After the men had gone a long time without food must not be taken to imply either that there was no food or that the men were deliberately fasting for religious or other reasons. It seems, rather, that the men had been so busy trying to protect themselves and the ship from the storm that they had not taken time to eat, or that the violence of the storm had taken away their desire for food.

Paul stood before them is literally “Paul stood in their midst” (see the quite similar scene in 17.22). Should have translates the same verb rendered had to in 1.16 (see the comments there). It is difficult to know whether or not Luke intended the verb to be taken here with the same force of divine necessity as it apparently had in 1.16. You should have listened to me is rendered in some languages as “it would have been better if you had listened to me.”

And not have sailed from Crete may also be rendered as “it would have been better if you had not sailed from Crete” or “you did what you should not have done—you sailed from Crete.”

The final clause, then we would have avoided all this damage and loss, is difficult to render in some languages, since it implies a condition contrary to fact—for example, “if we had not sailed, we would have avoided….” The equivalent in many languages, however, is a statement of actual events: “but now that we have sailed, we have incurred this damage” or “but since we have sailed, we have suffered this damage.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .