Old
Testament
Phoenicians
and Philistines. As
a people whose ancestral territory lay in the landlocked and
timber-poor highlands of Ephraim and Judah, the Israelites of
biblical times never achieved prominence in seafaring or
shipbuilding. Instead, they relied for their maritime enterprises on
alliances with their coastal neighbors, particularly the Phoenician
states to the north of Israel, who excelled in seafaring and had
access to the abundant timber forests of Lebanon. The Phoenicians
(the Punics of classical antiquity) were famous in antiquity for
their seafaring. In biblical times, they traded heavily between
Syria-Palestine and Egypt and also sailed throughout the
Mediterranean, establishing colonies as far away as Tunisia
(Carthage) and Spain (Cadiz).
Another
seagoing people prominent in the OT were the Philistines, whose base
of power was to the west of Judah, along the Mediterranean coast. The
Bible associates the Philistines with the five cities of Ashdod,
Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza. The Philistines were among the Sea
Peoples, who came to the Levant from the Aegean beginning in the
twelfth century BC (Amos 9:7; Jer. 47:4).
The
perennial enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites precluded
joint maritime ventures of the sort shared by Israel and the
Phoenicians, and the Bible does not describe Philistine maritime
activities in any depth. Nevertheless, the seagoing nature of the
Philistines is reflected by the fact that their settlements remained
confined to the coastal region. They never made a systematic attempt
to take over the traditionally Israelite and Judahite highlands. When
they did venture into the Judean mountains, it was to assert a
military and political presence among the agrarian Israelites and
Judahites rather than to establish permanent settlements and
Philistine population centers. Twelfth-century BC reliefs at Medinet
Habu (in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III) depict a naval
battle between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians. The reliefs include
pictures of Philistine ships and sailors.
Israelite
seafaring.
One of the rare references to Israelite seafaring describes the
Danites and the Asherites in connection with ships and harbors (Judg.
5:17; see also Ezek. 27:19). Traditional Danite territory overlapped
with the area of Philistine settlement. Asherite territory overlapped
substantially with Phoenician territory. It is possible that Judg.
5:17 refers to the fact that the Danites and the Asherites worked in
the port cities serving Philistine and Phoenician shipping. In
another passage, Zebulun is associated with ports (Gen. 49:13). It is
noteworthy that the Israelite coast between Jaffa and Dor (roughly
between Philistia and Phoenicia) does not have an abundance of
natural harbors. Later, Herod the Great would build the artificial
harbor at Caesarea in the first century BC. The great expense of such
a project—including the construction of over 2,500 feet of
breakwaters made of underwater concrete, mostly imported from
Italy—suggests the extent of the need for secure harbors in
this region.
Solomon’s
fleet.
The zenith of Israelite seafaring occurred during the reign of
Solomon. Solomon built a fleet of ships at “Ezion Geber, which
is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea” (1 Kings
9:26). The purpose of these ships was to bring back gold from Ophir
(1 Kings 9:28), possibly a location in the Arabian Peninsula, to
which a port on the Red Sea would have offered ready access. The
story confirms the aforementioned dependence on the Phoenicians in
the area of seafaring: although the ships belonged to Solomon, “Hiram
[the Phoenician king of Tyre] sent his men—sailors who knew the
sea—to serve in the fleet with Solomon’s men”
(1 Kings 9:27). The timber for the ships would also have been
imported by Israel from Phoenicia (see 1 Kings 9:11). Even at
the height of its power, Israel lacked the human resources to embark
on sea voyages independently of the Phoenicians.
The
success of Solomon’s project, of course, depended not only on
warm relations with the Phoenicians but also on territorial control
of the historically Edomite lands between Judah and the Red Sea. This
favorable combination of conditions would come and go throughout the
biblical period, and with it, Israel’s modest presence on the
seas. From the Phoenician point of view, cooperation with Israel was
an essential component of gaining access to a Red Sea port, and with
it to the products of Arabia, the Horn of Africa, and India. The
Phoenicians, as expansive as their travel was in the Mediterranean,
could never independently control the long overland route from
Phoenicia to the Red Sea, since it ran through the territory of
Israel and Edom. Their best hope was a friendly and powerful
Israelite ally. This explains the cordial relationship and why Hiram
sent not only his sailors to serve Solomon but also craftsmen and
supplies for the construction of the temple (1 Kings 5:10–12).
Solomon and Hiram jointly operated “a fleet of trading ships”
that would return to port every three years bringing “gold,
silver, and ivory, and apes and baboons” (1 Kings 10:22).
Jehoshaphat.
In the mid-ninth century BC, King Jehoshaphat of Judah attempted to
repeat Solomon’s feat of launching a fleet from Ezion Geber
(1 Kings 22:48–49; 2 Chron. 20:35–37).
According to both accounts, the ships were wrecked before they could
set sail. On several other points, however, the two versions of the
story disagree in ways that bear on questions of the political and
economic conditions of Israelite seafaring.
By
this time, Israel and Judah had split into separate kingdoms, with
the northern kingdom of Israel being geographically and politically
closer to the Phoenicians. The powerful King Ahab of Israel,
Jehoshaphat’s contemporary through much of his reign, married
Jezebel, the daughter of the Sidonian (Phoenician) king Ethbaal
(1 Kings 16:31). According to 1 Kings, King Ahaziah of
Israel (Ahab’s son) proposed to cooperate with Jehoshaphat by
sending his own men on the voyage, much as Hiram had assisted Solomon
in the previous century. Jehoshaphat rejected the suggestion,
possibly indicating a bid for Judean autonomy in an era of northern
dominance. According to 2 Chronicles, however, Jehoshaphat did
cooperate willingly with Ahaziah, and this was the reason that the
ships foundered in port: God punished the righteous Jehoshaphat for
too close a relationship with his wicked northern counterpart. In
1 Kings 22:47 it is mentioned that at the time of Jehoshaphat’s
venture there was no king in Edom. As noted, control of the overland
route between Judah and the Red Sea was necessary for the success of
any voyage originating from Ezion Geber.
However
the contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles
regarding the involvement of Ahaziah is resolved, both versions of
the story highlight the fact that the port at Ezion Geber commanded
the interest of the Judeans, the Israelites, and the Phoenicians, and
its successful operation probably depended on the cooperation of all
three.
Ships
of Tarshish.
Several biblical texts, including the stories of Solomon and
Jehoshaphat, mention “ships of Tarshish” (1 Kings
10:22 NIV mg.). In a number of contexts, such ships are associated
with the transportation of metals and metal ores, including iron,
lead, tin, gold, and silver (1 Kings 10:22; Ezek. 27:12; Jer.
10:9). The exact derivation of the term “ships of Tarshish”
is uncertain, though it is clear from the descriptions of their
cargoes that such ships could travel over long distances. As Ezekiel
observes, “The ships of Tarshish serve as carriers for your
wares. You are filled with heavy cargo as you sail the sea. Your
oarsmen take you out to the high seas” (Ezek. 27:25–26).
In
the Table of Nations, Tarshish is listed as a descendant of Javan
(Gen. 10:4), along with a number of other seafaring peoples of the
eastern Mediterranean (“Javan” indicates the peoples of
the Aegean and is linguistically equivalent to “Ionia”
[see also Ezek. 27:12–22]). Some have suggested, then, that the
ships of Tarshish should be associated with Tarsus in southeastern
Turkey, an area containing silver mines (also the birthplace of Paul
[Acts 9:11]). Others have suggested the Phoenician colony of
Tartessus in Spain, another metal-producing area. This location
figures in the interpretation of the identification of the
destination of Jonah as Tarshish (Jon. 1:3): presumably, if he were
avoiding Nineveh and departing from Joppa, he would head toward
Spain, in the exact opposite direction, rather than toward Tarsus in
Cilicia.
In
addition to these two geographical options, some have attempted to
explain the expression “ships of Tarshish” as deriving
from the Akkadian term for smelting or refining: perhaps the many
references to cargoes of metals indicate that the ships were used to
transport metal ore to refining centers. Finally, one scholar has
proposed that the term is related to the Greek word tarsos,
meaning “oar.”
Descriptions
of ships and seafaring.
Ezekiel, in his lament concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre (Ezek.
27), relates a number of details related to Phoenician seafaring. The
picture largely confirms the descriptions of how Solomon built and
manned his fleet with the assistance of his Tyrian ally. Timber for
the construction of the ship came from Lebanon and Cyprus, among
other places (vv. 5–6). Sails were made from Egyptian linen
(v. 7), and as noted above, the oarsmen and sailors were from
the Phoenician city-states (vv. 8–9). Ezekiel goes on to list a
large number of ports of call as well as a dazzling variety of
cargoes (vv. 12–24). Notably, Ezekiel has the Judahites and the
Israelites offering the products of their agrarian economy—“wheat
from Minnith and confections, honey, olive oil and balm”
(v. 17)—thus filling out the picture of what the
Israelites gave in exchange for the precious metals and luxury items
imported by their country from elsewhere.
In
1999 archaeologists explored two eighth-century BC Phoenician ships
that had sunk thirty miles west of Ashkelon. The ships, each
measuring about fifty feet in length, contained large cargoes of wine
and were headed either for Egypt or for the Phoenician colonies in
the western Mediterranean.
Ships
and sailing figure prominently in the story of Jonah, who boarded a
ship bound for Tarshish (see discussion above) at Joppa on the
Mediterranean coast. In the story we see a number of features of
ancient sea travel. Jonah paid a fare for his voyage (Jon. 1:3). Not
only the biblical author (see 1:4), but also the presumably
non-Israelite sailors, believed that the great storm was the doing of
a god, and that it could be calmed by appealing to that god
(1:6)—although cargo was thrown overboard for good measure.
When Paul was caught in a storm in the first century AD, the same
strategies were still in use (Acts 27:38). The religious habits of
ancient sailors, particularly their reverence for the gods who
controlled the stormy seas and thus held their lives in the balance,
are illuminated by the discovery of stone anchors in several temples
(presumably left by sailors as offerings), including at the port
cities of Ugarit, Kition, and Byblos.
Psalm
107:23–32 speaks of God’s care of sailors from an
Israelite perspective. In the psalm, those who “went out on the
sea in ships,” the “merchants on the mighty waters”
(i.e., the deep, open sea), witness firsthand the works of the God of
Israel, which include both the raising and the quieting of the storm.
This passage vividly expresses the terror of being caught in a storm
and the great relief and gratitude felt by sailors who reached safe
haven.
Noah’s
Ark
According
to the biblical account, Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet
wide, and 45 feet high (300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits [Gen.
6:15]). It had three decks, a roof, and a window. By comparison, the
ship of Uta-napishti in the Epic of Gilgamesh is described as having
six decks (and thus seven stories), edges of 180 feet (ten dozen
cubits) in each dimension, and occupying the space of an acre (a
rough approximation of the dimensions given). Both ships are
described as providing space for the builder’s family and every
living creature. In the Atrahasis Epic, the boat is roofed, but its
dimensions are not given.
Because
of the character of Gen. 6–8, it is inappropriate to draw
conclusions from the story regarding shipbuilding in historical
antiquity. According to the specifications given in the biblical
text, Noah’s ark would have been the largest wooden ship in
history, equaled only by the United States schooner Wyoming,
completed in 1909. While the overall length of the Wyoming was also
450 feet, nearly 100 feet of length was accounted for in the fore and
aft booms, so that the hull length was only 350 feet. Even with early
twentieth-century shipbuilding technology, its extravagant length
rendered the Wyoming unseaworthy, and the ship foundered in 1924. The
largest documented wooden ships of antiquity include the Greek
Syracusia
(third century BC; 180 feet), described by Athenaeus; the Roman Isis
(second century AD; 180 feet), described by Lucian; Caligula’s
“Giant Ship” (first century AD; 341 feet), recovered in
modern times and possibly corresponding to a ship described by Pliny
the Elder; and Ptolemy IV’s Tessarakonteres (third century
BC), reported by Plutarch to have been about 425 feet long. This last
ship was not designed for cruising in open water.
New
Testament
Fishing
in the Sea of Galilee. Several
of Jesus’ disciples worked as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee,
and the Gospels document their use of small boats for fishing and
traveling across the sea. Fishing was done with nets thrown both from
boats and from the shore (Mark 1:16, 19). The boats used by fishermen
on the Sea of Galilee may have been small enough to pull up onto the
beach (Luke 5:2), or to be nearly capsized by a large catch of fish
(Luke 5:7) or by a violent storm (Mark 4:37). They were large enough
to transport several men and even to sleep in (Mark 4:38). Such boats
could be rowed or sailed; in Mark 6:48 the disciples had to resort to
rowing because of an unfavorable headwind. On one occasion, Jesus
stood in a boat to preach to a crowd gathered on the shore (Mark
4:1). The Sea of Galilee is about eight miles wide and thirteen miles
long. On several occasions, Jesus traveled by boat across the sea to
avoid having to walk long distances around its circumference (e.g.,
Matt. 9:1; 14:22; 15:39).
In
1986 archaeologists recovered a fishing boat dating to the mid-first
century AD on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The boat had been
scuttled near the shore and was preserved under mud. The “Jesus
Boat,” as it was dubbed, measures twenty-seven feet in length
and has a beam seven and a half feet long. Numerous species of wood
were used in its construction and repairs throughout its useful life.
While there is no evidence to link the boat to Jesus or his
disciples, radiometric dating places it in the correct period, and it
provides a likely model of the type of boat portrayed in the Gospels.
A
second source of information regarding ships and sailing in the NT is
the account in Acts of Paul’s many sea voyages. As in the case
of Jehoshaphat, the Tyrians, Jonah, and Jesus’ disciples, Paul
learned firsthand the perils of seafaring in small wooden boats:
among his many traumas, along with beatings and stonings, he
recalled, “Three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a
day in the open sea” (2 Cor. 11:25).
Paul’s
journeys.
A survey of Paul’s sea travels on his four journeys gives some
idea of the routes that could be taken by a paying traveler in the
eastern Mediterranean and Aegean.
1.
Paul’s first missionary journey included voyages from Seleucia
in Syria to the port of Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:4) and from Cyprus
(Paphos) to Perga on the southern coast of Asia Minor (13:13). After
journeying through the interior, Paul returned to Attalia, where he
embarked for the return trip to Syria, presumably passing again
through the port at Salamis (14:26).
2.
The second missionary journey began not with a sea voyage but rather
with a trek through the interior of Syria and Cilicia, illustrating
that although sea travel was by far a more rapid means of travel, the
overland routes were by no means impossible (Acts 15:39). Paul would
repeat this land route during his third journey (19:1). Sea travel
was fast, but when one had plenty of friends along the alternative
land route, a sea journey was considerably less enjoyable. It is
during the second journey that we have the first recorded accounts of
Paul sailing in the Aegean. From Troas in Asia Minor, he sailed the
short distance to Macedonia (16:11), putting in midway at the island
of Samothrace. Apparently, Paul traveled by sea down the coast from
Berea to Athens (17:14). At the conclusion of his second journey,
Paul sailed from Corinth to Caesarea, with a stop at Ephesus
(18:18–22). Not counting any intervening ports of call not
mentioned in the text, this would be the longest single leg of sea
travel so far mentioned.
3.
The third missionary journey once more began with a long overland
trip from Syria through Asia Minor; by this time, Paul had many
associates along the way to visit. Again, he sailed in the Aegean,
from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20:1) and back (20:6). At one point,
Paul opted to travel overland, from Troas to Assos, while his
companions sailed down the coast (20:13). Meeting up with them, he
sailed on, hugging the coast of Asia Minor, then sailing south of
Cyprus along an open-water route to Tyre. From Tyre, the ship again
hugged the Palestinian coast, stopping in several ports before Paul
disembarked at Caesarea (21:7). Paul’s journeys illustrate the
variety of itineraries taken by ships. They were capable of sailing
in deep water, but they would also hug the coast when there were
reasons to make frequent stops.
4.
Paul’s fourth journey, which he made in custody on his way to a
trial before the emperor at Rome, was to be the most dangerous. From
the account in Acts we can glean a number of details of life at sea
in the first century AD. The ship bound for Italy was large, and it
carried 276 passengers and crew (Acts 27:6, 37), including soldiers
and prisoners, at least one companion of a prisoner (Paul’s
friend Aristarchus [27:2]), a ship’s pilot, and the ship’s
owner (27:11). Sailors used celestial navigation (27:20) and took
soundings in shallow water (27:28). We see also that the ship’s
course could be determined by the direction of the prevailing winds:
twice during the journey Paul’s ship was forced to sail to the
lee of large islands (Cyprus and Crete)—a longer journey, but
the only option for a ship that was not rigged to sail close-hauled.
When
extended periods of unfavorable weather were forecast, one option was
simply to put in at a port until conditions improved, preferably in a
harbor that was in the lee of an island (Acts 27:12). We learn
something of the measures that were taken in heavy weather, many of
which are still used in modern times: ropes were tied around the hull
of the ship to prevent it from breaking up in rough seas (27:17), the
lifeboat was brought onto the deck and made fast (27:17), sea anchors
were deployed to keep the bow of the ship oriented into the oncoming
waves (27:7), the rudder was lashed amidships (27:40), valuable cargo
and gear were jettisoned (27:19, 38), and, as in the days of Jonah,
sailors and passengers prayed for divine deliverance (27:29; see also
the protective emblems in 28:11).
When
all other means had been exhausted, a ship could be run aground on a
sandy beach (Acts 27:39), a measure that would have risked damage to
the boat but saved lives. In the case of Paul’s ship, the
decision to run aground ultimately resulted in the destruction of the
ship (27:41).
Metaphors
and illustrations.
Several NT authors draw illustrations from the nautical world. James
likens the harmful power of evil speech to the rudder of a ship:
although it is a small device, by it the pilot can control a great
ship (James 3:4–5). Elsewhere, he compares the doubting of the
unwise person to being lost at sea in a storm (James 1:6; cf. Eph.
4:14). In 1 Tim. 1:19 the loss of faith and good conscience is
likened to a shipwreck. Hebrews 6:19 describes the assurance of God’s
faithfulness as an anchor for the soul.
