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

18. ἐκβολ. ἐποι.] “The technical terms for taking cargo out of a ship, given by Julius Pollux, are ἐκθέσθαι, ἀποφορτίσασθαι, κουφίσαι τὴν ναῦν, ἐπελάφρυναι, ἐκβολὴν ποιήσασθαι τῶν φορτίων. So that both here, and afterwards in Acts 27:38 ( ἐκούφιζον τ. πλοῖον), St. Luke uses appropriate technical phrases.” Smith, ib.

Of what the freight consisted, we have no intimation. Perhaps not of wheat, on account of the separate statement of Acts 27:38. See ref.

Verse 19

19. τ. σκευὴν τ. πλ. ἔῤῥ.] ἡ σκευή is the furniture of the ship—beds, moveables of all kinds, cooking utensils, and the spare rigging.

αὐτόχειρες is used with ἔῤῥιψαν as shewing the urgency of the danger—when the seamen would with their own hands, cast away what otherwise was needful to the ship and themselves. This not being seen, αὐτόχ. has been supposed to imply the first person, and ἐῤῥίψαμεν. has crept in: see var. readd.

Verse 20

20.] The sun and stars were the only guides of the ancients when out of sight of land. The expression, all hope was taken away, seems, as Mr. Smith has noticed, to betoken that a greater evil than the mere force of the storm (which perhaps had some little abated:— χ. οὐκ ὀλίγου seems to imply that it still indeed raged, but not as before) was afflicting them, viz., the leaky state of the ship, which increased upon them, as is shewn by their successive lightenings of her.

Verse 21

21. ἀσιτίας] “What caused the abstinence? A ship with nearly 300 people on board, on a voyage of some length, must have had more than a fortnight’s provisions (and see Acts 27:38): and it is not enough to say with Kuinoel, ‘Continui labores et metus a periculis effecerant ut de cibo capiendo non cogitarent.’ ‘Much abstinence’ is one of the most frequent concomitants of heavy gales. The impossibility of cooking, or the destruction of provisions from leakage, are the principal causes which produce it.” Smith, p. 75: who quotes instances. But doubtless anxiety and mental distress had a considerable share in it.

τότε brings vividly before us the consequence of the ἀσιτία—when they were in that condition, languid and exhausted with fasting and fears.

κερδῆσαι] ‘lucrifecisse,’ to have gained, not = to have incurred,—but to have turned to your own account, i.e. ‘to have spared or avoided.’ So Jos. in ref. Aristotle, Magn. Mor. ii. 8, ᾧ κατὰ λόγον ζημίαν ἦν λαβεῖν, τὸν τοιοῦτον κερδάναντα εὐτυχῆ φάμεν (‘if he escape it’). Plin. vii. 40, ‘quam quidem injuriam lucrifecit ille.’ Cicero, Verr. Acts 1:12, ‘lucretur indicia veteris infamiæ’ (‘may have them wiped out,’ and so make gain of them by getting rid of them).

ὕβριν] See on Acts 27:10. “The ὕβριν was to their persons, the ζημίαν to their property.” C. and H. ii. 410, note 4.

Verse 22

22.] The neglect of precision in ἀποβολὴ ψυχῆς οὐδεμία … πλὴν τοῦ πλοίου is common enough. So Revelation 21:27, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ … πᾶν κοινὸν κ. ποιῶν βδέλυγμα … εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ β. τ. ζωῆς. See Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1. e.

Verse 23

23.] Paul characterizes himself as dedicated to and the servant of God, to give solemnity to and bespeak credit for his announcement. At such a time, the servants of God are highly esteemed.

Verse 24

24. κεχάρισται] “Etiam centurio, subserviens providentiæ divinæ, Paulo condonavit captivos, Acts 27:43 … Non erat tam periculoso alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur Paulus, quæ necessario dicebat, gloriose dicere.” Bengel.

μετὰ σοῦ] “Paulus, in conspectu Dei, princeps navis, et consiliis gubernator.” Ib.

Verse 26

26. δεῖ] Spoken prophetically, as also Acts 27:31; not perhaps from actual revelation imparted in the vision, but by a power imparted to Paul himself of penetrating the future at this crisis, and announcing the Divine counsel.

Mr. Humphry compares and contrasts the speech of Cæsar to the pilot under similar circumstances: τόλμα κ. δέδιθι μηθέν, ἀλλὰ ἐπιδίδου τῇ τύχῃ τὰ ἱστία καὶ δέχου τὸ πνεῦμα, τῷ πνέοντι πιστεύων, ὅτι καίσαρα φέρεις καὶ τὴν καίσαρος τύχην, Plut. de Fortun. Rom. p. 518.

Verse 27

27. διαφερ.] driven about, or up and down, as E. V., not ‘drifting through,’ as Dr. Bloomf., though this may have been the fact; see examples below. Plutarch speaking of the tumult during which Galba was murdered, τοῦ φορείου καθάπερ ἐν κλύδωνι δεῦρο κἀκεῖ διαφερομένου (probably from Tacitus, ‘Agebatur huc illuc Galba, vario turbœ fluctuantis impulsu,’ Hist. i. 40); Philo, de Migr. Abr. p. 464, ἐπαμφοτερισταὶ πρὸς ἐκάτερον τοῖχον, ὥσπερ σκάφος ὑπʼ ἐναντίων πνευμάτων διαφερόμενου, ἀποκλίνοντες. The reckoning of days counts from their leaving Fair Havens: see Acts 27:18-19.

ἐν τῷ ἀδρίᾳ] Adria, in the wider sense, embraces net only the Venetian Gulf, but the sea to the south of Greece:—so Ptolemy (iii. 16), ἡ δὲ πελοπόννησος ὁρίζεται … ἀπὸ δυσμῶν καὶ μεσημβρίας τῷ ἀδριατικῷ πελάγει. So also (iii. 4) ἡ δὲ σικελία ὁρίζεται … ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδρίου πελάγους. In fact, he bounds Italy on the S., Sicily on the E., Greece on the S. and W., and Crete on the W. by this sea, which notices sufficiently indicate its dimensions. So also Pausanias (Acts 27:25), speaking of the straits of Messina, says that the sea there is θαλἀσσης χειμεριωτάτη πάσης. οἵ τε γὰρ ἄνεμοι ταράσσουσιν αὐτὴν ἀμφοτέρωθεν τὸ κῦμα ἐπάγοντες, ἐκ τοῦ ἀδρίου, καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρου πελάγους ὃ καλεῖται τυρσηνόν.

ὑπενόουν] What gave rise to this suspicion? Probably the sound (or even the apparent sight) of breakers. “If we assume that St. Paul’s Bay, in Malta, is the actual scene of the shipwreck, we can have no difficulty in explaining what these indications must have been. No ship can enter it 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 in a dark night. When she does come within this distance, it is impossible to avoid observing the breakers: for with north-easterly gales, the sea breaks upon it with such violence, that Capt. Smyth, in his view of the headland, has made the breakers its distinctive character.” Smith, p. 79.

I recommend the reader to study the reasonings and calculations by which Mr. Smith (pp. 79–86) has established, I think satisfactorily, that this χώραν could be no other than the point of Koura, east of St. Paul’s Bay, in Malta.

προσάγειν] was approaching them. The opposite is ἀναχωρεῖν, ‘recedere.’ ‘Lucas optice loquitur, nautarum more.’ Kuin.

Verse 28

28. βολίσαντες] βολίζειν, ἤγουν βάθος θαλάσσης μετρεῖν μολυβδίνῃ καθέτῳ, ἢ τοιούτῳ τινί. Eustath⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ on Il. ε. p. 427 (Wetst.).

ὀργυιάς] ὀργυιὰ σημαίνει τὴν ἔκτασιν τῶν χειρῶν σὺν τῷ πλάτει τοῦ στήθους (Etymol. Magn.) = therefore very nearly one fathom. Every particular here corresponds with the actual state of things. At twenty-five fathoms depth (as given in evidence at the court-martial on the officers of the Lively, wrecked on this point in 1810), the curl of the sea was seen on the rocks in the night, but no land. The twenty fathoms would occur somewhat past this: the fifteen fathoms, in a direction W. by N. from the former, after a time sufficient to prepare for the unusual measure of anchoring by the stern. And just so are the soundings (see Capt. Smyth’s chart, Smith, p. 88), and the shore is here full of τραχεῖς τόποι, mural precipices, upon which the sea must have been breaking with great violence.

Verse 29

29. ἐκ πρύμνης] The usual way of anchoring in ancient, as well as in modern navigation, was by the bow: ‘anchora de prora jacitur.’ But under certain circumstances, they anchored by the stern; and Mr. Smith has shewn from the figure of a ship which he has copied from the “Antichità de Ercolano,” that their ships had hawse-holes aft, to fit them for anchoring by the stern. “That a vessel can anchor by the stern is sufficiently proved (if proof were needed) by the history of some of our own naval engagements. So it was at the battle of the Nile. And when ships are about to attack batteries, it is customary for them to go into action prepared to anchor in this way. This was the case at Algiers. There is still greater interest in quoting the instance of the battle of Copenhagen, not only from the accounts we have of the precision with which each ship let go her anchors astern as she arrived nearly opposite her appointed station, but because it is said that Nelson stated after the battle that he had that morning been reading Acts 27.” C. and H. ii. p. 414. The passage from Cæsar, Bell. Civ. i. 25, ‘has quaternis ancoris ex quatuor angulis distinebat, ne fluctibus moverentur,’ is not to the purpose, for it was in that case a platform composed of two vessels, and anchored by the four corners. “The anchorage in St. Paul’s Bay is thus described in the Sailing Directions: ‘The harbour of St. Paul is open to E. and N.E. 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.’ ” Smith, p. 92.

εὔχοντο] Uncertain, whether their ship might not go down at her anchors: and, even supposing her to ride out the night safely, uncertain whether the coast to leeward might not be iron-bound, affording no beach where they might land in safety. Hence also the ungenerous but natural attempt of the seamen to save their lives by taking to the boat. See Smith, p. 97.

Verse 30

30.] “We hear of anchors being laid out from both ends of a ship ( ἑκατέρωθεν), Appian, Bell. Civ. p. 723.” ib.

ἐκτείνειν] because in this case they would carry out the anchors to the extent of the cable which was loosened.

Verse 31

31. ἐὰν μὴ κ. τ. λ.] “Mirum est quod reliquos vectores salvos posse fieri negat, nisi retentis nautis: quasi vero Dei promissionem exinanire penes ipsos fuerit. Respondeo, Paulum hic de potentia Dei præcise non disputare, ut eam a voluntate et mediis sejungat: et certe non ideo fidelibus virtutem suam Deus commendat, ut contemptis mediis torpori et socordiæ indulgeant, vel temere se projiciant, ubi certa est cavendi ratio.… Neque tamen propterea sequitur, mediis vel adminiculis alligatam esse Dei manum, sed quum Deus hunc vel ilium agendi modum ordinat, hominum sensus continet, ne præscriptas sibi metas transiliant.” Calvin.

Verse 33

33.] This precaution on the part of Paul was another means taken of providing for their safety. All would, on the approaching day, have their strength fully taxed: which therefore needed recruiting by food.

ἄχρι … οὗ … until it began to be day: i.e. in the interval between the last-mentioned occurrence and daybreak, Paul employed the time, &c.

προσδοκῶντες] waiting the cessation of the storm. The following expressions, ἄσιτ. διατ., μηθ. προσλ., are spoken hyperbolically, and cannot mean literally that they had abstained entirely from food during the whole fortnight.

πρός with a gen. (‘e salute vestra’) is only found here in N. T.: compare ref., and ἐλπίσας πρὸς ἑωυτοῦ τὸν χρησμὸν εἶναι, Herodot. i. 75.

Verse 35

35.] “Paul neither celebrates an ἀγάπη (Olsh.), nor acts as the father of a family (Meyer), but simply as a pious Jew, who asks a blessing before he eats.” De Wette.

Verse 36

36.] When we reflect who were included in these πάντες,—the soldiers and their centurion, the sailors, and passengers of various nations and dispositions, it shews remarkably the influence acquired by Paul over all who sailed with him.

Verse 37

37.] Explanatory of πάντες: q. d., ‘and this was no small number; for we were,’ &c.

Verse 38

38. ἐκούφ. τ. πλοῖον] See above on Acts 27:18.

This wheat was either the remainder of the cargo, part of which had been disposed of in Acts 27:18—or was the store for their sustenance, the cargo having consisted of some other merchandise. And this latter is much the more likely, for two reasons: (1) that σῖτος is mentioned here and not in Acts 27:18, which it would have been in all probability, had the material cast out there been the same as here; and (2) that the fact is related immediately after we are assured that they were satisfied with food: from whence we may infer almost with certainty that ὁ σῖτος is the ship’s provision, of part of which they had been partaking. It is a sufficient answer to Mr. Smith’s objection to this (“to suppose that they had remaining such a quantity as would lighten the ship is quite inconsistent with the previous abstinence,” p. 99), that the ship was provisioned for the voyage to Italy for 276 persons, and that for the last fourteen days hardly any food had been touched. This would leave surely enough to be of consequence in a ship ready to sink from hour to hour.

Verse 39

39.] It may be and has been suggested, that some of the Alexandrian seamen must have known Malta;—but we may answer with Mr. Smith that “St. Paul’s Bay is remote from the great harbour, and possesses no marked features by which it might be recognized.” p. 100.

κόλπον … ἔχοντ. αἰγιαλόν] a creek having a sandy beach. Some Commentators suppose that it should be αἰγιαλὸν ἔχοντα κόλπον, since every creek must have a beach: but what is meant is, a creek with a smooth, sandy beach, as distinguished from a rocky inlet.

ἐξῶσαι] Not, ‘to thrust in,’ as E. V., but to strand, ‘to run a-ground:’ so Thucyd., ref., and more in Wetst.

Verse 40

40.] (1) They cut away all four anchors (the περι may allude to the cutting round each cable in order to sever it, or to the going round and cutting all four), and left them in the sea ( εἰς τ. θάλ. ‘in the sea, into which they had been cast’). This they did to save time, and not to encumber the waterlogged ship with their additional weight. (2) They let loose the ropes which tied up the rudders. “Ancient ships were steered by two large paddles, one on each quarter. When anchored by the stern in a gale, it would be necessary to lift them out of the water, and secure them by lashings or rudder bands, and to loose these bands when the ship was again got under way.” Smith, p. 101. (3) They raised ( ἐπαίρειν, ‘to raise up,’ contrary to κατέχειν, ‘to haul down,’ a sail) their ἀρτέμων to the wind. It would be impossible in the limits of a note to give any abstract of the long and careful reasoning by which Mr. Smith has made it appear that the ‘artemon’ was the foresail of the ancient ships. I will only notice from him, that the rendering ‘mainsail’ in our E. V. was probably a mistaken translation from Bayfius or De Baif, the earliest of the modern writers ‘de re navali,’ and perhaps the only one extant when the translation was made: he says, “est autem artemon velum majus navis, ut in Actis Apost. xxvii … etenim etiam nunc nomen Veneti vulgo retinent et artemon vocant.” These words, ‘velum majus,’ they rendered by mainsail; whereas the largest sail of the Venetian ships at the time was the foresail. The French ‘artimon,’ even now in use, means the sail at the stern (mizen). But this is no clue to the ancient meaning, any more than is our word mizen to the meaning of the French misaine, which is the foresail.

The usual technical name of the foresail was δόλων, that of the mizen, ἐπίδρομος. See on the whole question, Smith’s Dissertation on the Ships of the Ancients, appended to his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Mr. Pusey informs me that Syr. translates ἀρτέμωνα by ‘armnon parvum’ (armnon being its word for σκεῦος, Acts 27:17), and syr. in a note says that ἀρτέμων is “a small armnon at the ship’s head.”

τῇ πνεούσῃ] scil. αὔρᾳ. Dat. commodi;—for the wind (to fill);—or (according to Meyer and De Wette) of direction,—to the wind, (4) They made for the beach. The expression, κατέχειν ( ναῦν or νηῒ) εἰς … for “to steer to land,” is not uncommon in the classics: cf. examples in Wetst. It seems to get this meaning by a pregnant construction, “to keep the ship (or, to keep one’s course in the ship) in hand (and direct it) towards.…”

Verse 41

41. τόπον διθάλασσον] At the west end of St. Paul’s Bay is an island, Selmoon or Salmonetta, which they could not have known to be such from their place of an chorage. This island is separated from the mainland by a channel of about 100 yards wide, communicating with the outer sea. Just within this island, in all probability, was the place where the ship struck, in a place where two seas met.

ἐπέκειλαν] ἐπικέλλειν is used by Homer (ref.) in the sense of ‘adpellere navem.’ Its commoner use is intransitive: see Hom. ib. v. 138, and Apollon. Rhod. ii. 352, 382; iii. 575. In Od. ε. 114, it is said of the ship itself, ἠπείρῳ ἐπέκελσε. The ἐποκέλλειν of the rec. is used several times by Thucydides, and has the same twofold usage: cf. Thucyd. iii. 12; iv. 28; viii. 102: they ran the ship a-ground.

“The circumstance which follows, would, but for the peculiar nature of the bottom of St. Paul’s Bay, be difficult to account for. The rocks of Malta disintegrate into very minute particles of sand and clay, which when acted on by the currents, or by surface agitation, form a deposit of tenacious clay: but in still water, where these causes do not act, mud is found; but it is only in the creeks where there are no currents, and at such a depth as to be undisturbed by the waves, that mud occurs.… A ship therefore, impelled by the force of the gale into a creek with a bottom such as that laid down in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud, graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, while the stern was exposed to the force of the waves.” Smith, p. 103.

Verse 42

42.] ἵνα gives not only the purpose, but the substance of the βουλή. Their counsel was,—to kill, &c.: this it was, and to this it tended.

διαφύγοι has probably been a correction to suit ἐγένετο. But the subjunctive after the past is merely a mixture of construction of the historic past with the historic present, and is used where the scene is intended to be vividly set before the reader.

Verse 43

43.] ἀποῤῥίψαντας is reflective, sc. ἑαυτούς.

Verse 44

44. τοὺς λοιπούς] scil. ἐπὶ τῆν γῆν ἐξιέναι.

τινων τῶν ἀπὸ τ. π.] probably, as E. V., broken pieces of the ship:—some of the parts of the ship: the σανίδες being whole planks, perhaps of the decks.

διασωθ. ἐπί] may be = διας. κ. ἀφικέσθαι ἐπί,—a constructio prægnans, but this need not be, as διασωθῆναι is to get safe through, and ἐπί is simply the direction in which the act is carried out.
28 Chapter 28
Verse 1

1. ΄ελίτη] The whole course of the narrative has gone to shew that this can be no other than MALTA. The idea that it is not MALTA, but Meleda, an island off the Illyrian coast in the Gulf of Venice, seems to be first found in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Adminiculis Imperii, p. 36— νῆσος μεγάλη τὰ ΄έλετα ἦτοι τὸ ΄αλοζεᾶται, ἣν ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τ. ἀποστ. ὁ ἅγιος λουκᾶς μέμνηται, ΄ελίτην ταύτην προσαγορεύων. It has been adopted by our own countrymen, Bryant and Dr. Falconer, and abroad by Giorgi, Rhoer, and more recently Paulus. It rests principally on three mistakes:—1. the meaning of the name Adria (see above on ch. Acts 27:27),—2. the fancy that there are no poisonous serpents in Malta (Acts 28:3),—3. the notion that the Maltese would not have been called βάρβαροι. The idea itself, when compared with the facts, is preposterous enough. Its supporters are obliged to place Fair Havens on the north side of Crete,—and to suppose the wind to have been the hot Sirocco (compare Acts 28:2).

Further notices of this question, and of the state of Malta at the time, will be found in the notes on the following verses. Observe, their previous state of ignorance of the island is expressed by the imperf. ἐπεγίνωσκον;—the act of recognition by the aor. ἐπέγνωμεν [ch. Acts 27:30].

Verse 2

2. βάρβαροι] A term implying very much what our word natives does, when speaking of any little-known or new place. They were not Greek colonists, therefore they were barbarians (Romans 1:14). If it be necessary strictly to vindicate the term, the two following citations will do so: ἔστι δὲ ἡ νῆσος αὕτη (Malta) φοινίκων ἄποικος, Diod. Sic. Acts 28:12.— ἐν δὲ σικελὶᾳ ἔθνη βάρβαρα τάδε ἐστίν, ἐδυνοί, σικανοί, σικελοί, φοίνικες, τρῶες, Scylax, Periplus, p.4.

προσελάβ.] received us, not to their fire (Meyer), but as in reff.

ὑετόν] ‘Post ingentes ventos solent imbres sequi.’ Grot.

τὸν ἐφεστ.] not, ‘which came on suddenly’ (Meyer), but which was on us:—another instance of overlooking the present sense of ἕστηκα.

ψῦχος] This is decisive against the Sirocco, which is a hot and sultry wind even so late as the month of November, and moreover (Smith, p. 109) seldom lasts more than three days.

Verse 3

3. συστρέψαντος] “vincti officium fuciebat submisse, aliis quoque inserviens.” Bengel.

φρυγάνων] From the circumstance of the concealed viper, these were probably heaps of neglected wood gathered in the forest.

ἐπιθέντος κ. τ. λ.] The difficulty here is, that there are now no venomous serpents in Malta. But as Mr. Smith observes, “no person who has studied the changes which the operations of man have produced on the animals of any country, will be surprised that a particular species of reptiles should have disappeared from Malta. My friend, the Rev. Mr. Landsborough, in his interesting excursions in Arran, has repeatedly noticed the gradual disappearance of the viper from the island since it has become more frequented. Perhaps there is no where a surface of equal extent in so artificial a state as that of Malta is at the present day,—and no where has the aboriginal forest been more completely cleared. We need not therefore be surprised that, with the disappearance of the woods, the noxious reptiles which infested them should also have disappeared.” pp. 111, 112.

The reading ἐκ τ. θέρμ. has been an explanation of ἀπό, which here signifies from locally, not ‘on account of.’ To suppose the converse (“the ἀπό was adopted by those who thought the sense was ‘on account of the fire,’ ” Dr. Bloomf.),—is simply absurd; for 1) no man ever could suppose the sense of ἐκ in such a connexion to be this: and 2) even if any one did, he would not have substituted another ambiguous preposition, ἀπό. Paul had placed the faggot on the fire, and was settling or arranging it in its place, when the viper glided out of the heat and fixed on his hand.

διεξελθ. gives the more precise sense, and is a less usual word than ἐξελθ. The serpent glided out through the sticks.

καθῆψεν] attached itself: a usage unexampled in earlier Greek. The narrative leaves no doubt that the bite did veritably take place.

Verse 4

4.] The natives, who were sure to know, here positively declared it to have been a venomous serpent. I make these remarks to guard against the disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-rationalists, who will have us believe either that the viper did not bite, or that if it did, it was not venomous.

πάντως φον. ἐστ.] ‘vincula videbant,’ Beng.

The idea of his being a murderer is not to be accounted for (as Elsner, Wolf, Kuin.) by the member which was bitten (for this would fit any crime which the hand could commit),—nor by supposing (Heinsius) the bite of a serpent to have been the Maltese punishment for murder; it is accounted for by the obviousness of the crime as belonging to the most notorious delinquents, and the aptness of the assumed punishment,—death for death.

ἡ δίκη] Justice, or Nemesis. What the Phœnician islanders called her, does not appear; but the idea is common to all religions.

Verse 5