Amittai is twice mentioned as the father of Jonah (2 Kings 14:25; Jon. 1:1). Like his famous son, Amittai may have been from Gath Hepher and lived in the mid-eighth century BC.

(1) A leader appointed over a division of soldiers; a commander over the king’s bodyguard; the officer in charge of the Jewish guards for the temple (Acts 4:1). (2) A sea captain (KJV: “shipmaster”). In Jonah 1:6, a non-Israelite captain asks Jonah to call on God to save their imperiled ship. In John’s vision in Revelation (18:17), sea captains are among those who will witness and lament the destruction of Babylon, the source of their wealth.

Fish comprise a part of God’s created order (Gen. 1:26), given for humankind to rule (Gen. 1:28) and to eat, though some were considered unclean (those with no fins or scales [Lev. 11:9–12]). Fish comprised a meaningful part of the ancient Israelites’ diet for much of their history. They ate fish during their time in Egypt and longed for it in the wilderness (Num. 11:5). Once in Canaan, they could obtain fish from the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem even had a gate called the “Fish Gate” (Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), perhaps named for a fish market located near it inside the city. Nehemiah notes that men from the coastal city of Tyre imported fish to sell in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:16). Fish brought from such a distance probably had been preserved, perhaps by salting, smoking, or drying. The Gospels contain many references to fishing, since Jesus ministered near the Sea of Galilee and had fishermen among his followers.

Given the importance of fish and fishing, it is perhaps surprising that the Bible nowhere names specific types of fish. One simply reads that a “huge fish” swallowed Jonah (Jon. 1:17), or that Jesus multiplied “small fish” to feed a multitude (Mark 8:7–9). These small fish likely were sardines, caught in large quantities in the Sea of Galilee and preserved by salting. Other common native fish included a pan fish, the tilapia (today’s “St. Peter’s fish” from the story in Matt. 17:24–27); a type of carp, the barbel; and the largest native fish, the catfish, forbidden to observant Jews because of its lack of scales.

By contrast, in both Testaments one can find clear indications of how fish were caught. Large sea creatures might be speared or harpooned (Job 41:7), but usually fishermen used hook and line or one of several different types of nets (Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15). Jesus sent Peter out to fish with hook and line (Matt. 17:27). Peter and his brother Andrew also used a casting net (Matt. 4:18–20), a circular net up to twenty-five feet in diameter cast from shore or a boat. The net spread like a parachute and sank rapidly, trapping fish underneath. A system of cords drew the net together as it was pulled back in. Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish with such a net (John 21:6–11). Professional fishermen also used a dragnet, the most common type of net used in antiquity (see Dragnet). Finally, they also used a trammel net, a standing net often spread between two boats. The trammel net was made of up to five sections, each about one hundred feet long. This net had three layers, two finer-meshed layers on either side of a larger-meshed, central layer. When fish swam into the net, they pushed one of the finer layers into the heavier layer and became entangled when they turned and tried to escape. The fishermen then pulled in the nets, disentangled the fish, and repeated the process, typically ten to fifteen times during a night’s work. The story in Luke 5:1–11 reflects the use of trammel nets, with fishermen in two boats working hard through the night. Ancient commercial fishermen usually had to work at night because the fish could see the threads of their nets during the day.

Fish comprise a part of God’s created order (Gen. 1:26), given for humankind to rule (Gen. 1:28) and to eat, though some were considered unclean (those with no fins or scales [Lev. 11:9–12]). Fish comprised a meaningful part of the ancient Israelites’ diet for much of their history. They ate fish during their time in Egypt and longed for it in the wilderness (Num. 11:5). Once in Canaan, they could obtain fish from the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem even had a gate called the “Fish Gate” (Neh. 3:3; Zeph. 1:10), perhaps named for a fish market located near it inside the city. Nehemiah notes that men from the coastal city of Tyre imported fish to sell in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:16). Fish brought from such a distance probably had been preserved, perhaps by salting, smoking, or drying. The Gospels contain many references to fishing, since Jesus ministered near the Sea of Galilee and had fishermen among his followers.

Given the importance of fish and fishing, it is perhaps surprising that the Bible nowhere names specific types of fish. One simply reads that a “huge fish” swallowed Jonah (Jon. 1:17), or that Jesus multiplied “small fish” to feed a multitude (Mark 8:7–9). These small fish likely were sardines, caught in large quantities in the Sea of Galilee and preserved by salting. Other common native fish included a pan fish, the tilapia (today’s “St. Peter’s fish” from the story in Matt. 17:24–27); a type of carp, the barbel; and the largest native fish, the catfish, forbidden to observant Jews because of its lack of scales.

By contrast, in both Testaments one can find clear indications of how fish were caught. Large sea creatures might be speared or harpooned (Job 41:7), but usually fishermen used hook and line or one of several different types of nets (Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15). Jesus sent Peter out to fish with hook and line (Matt. 17:27). Peter and his brother Andrew also used a casting net (Matt. 4:18–20), a circular net up to twenty-five feet in diameter cast from shore or a boat. The net spread like a parachute and sank rapidly, trapping fish underneath. A system of cords drew the net together as it was pulled back in. Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish with such a net (John 21:6–11). Professional fishermen also used a dragnet, the most common type of net used in antiquity (see Dragnet). Finally, they also used a trammel net, a standing net often spread between two boats. The trammel net was made of up to five sections, each about one hundred feet long. This net had three layers, two finer-meshed layers on either side of a larger-meshed, central layer. When fish swam into the net, they pushed one of the finer layers into the heavier layer and became entangled when they turned and tried to escape. The fishermen then pulled in the nets, disentangled the fish, and repeated the process, typically ten to fifteen times during a night’s work. The story in Luke 5:1–11 reflects the use of trammel nets, with fishermen in two boats working hard through the night. Ancient commercial fishermen usually had to work at night because the fish could see the threads of their nets during the day.

The hold of a ship contains its cargo and passengers beneath an upper deck. Jonah slept in a ship’s hold during a storm (Jon. 1:5 NASB, NLT; NIV: “below deck”). Tarshish ships had large holds to contain their heavy cargoes (cf. 1 Kings 22:48; Ezek. 27:25).

(1) The son of Amittai, he is most famous for being swallowed by a big fish (Jonah 1:1, 17). The book of Jonah is unique among the Minor Prophets because it is a narrative about Jonah the person rather than a collection of prophecies. Some scholars have speculated that the book of Nahum is actually his collection of prophecies. Outside of that book, almost nothing is known about him. Jesus famously alludes to Jonah being in the belly of the fish, speaking of it as a sign of his own death (Matt. 12:39–41; 16:4). (2) The father of Simon Peter (Matt. 16:17).

Possibly made of stone or wood, lots apparently were shaken or tossed from a container to help make decisions, on the assumption that God(s) directed the outcome (Prov. 16:33). Many peoples throughout the ancient Near East cast lots. Surprisingly, available sources do not make clear what exactly the lots were and how people cast them. Information from Mesopotamia and related terms in Arabic suggest that the lots were made of stone, whereas ancient Sumerian lots apparently were made of wood. The numerous references to Israelites casting lots give no indication of the material. Descriptions of the process in the Bible include the Hebrew terms for “cast” (Josh. 18:6), “make fall” (1 Chron. 24:31 [usually translated “cast”]), “be shaken” (Prov. 16:33 [also translated “cast”]), and “come out” (Josh. 19:1), which suggests that the items were put into some kind of container and shaken until the piece(s) chosen by God came out.

The casting of lots was one of several methods that ancient peoples used to get information from God(s) about the past, present, or future. Many such practices—including astrology, use of a divining rod, and examination of animal livers—were forbidden to the Israelites, apparently because these looked to other (supposed) gods for wisdom or direction. A few such practices, including the interpretation of dreams or the casting of lots, were allowed.

One finds the casting of lots in both Testaments in a number of different situations. Sometimes the lot was used to uncover truth about who had committed some wrong in the past (Achan [Josh. 7:14, 18]; Jonathan [1 Sam. 14:41–42]). Other times Israelites used lots to determine God’s choice (Saul as king [1 Sam. 10:20–21]; Matthias as a disciple [Acts 1:26]) or to divide things, such as tribal allotments of land (Num. 26:55–56). Tasks and services could be determined by casting lots (Levitical service at the temple [1 Chron. 26:13–16]; who would live in rebuilt Jerusalem [Neh. 11:1]). Non-Israelites also cast lots to determine guilt (Jon. 1:7), divide property captured in war (Nah. 3:10), and determine the best date for an event (when to massacre Jews [Esther 3:7; 9:24]). The concept that God directed the course of events also led to figurative use of the term “lot” as one’s fate in life (Ps. 16:5; Jer. 13:25). See also Urim and Thummim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the Bible, “sleep” can refer to natural sleep (Gen. 28:11; Jon. 1:5), moral unawareness (Isa. 29:10; 1 Thess. 5:6), inattentiveness (Pss. 44:23; 121:4), and even physical death (Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2). Commonly the Bible speaks of deceased Christians as having “fallen asleep” (Acts 7:60; 1 Thess. 4:13–15). Proverbs warns readers strongly against indulging in too much sleep (Prov. 6:4–10; 19:15; 20:13; 24:33–34).

The Hebrew word tarshish refers to a precious stone (NIV: “topaz”; Exod. 28:20; Ezek. 1:16). The name of the stone probably comes from its place of origin (see #4, below). “Tarshish” is also used as a name. (1) A son of Javan, grandson of Japheth, and great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A son of Bilhan, grandson of Jediael, and great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who had access to the presence of King Ahasuerus and advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

(4) A place frequently mentioned in the OT. Solomon engaged in trade with Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22 NRSV, NASB; 2 Chron. 9:21 NRSV, NASB), and it is described as a source of precious metals such as gold and silver (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:12). Its location is unknown, but it is associated with islands (Ps. 72:10 NRSV, NASB) and with Jonah’s flight by ship from Joppa on the Mediterranean (Jon. 1:3). Both Tartessus in southwest Spain and the island of Sardinia have been suggested as possible sites.

The phrase “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; Isa. 23:1) may refer to a fleet originating from Tar-shish or more generally to a type of seaworthy merchant vessel. It is thus sometimes translated by the NIV as “trading ships” (1 Kings 10:22; 22:48).

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

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.

An approximate literal meaning of Hebrew and Greek terms used to refer to the seat of the emotions (sometimes translated as “intestines” or “stomach”). The literal meaning is apparent in a few passages (Ezek. 7:19; 2 Chron. 21:15–19; Jon. 1:17; Acts 1:18). More often the terms are used to refer to a variety of strong emotions (Jer. 31:20; Lam. 1:20; 2 Cor. 6:12; Phil. 1:8; Philem. 7). Elsewhere the words refer to the womb or are related to progeny (Gen. 25:23; 2 Sam. 16:11; Isa. 49:1).

Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is under God’s command. The Hebrew word ruakh sometimes is translated as “wind” but other times can mean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen. 1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is most often used in the NT to denote wind.

Old Testament. Throughout the OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8 declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind in storehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God uses wind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends a wind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark to recede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea during the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail in from the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 11:31).

Wind can also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plague upon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land; afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea (Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from the desert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse, killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In the book of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’s ship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint and desire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject of wind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6; Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).

While a single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6), many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of the heavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the south wind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing a garden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west wind specifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the east wind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with military terms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatter ships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) or shrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuing the east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, the four winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bring life (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan. 7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).

God rides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2 Sam. 22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 the winds are called God’s “messengers.” This imagery is strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite god Baal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind (Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent upon wind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh in the whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successful contest against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:11–12).

The wisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besides its power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind is the inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov. 11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under the sun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Empty talk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blow away chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as a metaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).

New Testament. In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus by emphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27). Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8 for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit. Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John the Baptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt. 11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind. It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally, a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a sound like a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills all those in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).

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.

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT, often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblical exegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects the exegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal to the OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NT revelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuse of earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process was refined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writers from the postexilic period well into the first century AD. This approach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character of Scripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address the issues facing changing audiences.

The biblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writers were concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus of material identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently, the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as the basis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, to reinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and to appropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporary circumstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarity of the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of a specific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his later message necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literary and logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT author reinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges the identification of the NT audience with the experiences and promises made to their Israelite ancestors.

The most frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these early Israelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation of NT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these books indicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of the NT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith and doctrine.

Identifying Quotations and Allusions

One critical and often difficult task facing the reader centers on locating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not all scriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice does not conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiarity with the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OT themes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writers understandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves were writing in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based on the type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexity to the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled the exegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, though typical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to some scholars.

Richard Hays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence of biblical allusions: (1) availability (did the original author and readers have access to the source?); (2) volume (how extensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?); (3) recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer to the same passage?); (4) thematic coherence (does the quotation support the surrounding context?); (5) historical plausibility (could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6) history of interpretation; and (7) satisfaction (does the citation illuminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principles provide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determining authentic instances of biblical intertextuality.

Quotations, Allusions, and Typology

The NT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: direct quotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.

Direct quotations. Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, such as “it is written” or “you have heard it said,” which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NT writer identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as it was spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author (“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”). Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation or teaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorce in Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. In some instances the NT author combines parts of two different citations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entire quotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. For example, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 and Jer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns the entire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does not negate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literary connection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have to be established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminology or expressions, thematic similarities, and associative concepts connecting the OT and the NT contexts.

Allusions and echoes. In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaic introduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While all direct quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not all biblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both direct citation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing and recontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specific text, which has been incorporated into the later text in order to accommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience. The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influences and informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT author intentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience a specific textual referent along with its contextual associations, reformulating them in an innovative manner.

In a biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer in order to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts or with general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts (e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparability statements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26 generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking a specific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblical echoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of an individual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers of meaning that arise from differing historical settings and circumstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to the echo.

Typology and analogy. The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology, reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequent development and transformation of that “type” in the NT. A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, or institution that has significance in its original literary and historical context but also points toward someone or something in later biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes that which is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, and to some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelation as superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring the continuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role as theologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examples include the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrasted as a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9), and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9).

The NT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points of comparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. For instance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’s justification by faith and the new relationship experienced by believers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy and typology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4. Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent use of allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature of allegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’ really means ‘that’ ” interpretational framework.

The Roles of Context and Authorial Intent

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences and affects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations or allusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purely incidental and should be divorced from their original contextual moorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while others understand the original context of an OT passage to contribute information that leads to correct NT interpretation. The question revolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In other words, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removed by time and culture, recover the original intention behind the biblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT text as an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debate the role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.

The English word derives from the Latin omnis (“all”) and praesens (“present”). Though not found in Scripture, the term accurately describes a divine perfection. God is always in his totality everywhere present, yet separate from his creation (Gen. 1; 1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7–12; Jer. 23:23–24; Heb. 4:13). This attribute is to be distinguished from pantheism, which teaches that God is everything, that is, that God and the material world are one and the same. God’s omnipresence is a great comfort for those who seek him but is disconcerting to those who may wish to avoid him (Job 34:21–22; Ps. 139:7; Amos 9:1–4; Jon. 1:3). Although at various times God chose to localize his presence for the purpose of revelation, he always remained transcendent (1 Kings 8:27). Although the lost are said to be removed from the presence of God (2 Thess. 1:9), even in the lake of fire they are in actuality separated from his mercy, grace, and forgiveness, not his essential presence (Job 26:6; Heb. 4:13; Rev. 14:10; 20:11–14).

A mariner who directed a ship, especially in shallow waters. The pilot of the ship carrying Paul to Rome influenced the decision to sail from Fair Havens for Phoenix, contrary to Paul’s warning (Acts 27:11). James 3:4 refers to the pilot’s power to steer a large ship with a small rudder. Some English translations read “pilot” in Ezek. 27:8, 27–29, but since the relevant Hebrew term (khobel ) refers elsewhere to a sailor in general (Jon. 1:6), it may not denote the rather specialized task of piloting in this text.

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.

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.

The Hebrew word tarshish refers to a precious stone (NIV: “topaz”; Exod. 28:20; Ezek. 1:16). The name of the stone probably comes from its place of origin (see #4, below). “Tarshish” is also used as a name. (1) A son of Javan, grandson of Japheth, and great-grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:4; 1 Chron. 1:7). (2) A son of Bilhan, grandson of Jediael, and great-grandson of Benjamin (1 Chron. 7:10). (3) One of the seven princes of Persia and Media who had access to the presence of King Ahasuerus and advised him to put away Queen Vashti because of her refusal to obey the king’s command to appear before the banquet (Esther 1:14).

(4) A place frequently mentioned in the OT. Solomon engaged in trade with Tarshish (1 Kings 10:22 NRSV, NASB; 2 Chron. 9:21 NRSV, NASB), and it is described as a source of precious metals such as gold and silver (Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:12). Its location is unknown, but it is associated with islands (Ps. 72:10 NRSV, NASB) and with Jonah’s flight by ship from Joppa on the Mediterranean (Jon. 1:3). Both Tartessus in southwest Spain and the island of Sardinia have been suggested as possible sites.

The phrase “ships of Tarshish” (Ps. 48:7; Isa. 23:1) may refer to a fleet originating from Tar-shish or more generally to a type of seaworthy merchant vessel. It is thus sometimes translated by the NIV as “trading ships” (1 Kings 10:22; 22:48).

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

The word “whale” occurs four times in the KJV. The KJV uses the word to describe the large fish that were created by God (Gen. 1:21). Similarly, the KJV, translating Jesus’ saying about Jonah, places the reluctant prophet in the “whale’s belly” (Matt. 12:40). This is the text that gives rise to the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, even though in Jon. 1:17 the KJV says that Jonah was swallowed not by a “whale,” but rather by a “great fish.” Finally, the KJV chooses “whale” for Job 7:12 and Ezek. 32:2, where in both cases a mythological sea monster is being described. In all these cases, more-recent versions prefer expressions such as “huge fish,” “sea monster,” and so on, depending on the context.