《Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》(Henry Alford) Commentator

8. μόλις παρ.] “After passing this point (Salmone), the difficulty they experienced in navigating to the westward along the coasts of Asia, would recur; but as the south side of Crete is also a weather shore with N.W. winds, they would be able to work up as far as Cape Matala. Here the land trends suddenly to the N., and the advantages of a weather shore cease, and their only resource was to make for a harbour. Now Fair Havens is the harbour nearest to Cape Matala, the farthest point to which an ancient ship could have attained with N.W.-ly winds”. Smith, ib.

παραλεγ. does not, as Servius on Æn. iii. 127 supposes, imply that the ship was towed (“funem legendo, i.e. colligendo, aspera loca prætereunt”), but, as Meyer explains it, that, the places on the coast being touched (or perhaps, rather, appearing) one after another, are, as it were, gathered up by the navigators.

Mr. Smith (p. 42) exposes the mistake of Eustathius (adopted by Valpy, from Dr. Falconer), by which the ship taking the S. coast of Crete is attempted to be explained: viz. δυσλίμενος ἡ κρήτη πρὸς τὴν βόῤῥαν: whereas there are, in fact, excellent harbours on the N. side of Crete,—Souda and Spina Longa.

καλοὺς λιμένας] The situation of this anchorage was ascertained by Pococke, from the fact of the name still remaining. “In searching after Lebena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of greater consequence, because mentioned in Holy Scripture, and also honoured by the presence of St. Paul, that is, ‘the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea;’ for there is another small bay about two leagues to the E. of Matala, which is now called by the Greeks good or fair havens ( λιμέονες καλούς):” (Calolimounias of Mr. Brown’s letter: see excursus as above.) Travels in the East, ii. p. 250: cited by Mr. Smith, who adds: “The most conclusive evidence that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture, is, that its position is precisely that where a ship circumstanced as St. Paul’s was, must have put in. I have already shewn that the wind must have been about N.W.;—but with such a wind she could not pass Cape Matala: we must therefore look near, but to the E. of this promontory, for an anchorage well calculated to shelter a vessel in N.W. winds, but not from all winds, otherwise it would not have been, in the opinion of seamen (Acts 27:12), an unsafe winter harbour. Now here we have a harbour which not only fulfils every one of the conditions, but still retains the name given to it by St. Luke.” Smith, p. 45. He also gives an engraving of the place from a sketch by Signr. Schranz, the artist who accompanied Mr. Pashley in his travels.

There is no ground for identifying this anchorage with καλὴ ἀκτή mentioned as a city in Crete by Steph. Byzant. For this is clearly not the name of a city, by the subjoined notice, ᾧ ἐγγὺς ἦν πόλις λασέα.

Nor is there any reason to suppose, with Meyer, that the name καλοὶ λιμ. was euphemistically given,—because the harbour was not one to winter in: this (see above) it may not have been, and yet may have been an excellent refuge at particular times, as now, from prevailing westerly winds.

λασέα] This place was, until recently, altogether unknown; and from the variety of readings, the very name was uncertain. Pliny (iv. 12) mentions Lasos among the cities of Crete, but does not indicate its situation. It is singular, and tends to support the identity of Lasos with our Lasea, that as here Alassa, so there Alos, is a various reading. The reading Thalassa appears to have been an error of a transcriber from - αλασσα forming so considerable a part of a word of such common occurrence.

There is a Lisia named in Crete in the Peutinger Table, which may be the same. On the very interesting discovery of Lasea by the Rev. G. Brown in the beginning of the year 1856, see the excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. The ruins are on the beach, about two hours eastward of Fair Havens.

Verse 9

9. ἱκανοῦ χρ.] Not ‘since the beginning of our voyage,’ as Meyer:—the time was spent at the anchorage.

τοῦ πλοός] Not ‘sailing,’ but the voyage, viz. to Rome,—which henceforth was given up as hopeless for this autumn and winter. That this is the meaning of ὁ πλοῦς, see ch. Acts 21:7. And by observing this, we avoid a difficulty which has been supposed to attend the words. Sailing was not unsafe so early as this (see below); but to undertake so long a voyage, was.

τὴν νηστείαν] The fast, κατʼ ἐξοχήν, is the solemn fast of the day of expiation, the 10th of Tisri, the seventh month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, and the first of the civil year. See Leviticus 16:29 ff; Leviticus 23:26 ff. This would be about the time of the autumnal equinox. The sailing season did not close so early: ‘Ex die igitur tertio iduum Novembris, usque in diem sextum iduum Martiarum, maria clauduntur.’ Vegetius (Smith, p. 45, note) de Re Milit. iv. 39.

Verse 10

10.] From the use of θεωρῶ here, and from the saying itself, it seems clear to me that Paul was not uttering at present any prophetic intimation, but simply his own sound judgment on the difficult question at issue. It is otherwise at Acts 27:22-24. As Smith remarks, “The event justified St. Paul’s advice. At the same time it may be observed, that a bay, open to nearly one half the compass, could not have been a good winter harbour.” (p. 47.)

μετὰ ὕβρεως is interpreted by Meyer as subjective—‘accompanied with presumption on our part:’ but not to mention that this would be a very unusual sense, Acts 27:21, κερδῆσαι τὴν ὕβριν ταύτ. κ. τ. ζημίαν, is decisive (De W.) against it.

ὅτι … μέλλειν] A mixing of two constructions, see Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 8, remark 2. This is most flagrant in later writers, as Pausanias and Arrian,—see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 369; but is also found earlier, e.g. Plato, Charm., p. 165: οὐκ ἂν αἰσχυνθείην ὅτι μὴ οὐχὶ ὀρθῶς φάναι εἰρηκέναι. Isæus, περὶ τοῦ φιλοκτ. κληρ. p. 57: ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσδιαμεμαρτύρηκεν ὡς υἱὸν εἶναι γνήσιον εὐκτήμονος τοῦτον … See other references in Winer, 1. c.

Verse 11

11. τ. ναυκλήρῳ] the owner of the ship. Wetst. cites from Plutarch, ναύτας μὲν ἐκλέγεται κυβερνήτης, καὶ κυβερνήτην ναύκληρος. So Hesych⁽¹⁵⁶⁾: ναύκληρος, ὁ δεσπότης τ. πλοίου,—and Xen. Œcon. viii. 12: φορτίων, ὅσα ναυκλήροις κέρδους ἕνεκα ἄγεται. (Kuin.)

Verse 12

12.] See above on Acts 27:8. The anchorage was sheltered from the N. W., but not from nearly half the compass. Grotius and Heinsius’s rendering of πρὸς παραχειμ., ‘ad vitandam tempestatem,’ is contrary to usage, besides being singularly inconsistent with the fact in more ways than one. For this purpose the anchorage was εὔθετος, and in it they had (see next verse) actually ridden out the storm, before they left it.

ἐκεῖθεν] The κἀκεῖθεν of the rec. would be thence also, as from their former stopping-places.

φοίνικα] Ptolemy (iii. 17) calls the haven φοινικοῦς, and the city (lying some way inland) φοῖνιξ. Strabo (x. 4) says, τὸ δὲ ἔνθεν ἰσθμός ἐστιν ὡς ἑκατὸν σταδίων, ἔχων κατοικίαν πρὸς μὲν τῇ βορείῳ θαλάττῃ ἀμφιμάλλαν, πρὸς δὲ τῇ νοτίῳ φοινικὴ τῶν λαμπέων. This description, and the other data belonging to Phœnice, Smith (p. 48) has shewn to fit the modern Lutro, which, though not known now as an anchorage, probably from the silting up of the harbour, is so marked in the French admiralty chart of 1738, and “if then able to shelter the smallest craft, must have been capable of receiving the largest ships seventeen centuries before.”

See an inscription making it highly probable that Alexandrian ships did winter at Lutro, in the excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts.

βλέποντα κατὰ λίβα κ. κατὰ χῶρον] looking (literally) down the S.W. and N.W. winds; i.e. in the direction of these winds, viz. N.E. and S.E. For λίψ and χῶρος are not quarters of the compass, but winds; and κατά, used with a wind, denotes the direction of its blowing,—down the wind. This interpretation, which I was long ago persuaded was the right one, I find now confirmed by the opinion of Mr. Smith, who cites Herod, iv. 110, ἐφέροντο κατὰ κῦμα καὶ ἄνεμον, and Arrian, Periplus Euxini, p. 3, ἄφνω νεφελὴ ἐπαναστᾶσα ἐξεῤῥάγη κατʼ εὖρον. So also κατὰ ῥόον, Herod, ii. 96. And in Jos. Antt. xv. 9. 6, the coasts near Cæsarea are said to be δύσορμα διὰ τὰς κατὰ λίβα προσβολάς. See also Thucyd. vi. 104. In the reff., the substantive is not one of motion like λίψ, χῶρος, or ῥόος, but of fixed location, as μεσημβρία, σκόπος. The direction then is towards the spot indicated, just as in the present case it is in that of the motion indicated. The harbour of Lutro satisfies these conditions; and is even more decisively pointed out as being the spot by a notice in the Synecdemus of Hierocles, φοινίκη ἤτοι ἀράδενα· νῆσος κλαῦδος. Now Mr. Pashley found a village called Aradhena a short distance above Lutro, and another close by called Anopolis, of which Steph. Byz. says, ἀράδην πόλις κρήτηι· ἡ δὲ ἀνωπόλις λέγεται, διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἄνω. From these data it is almost demonstrated that the port of Phœnice is the present port of Lutro. Ptolemy’s longitude for port Phœnice also agrees. See Smith, pp. 51 ff. Mr. Smith has kindly sent me the following extract from a letter containing additional confirmation of the view: ‘Loutro is an excellent harbour; you open it unexpectedly, the rocks stand apart and the town appears within. During the Greek war, when cruising with Lord Cochrane, … chased a pirate schooner, as they thought, right upon the rocks; suddenly he disappeared, and when rounding in after him,—like a change of scenery, the little basin, its shipping, and the town of Loutro, revealed themselves.’ See Prof. Hackett’s note, impugning the above view and interpretation; which however does not alter my opinion. Dean Howson gives his solution thus: “The difficulty is to be explained simply by remembering that sailors speak of every thing from their own point of view, and that the harbour (see chart in C. and H. ii. 397) does look—from the water towards the land which encloses it—in the direction of S.W. and N.W.” But I cannot believe, till experience can be shewn to confirm the idea, that even sailors could speak of a harbour as ‘looking’ in the direction in which they would look when entering it.

Verse 13

13. ὑποπνεύσαντος] as E. V., softly blowing, compare ὑπομειδιάω. The S. wind was favourable for them in sailing from Fair Havens to Phœnice.

δόξ. τ. προθ. κεκρατ.] imagining that they had (as good as) accomplished their purpose; i.e. that it would now be a very easy matter to reach Phœnice.

ἄραντες “may be translated either ‘weighed,’ or ‘set sail;’ for ancient authors supply sometimes τὰς ἀγκύρας, and sometimes τὰ ἱστία.… Julius Pollux, however, like St. Luke, supplies neither, which is certainly the most nautical way of expressing it: he says, αἴροντες ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, lib. i. 103.” Smith, p. 55.

ἆσσον παρ.] They crept close along the land till they passed Cape Matala. “A ship which could not lie nearer to the wind than seven points, would just weather that point which bears W. by S. from the entrance of Fair Havens. We see therefore the propriety of the expression ἆσσον παρ., ‘they sailed close by Crete,’ which the author uses to describe the first part of their passage.” Smith, p. 56.

The Vulg. has: ‘quum sustulissent de Asson,’ connecting ἄραντες with ἄσσον, and understanding the latter as the name of a Cretan town. There is an Asus mentioned by Pliny (iv. 12), but it is ‘in Mediterraneo,’ not on the coast,—and the construction would be inadmissible. Erasmus, Luther, &c., have taken ἄσσον as the accusative of direction, ‘when they had weighed for Assus.’ But besides the local objection, this construction also would be most harsh, as ἄραντες does not indicate the progress of their voyage, but only the setting out. Heinsius took ἄραντες = ἀναφανέντες, ch. Acts 21:3,—‘postquam Asos attollere se visa est’ (Meyer). But there can be little doubt that all of these are mistakes, and that ἆσσον is the adverb.

Verse 14

14. ἔβαλεν κατʼ αὐτῆς] These difficult words have been taken in three ways: (1) (The common interpretation) referring αὐτῆς to τὴν κρήτην just mentioned. Thus they might mean, ( α) ‘drove (us) against Crete,’ or ( β) ‘struck (blew) against Crete,’ i.e. in the direction of Crete. Now of these, ( α) is contrary to the expressed fact:—they were not driven against Crete. And ( β) is as inconsistent with the implied fact. Had the wind blown in the direction of Crete at all, they, who gave themselves up to it, and were driven before it ( ἐπιδόντες ἐφερόμεθα, Acts 27:15), must have been stranded on the Cretan coast, which they were not. (2) referring αὐτῆς to the ship, understood. This is adopted by Dr. Bloomfield and Mr. Smith. (The latter, I find by a letter received since this note was written, now understands it as I have explained it below.) But not to mention the harshness occasioned by having to supply a subject for αὐτῆς which has never yet been mentioned,—a decisive objection against this rendering is, that the ship throughout the narrative is τὸ πλοῖον, not ἡ ναῦς, in every place except Acts 27:41,—and τὸ πλ. occurs in the very next clause, which, had this been meant of the ship, would certainly have been expressed συναρπασθείσης δέ, or συναρπασθείσης δὲ αὐτῆς. (3) referring αὐτῆς to προθέσεως. In that case ἔβαλεν κατʼ αὐτῆς must either ( α) = κατέβαλεν ἡμᾶς ἀπʼ αὐτῆς, as Plato, Euthyph. 15 E, ἀπʼ ἐλπίδος με καταβαλὼν μεγάλης ἀπέρχει, which is harsh, and hardly allowable; or ( β) be understood, taking the neuter sense of βάλλω ( ποταμὸς εἰς ἅλα βάλλων, Il. λ. 722), as meaning ‘blew against it,’so as to thwart their design. And so Luther: ‘erhob sich wider ihr Bornehmen.’ But this mixture of literal and figurative is also harsh, and hardly allowable. (4) A method has occurred to me of rendering the words, which seems to remove all harshness, whether of reference in αὐτῆς, or of construction. There can be no question that the obvious reference of αὐτῆς is to Crete. What then is ἔβαλεν κατʼ αὐτῆς? ἔβαλεν applied to wind may be understood as above, neuter, or reflective, ‘blew,’ ‘rushed.’ Assuming this, and that there is no object to be supplied between ἔβαλεν and the preposition, κατʼ αὐτῆς may surely be rendered, as in βῆ δὲ κατʼ οὐλύμποιο καρήνων,— κατʼ ἰδαίων ὀρέων,— κατὰ πέτρης, &c., viz. down (from) Crete, ‘down the high lands forming the coast.’ It is a common expression in lake and coasting navigation, that ‘a gust came down the valleys.’ And this would be exactly the direction of the wind in question. When they had doubled, or perhaps were now doubling, Cape Matala, the wind suddenly changed, and the typhoon came down upon them from the high lands;—at first, as long as they were sheltered, only by fits down the gullies, but as soon as they were in the open bay past the cape, with its full violence. This, the hurricane rushing down the high lands when first observed, and afterwards συναρπάζων τὸ πλοῖον, seems to me exactly to describe their changed circumstances in passing the cape. A confirmation of this interpretation may be found by Luke himself using κατέβη to express the descending of a squall from the hills on the lake of Gennesareth, Luke 8:23, where Matt. and Mark have only ἐγένετο and γίνεται. Mr. Smith also suggests κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ, Luke 8:33, as confirmatory. The above is also Dean Howson’s view. See, in the excursus appended to the Prolegg. to Acts, the confirmation of this view in what actually happened to the Rev. G. Brown’s party.

τυφωνικός] “The sudden change from a south wind to a violent northerly wind, is a common occurrence in these seas. (Captain J. Stewart, R.N., in his remarks on the Archipelago, observes, “It is always safe to anchor under the lee of an island with a northerly wind, as it dies gradually away; but it would be extremely dangerous with southerly winds, as they almost invariably shift to a violent northerly wind.”) The term ‘typhonic’ indicates that it was accompanied by some of the phænomena which might be expected in such a case, viz. the agitation and whirling motion of the clouds caused by the meeting of the opposite currents of air when the change took place, and probably also of the sea, raising it in columns of spray. Pliny (ii. 48), speaking of ‘repentini flatus,’ says, ‘vorticem faciunt qui Typhon vocatur:’ Aul. Gell. xix. 1, ‘Turbines etiam crebriores … et figuræ quædam nubium tremendæ quas τυφῶνας vocabant.’ ” Smith, p. 60.

εὐρακύλων] I have adopted the reading of ^{(157) (158) (159)}, according to my principle of going, in all cases where there is no overpowering objection, by our most ancient MSS. It may be that εὐρακύλων had become in common parlance corrupted into εὐροκλύδων, an anomalous word, having no assignable derivation, but perhaps arising from the Greek sailors having changed the Latin termination into one having significance for themselves. Mr. Smith, in his appendix, ‘On the Wind Euroclydon,’ has satisfactorily answered the objections of Bryant to the compound εὐρακύλων,—by shewing that εὖρος properly, was not the S.E., but the E. wind; and that compounds of Greek and Latin in the names of winds are not unknown, e.g. Euro-Auster.

The direction of the wind is established by Mr. S., from what follows, to have been about half a point N. of E.N.E.; and the subsequent narrative shews that the wind continued to blow from this point till they reached Malta.

Verse 15

15. συναρπ.] being hurried away, ‘borne along,’ by it: see reff.

ἀντοφθαλμεῖν] It is hardly likely that this term, which is used so naturally and constantly of men facing an enemy (Polyb. i. 17. 3, and eight times more), and also metaphorically of resisting temptation ( μὴ δύνασθαι τοῖς χρήμασιν ἀντοφθαλμεῖν, Polyb. xxviii. 17. 18), should have been originally a naval term, derived from the practice of painting eyes on either side of the beaks of ships. More probably the expression was transferred to a ship from its usage in common life.

ἐπιδόντες] So Plutarch de Fortun. Rom. cited in note on Acts 27:26. Either ‘the ship,’ or ‘ourselves,’ may be supplied: or better perhaps, neither, but the word taken generally—giving up.

ἐφερόμεθα] passive: we were driven along.

Verse 16

16. ὑποδραμόντες] running under the lee of.

“St. Luke exhibits here as on every other occasion, the most perfect command of nautical terms, and gives the utmost precision to his language by selecting the most appropriate: they ran before the wind to leeward of Clauda, hence it is ὑπο δραμόντες: they sailed with a side wind to leeward of Cyprus and Crete: hence it is ὑπ επλεύσαμεν” (Smith, p. 61, note).

κλαῦδα] Here again, there can be little doubt that the name of the island was καῦδα, or γαῦδα, as we have in some MSS., or, as in Pliny and Mela, Gaudos: but Ptol. (iii. 7) has κλαῦδος, and the corruption was very obvious. The island is the modern Gozzo.

ἰσχύσαμ. μόλ. κ. τ. λ.] “Upon reaching Clauda, they availed themselves of the smooth water under its lee, to prepare the ship to resist the fury of the storm. Their first care was to secure the boat by hoisting it on board. This had not been done at first, because the weather was moderate, and the distance they had to go, short. Under such circumstances, it is not usual to hoist boats on board, but it had now become necessary. In running down upon Clauda, it could not be done, on account of the ship’s way through the water. To enable them to do it, the ship must have been rounded to, with her head to the wind, and her sails, if she had any set at the time, trimmed, so that she had no head-way, or progressive movement. In this position she would drift, broadside to leeward. I conclude they passed round the east end of the island: not only because it was nearest, but because ‘an extensive reef with numerous rocks extends from Gozzo to the N. W., which renders the passage between the two isles very dangerous’ (Sailing Directions, p. 207). In this case the ship would be brought to on the starboard tack, i.e. with the right side to windward.” … “St. Luke tells us they had much difficulty in securing the boat. He does not say why: but independently of the gale which was raging at the time, the boat had been towed between twenty and thirty miles after the gale had sprung up, and could scarcely fail to be filled with water.” Smith, pp. 64, 65.

Verse 17

17.] ἄραντες, having taken on board.

βοηθείαις] measures to strengthen the ship, strained and weakened by labouring in the gale. Pliny (ii. 48) calls the typhoon ‘præcipua navigantium pestis, non antennas modo, verum ipsa navigia contorta frangens.’ Grot., Heinsius, &c., are clearly wrong in interpreting βοηθεί., ‘the help of the passengers.’

ὑποζωννύντες τ. πλ.] undergirding, or frapping the ship. “To frap a ship (ceintrer un vaisseau) is to pass four or five turns of a large cable-laid rope round the hull or frame of a ship, to support her in a great storm, or otherwise, when it is apprehended that she is not strong enough to resist the violent efforts of the sea: this expedient, however, is rarely put in practice.” Falconer’s Marine Dict.:—Smith, p. 60, who brings several instances of the practice, in our own times. See additional ones in C. and H. ii. 404, f. Horace seems to allude to it, Od. i. 14. 3, ‘ac sine funibus Vix durare carinæ Possint imperiosius Æquor.’ See reff.

τὴν σύρτιν] The Syrtis, on the African coast; there were two, the greater and the lesser ( αἱ φοβεραὶ καὶ τοῖς ἀκούουσι σύρτεις, Jos. B. J. ii. 16. 4), of which the former was the nearer to them.

ἐκπέσωσιν] See reff. and add φερόμενοι τῷ πνεύματι … ἐξέπιπτον πρὸς τὰς πέτρας, Herodot. viii. 13.

χαλ. τ. σκεῦος] “It is not easy to imagine a more erroneous translation than that of our authorized version: ‘Fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, they strake sail, and so were driven.’ It is in fact equivalent to saying that, fearing a certain danger, they deprived themselves of the only possible means of avoiding it.” Smith, p. 67. He goes on to explain, that if they had struck sail, they must have been driven directly towards the Syrtis. They therefore set what sail the violence of the gale would permit them to carry, turning the ship’s head off shore, she having already been brought to on the starboard tack (right side to the wind). The adoption of this course would enable them to run before the gale, and yet keep wide of the African coast, which we know they did. But what is χαλ. τὸ σκεῦος? It is interpreted by Meyer, De W., and most Commentators, of striking sail (as E.V.): but this (see above) could not be: “In a storm with a contrary wind or on a lee-shore, a ship is obliged to lie-to under a very low sail: some sail is absolutely necessary to keep the ship steady, otherwise she would pitch about like a cork, and roll so deep as to strain and work herself to pieces.” Encycl. Brit. art. ‘Seamanship:’ Smith, p. 72, who interprets the words, lowering the gear, i.e. sending down upon deck the gear connected with the fair-weather sails, such as the suppara, or top-sails. A modern ship sends down top-gallant masts and yards, a cutter strikes her topmast, when preparing for a gale. In this case it was perhaps the heavy yard which the ancient ships carried, with the sail attached to it, and the heavy ropes, which would by their top-weight produce uneasiness of motion as well as resistance to the wind. See a letter addressed to Mr. Smith by Capt. Spratt, R.N., quoted in C. and H. ii. p. 405, note 5.

οὕτως] i.e. “not only with the ship undergirded, and made snug, but with storm-sails set, and on the starboard tack, which was the only course by which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis.” Smith, ib.

Verse 18