518.
  53. Aland et al., 522.
  54. Ibid., xix–xx.
  55. Ibid., 522; Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts 53.
  56. Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts 45.
  57. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 356–357.
  58. Ibid., 332.
  59. Ibid.
  60. Homer Odyssey 5.295; Iliad 2.145, 9.5, 11.305, etc.
  61. Pliny Natural History 2.46.
  62. Payne, 116–117; Smith, 97 (map).
  63. Aristotle Meteorology 2.6.
  64. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 332.
  65. Pliny Natural History 2.46.
  66. Polhill, 385; Payne, 111.
  67. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 8.266652.
  68. Pliny Natural History 2.46, 47; Andrews, 1397.
  69. Pliny Natural History 2.46; Andrews, 127.
  70. Pliny Natural History 2.46, 47.
  71. Ibid.; Andrews, 181.
  72. Conybeare and Howson, 2.402.
  73. Nicholas Purcell, "Review of Euroclydon: A Tempestuous Wind by Paul Coones," The Classical Review 39 (1989): 422. The original monograph by Coones was Research Paper 36 (Oxford: Oxford School of Geography, 1986).
  74. Smith, 107–108; Bock, 735.
  75. Smith, 108-109, 212-215; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 519–520; Polhill, 385; Bock, 736; Marshall, 429; Longenecker, 561.
  76. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 520; Smith, 109-111; Marshall, 429; Bock, 735–736; Polhill, 385.
  77. Berry, 536; Smith, 109; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 520; Marshall, 430; Polhill, 385.
  78. Smith, 111–113; Polhill, 385; Marshall, 430; Bock, 736.
  79. Smith, 114; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 520.
  80. Smith, 202–205.
  81. Ibid., 190–201.
  82. Vine, 450; Smith, 192-193.
  83. Smith 115–116; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 520; Bock, 736; Polhill, 385; Marshall, 430.
  84. Smith, 120, 162; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 522.
  85. Smith, 162–167; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 522; Polhill, 386; Bock, 738–739; Marshall, 431.
  86. Smith, 129, Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 522–523; Polhill, 386; Bock, 739; Marshall, 432.
  87. Berry, 538.
  88. Arndt and Gingrich, 583.
  89. Smith, 131–137; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 523; Polhill, 386; Marshall, 432.
  90. Smith, 129 (map).
  91. Ibid., 140.
  92. Ibid., 127; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 522.
  93. Smith, 125–128.
  94. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 524; Bock, 739; Polhill, 386.
  95. Alan D. Lieberson, "How long can a person survive without food?" Scientific American, Web (scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-person-sur/), 2/1/19.
  96. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 525.
  97. Bock, 740; Marshall, 434.
  98. Lucian The Ship or the Wishes 1.
  99. Ibid., 5.
  100. Caleb Johnson, "Inside the Mayflower," MayflowerHistory.com, Web (mayflow-erhistory.com/cross-section/), 2/5/19; "Mayflower," Wikipedia, Web (en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Mayflower), 2/5/19.
  101. Jos. Life 3.
  102. Smith, 129 (map).
  103. Berry, 539; Smith, 141; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 527; Bock, 741; Polhill, 387; Marshall, 435.
  104. Smith, 141; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 527; Bock, 741; Marshall, 435.
  105. Ibid.; Polhill, 387.
  106. Smith, 129 (map); Jefferson White, Evidence and Paul’s Journeys; An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul (Hilliard Ohio: Parsagard Press, 2001), 76–80, 158 (map).
  107. Berry, 539.
  108. Arndt and Gingrich, 194.
  109. Bock, 741; Longenecker, 562; White, 76–80.
  110. Smith, 143–144; Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 527; Bock, 741; Polhill, 387; Marshall, 435; White, 76–80.
  111. Rickard, Perils, 1:225; Longenecker, 562.
  112. Bruce, Acts, 3rd ed., 528.

This page is one chapter of a larger book. Therefore, not all references are complete. You can see full citations in the bibliography.

Further Reading


This lesson appears in Ed Rickard's In Perils Abounding, vol. 2, Commentary on Acts 15-28, which is available from Amazon.com. Also available is volume 1, covering Acts 1-14. For information on how to obtain them, click here.