There is an account of Saint Paul experiencing a dramatic shipwreck on his way to Rome in the Bible’s Book of Acts. The traditional view is that the island he arrived at was Malta, and there are extensive local traditions about Paul on Malta today. However, an alternative theory claims that he went to a completely different island between Italy and Greece.
This account is found in chapter 27 of the Book of Acts. In this passage, the Romans took Paul as a prisoner to appear before Caesar in Rome. Having experienced unfavorable weather near the southwest corner of Anatolia, they turned south and made their way across the southern coast of Crete.
Before reaching the harbor of Phoenix along that coast, a storm began to develop. The account refers to this as the Euraquilo. This violently pushed the boat off course towards the southwest. The storm continued battering the ship for 14 torturous days and nights.
Finally, after two weeks of enduring this terrible storm, the ship arrived at an island. Paul and the others jumped overboard and swam for the shore as it fell to pieces after striking a shoal. At the start of chapter 28, the account tells us that this was called Melite. Most Bible translations render this ‘Malta’, since Melite was indeed the ancient name for Malta.
The association of Paul’s Melite with Malta has been widely recognized for centuries. However, other views have emerged relatively recently. One common view is that Paul experienced a shipwreck on an island between Italy and Greece.
This island is present-day Mljet in the Adriatic Sea, just off the coast of Croatia. In ancient times, it was known by the Greek name Melite, meaning “honey,” similar to Malta’s ancient name. Therefore, based solely on the name, it is just as likely to be Paul’s island as Malta is.
The island was first described by the ancient Greek explorer Scylax of Caryanda in the 6th century BC; some scholars favor the account in the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax. In both texts, it is named Melite, a name also supported by ancient Greek author Apollonius of Rhodes. Although no remains of Ancient Greek buildings have been found, ancient shipwrecks, amphoras, and other artifacts discovered in the waters off Mljet provide evidence of a Greek presence on the island. Over the centuries the name evolved to become the Slavic name, Mljet.
In addition, there is evidence that actively supports this alternative identification. In the account of the storm at sea, the Book of Acts states that Paul was being tossed about on the “Sea of Adria.” “Adriatic Sea” would be another rendering of the name.
Malta, of course, is very far from the entrance of the Adriatic Sea, the body of water between Italy and the Balkans. Mjlet, on the other hand, would fit this location perfectly. This is one of the primary pieces of evidence that some researchers use to argue that Malta cannot be the right location.
Does this common objection to Malta stand up to scrutiny? Simply put, no. The reason is that the expression “Sea of Adria” or “Adriatic Sea” had a much wider application in the first century CE. Ancient geographers used this term to denote the large open sea area between Crete and Sicily.
Some records distinguish between this area of water and the modern-day Adriatic Sea by referring to the latter as the “Adriatic Gulf”.
One example of the wider use of the term “Adriatic Sea” appears in the writings of Pausanias. He was a geographer of the second century CE, the same general era in which Paul lived.
In a passage, Pausanias provided a detailed description of the island of Sicily. Discussing the Strait of Messina, he noted that one side of the strait borders the Tyrrhenian Sea, while the other borders the Adriatic Sea.
This usage demands the Adriatic Sea to be the designation for the water going right up to Sicily. Many other examples of such a usage appear in ancient records from this era. Therefore, it was correct to refer to Malta as being within the Sea of Adria, or the Adriatic Sea.
An essential consideration is the vessel’s route, on which Paul was traveling. The name for the wind that blew against the ship was the Euraquilo. This combines Greek and Latin, specifically referring to an east-north-east wind.
The storm would have driven Paul and his companions diagonally towards the northern coast of Africa from the southern coast of Crete. This aligns with the narrative, as it indicates the crew’s fear of being wrecked on the Syrtis, a notorious region of sandbanks situated between Cyrene and Carthage.
With this general direction in mind, it is completely out of the question that the ship travelled up the modern-day Adriatic Sea to the island of Mljet. On the other hand, Malta makes perfect geographical sense.
While it is essentially west of Crete rather than southwest, this is consistent with the facts. The crew was trying to avoid hitting the Syrtis. The ship would have been angled to maintain a northward direction as much as possible, with the storm primarily pushing them westward.
Therefore, given the facts, we can be sure that Paul did experience a shipwreck on Malta, not the island of Mljet.
