Layman

I'm not sure what later developed legends have to do with the issue, especially about Saint Patrick, but we can put this on hold until you can prove there were no snakes in Malta.

atrahasis

He has already admitted that his sources were not entirely reliable.
You are giving fodder to his assesment that you are "obsessive" over acts being a historical text.

Or you want him to apologise for bringing it up first before you drop the argument?

In any case, the story is laden with mythical attributions even from the people of Malta (their reactions to the snake bite incident) and Paul healing a number of them.

This all serves to reinforce the idea that the writings cannot be considered historical.

This is a very unlikely event. Vipers do not bite peoples hands unless one brings their hands close to the head of one (within striking distance). And why would Paul be bending down offering his hand to be bitten?
And poisonus snakes do not bite and remain fastened on the point they have bitten. They strike and retreat. Waiting for the poison to take effect.
More importantly, they bite when they are attacked, or to paralyze their prey. If one lights fire at a place that has vipers, they come out and flee the heat. They dont go around looking for hands that are hanging close to the ground and biting them. And they know man is a threat, they would steer away from man as much as possible.

Layman, Layman. This is absurd.

Toto

Layman is a joker. Of course, no one can "prove" that there were no poisonous snakes on Malta 2000 years ago (although there seems to be some dispute over which island Paul actually landed on, and many Christians seem use Paul's visit to explain why there are no more poisonous snakes.)

But like Dogbert says, what are the odds?

(And you notice how deftly Layman avoided the question of how Acts could be history when it talks about an angel getting Peter out of jail.)

Ted Hoffman

Sorry I used Xisuthros' login above (I was using his workstation).

I noticed. But see, anyone who treats the writings as historical and ducks the snowballs of myth as they climb up is obviously applying selective reading of the text.

I think its called pick-and-choose theology.

The story about Paul being bitten by a viper is patently false and doesn't make sense.
And if it does, try fever and diarrhoea and laying hands to heal them.

In my teenage years, I fished at Lake Victoria and came into close contact with all sorts of snakes vipers, adders, pythons, mambas etc. We burnt farm waste all the time and encountered snakes even when weeding. I once touched the back of a puff adder. The only people that got bit (from my experience) are those that lie (when sleeping) on snakes, or step on them. Even people who attacked snakes never got bitten - the snake's first priority was to get away when under attack - unless the attacker was exceedingly foolish.

If Paul was laying the sticks on the fire, it means the fire was already "blazing". And what would the Viper have been doing in that fire as it blazed - sleeping? warming up?
What are the chances that the initial firewood (that were used in starting the fire) had a puff adder just coiled and waiting to strike?
What are the chances that whoever started the fire did not notice the viper in the firewood or whatever twigs and leaves they used to start the fire?
What are the chances it did not strike or even slide away before/ when it was being bundled into the "fireplace"?

Toto

Robbins has responded to Part I of Layman's response:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12741

He continues to speak in LitCrit jargon. It may be hazardous for me, a math major, to interpret, but I gather that what he is saying is that it really doesn't matter that the particular classical examples Layman comes up with may have been written in the first person plural because they reflected actual or assumed first person participation. A person in the Hellenistic era reading these texts would still associate sea voyage adventures with the first person plural, to the point where an author would automatically use first person plural if they wanted to create the atmosphere of adventure.

Nomad has made a rejoinder to Robbins' answer to him:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12736

Nomad (Brian Trafford) makes his point at the end:

This is actually the crux of the matter. It seems clear to me that if aLuke was not using a literary convention, there are a number of other hypotheses that are still more likely than the assumption that "we" indicates personal involvement. One would be that aLuke had some goal in mind that we can't understand, so this is just inexplicable. Another would be that aLuke was writing fiction, and projecting himself or herself back into the action at selected places (but then you still have to explain why those places all involve some connection to the sea adventure and none involve more prosaic times.)

But the hypothesis that aLuke was a participant has to overcome too many other obstacles: the "we" passages surround some scenes are obviously literary constructions or involve supernatural occurances, such as Lydia and the exorcism of the slave girl (16:11-18). Eutychus raised from the dead based on a Homeric theme (20:7-12), Paul surviving a poisonous snake bite and curing the sick on Malta (28).

Toto

Robbins replies to Nomad here, with a detailed examination of the difference between the "we" passages and other travel by sea, showing his view of the rationale for the use of first person vs. third:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12743

Sauron

Perhaps I can help.

This site indicates that there are four snake species on Malta, two of which were most likely introduced recently (last 100 years or so):

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3096/snakes.html

The only snake listed as poisonous is also described as weakly poisonous; i.e., lethal only to small birds, mice, etc. and not to humans.

The snake that is most likely to be the one that (supposedly) bit Paul is not listed as poisonous at all. In fact, it's a kind of nonpoisonous rat snake.

http://www.geocities.com/pelionature/Elaphe.htm

Given the available hard evidence, anyone wanting to claim that poisonous snakes, lethal or deadly to humans, inhabit(ed) Malta 2000 years ago carries the burden of proof here; not the other way around.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Sauron, now lets see what Layman has as proof.

Bede

Sauron and Iron Monkey,

I think you guys are getting a bit confused. We have in Acts a first hand account of Paul being bitten by a snake on Malta and nothing happening. Therefore, the snake was not poisonous and Acts gets it right. OK, so the author mis-identifies the snake as a viper but that is hardly very surprising given he was on a strange island. The reaction of my sister coming face to face with a slow worm suggests that people just assume all snakes are dangerous - although this one clearly was not. Now if Acts had said Paul had got sick and survived, that might be a problem. But as the snake had no effect at all, we can safely say it was not poisonous - exactly as we would expect from the links provided by Sauron. Act's first person narrator is right again.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Ted Hoffman

Bede,
Acts 28 King James Version
If the snakes weren't poisonus, why did they think he had to be a god to have survived its bite?.

Is their experience with harmless (read non-poisonus) snakes consistent with the way they reacted to Paul when he survided the snake-bite? Why didnt they casually dismiss his "fortitude" as a common occurence?
Why did they think the snake was a "venomous beast" if all the snakes they "encountered" were venomonous?
Maybe he misidentified the "fever" and "bloody flux" too?

So now the author misidentifies the snake? How convenient!
Did he also misidentify the reaction of the people of Malta?

These inconsistencies are easily explained when one considers that the author was manufacturing the story whole-cloth. He evidently never even visited Malta or knew the way of life of the people there.

I think its clear from the above who is confused.