Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 02-17-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Wrong, Nomad. If the snake was not poisonous, then explain the reaction of the natives:

ACT 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
ACT 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
ACT 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
ACT 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen,or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So we not only have:
1. the claim of the author that this was a "venomous beast", but
2. we have the reaction of natives on the island who (presumably) should have been able to recognize a poisonous snake when they saw one;
3. Likewise, if the snake was not poisonous (as you claim) then the natives' reaction is unexplainable.

*IF* this event ever occurred at all, and wasn't simply a fabrication to enhance the story.

Quote:

OK, so the author mis-identifies the snake as a viper but that is hardly very surprising given he was on a strange island.

It's more than a case of misidentifying the reptile. If the event ever happened at all, then it also appears to be a case of stretching the truth with regards to the native's reaction. There aren't very many snakes on Malta at all; none deadly poisonous that anyone has shown. Therefore, the natives would never have had such a reaction as the author of Acts describes.

Quote:

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.

It's a little more complicated than that, for reasons above.

Quote:

Act's first person narrator is right again.

Sadly, incorrect.

02-17-2003, 09:35 AM

Sauron,

A great number of harmless creatures were traditionally considered to be deadly - for instance several large Italian spiders are harmless but big and hairy. Likewise the gecko and salamander were considered highly dangerous. The people thought the snake was dangerous because they thought all snakes were dangerous.

Publius had a fever and recovered. Big deal and no surprise that the narrator thought Paul was responsible.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 02-17-2003, 10:10 AM

Hi Bede (I don't think you're Nomad, are you?)

So you are saying that the stupid "barbarian" islanders were confused about their local snakes? Why would they think that all snakes were poisonous without any experience of poisonous snakes? Divine revelation?

And your version seems to leave Paul as a typical fake faith healer, who lets nature take its course and then claims credit. How exactly does this support your faith?

Layman · 02-17-2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

I have not been able to access any of my Yahoo groups.

If anyone can think of any reason why I have this problem please let me know. Everything else works find and I can check my Yahoo Mail.

Thanks.

Layman · 02-17-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

All your evidence shows is that there are no such snakes there now. You have no evidence about what snakes might have been there 2000 years ago.

More irrelevant internet links.

Layman · 02-17-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Hi Bede (I don't think you're Nomad, are you?)

So you are saying that the stupid "barbarian" islanders were confused about their local snakes? Why would they think that all snakes were poisonous without any experience of poisonous snakes? Divine revelation?

Not just "stupid barbarian islanders."

Pliny shared the belief that all snakes were poisonous. NH 8.35.85.

Layman · 02-17-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

There's really not enough data to know what the odds are.

Quote:

(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.)

Since I am a Christian I thought you would know how absurd it is to use this argument against me. Of course, it's completely irrelevent to Robbin's theory or whether there were snakes on Malta.

In any event, even Josephus mentions some miracles, does that mean he should be discounted as a historical source?

Layman · 02-17-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
[B]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.

I plan on responding when I am able to, but what examples is he talking about? All the works I discussed were HIS examples that were suppoed to establish the existence of a convention. Since all of those works are actual or assumed first person perpsectives, they cannot be used to establish his theory.

If all the works he cites to use the first-person because the author was a part of the action or because it is a work of fiction written from the main character's point of view, how does he know what the ancients would expect from an author describing a sea-voyage?

Toto · 02-17-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Not just "stupid barbarian islanders."

Pliny shared the belief that all snakes were poisonous. NH 8.35.85.

So you think that these "barbarians" (meaning that they did not speak Greek) had read Pliny? Or that they had never had the experience, living on that island, of seeing a snake bite someone and that person live?

It sounds more likely that the Greek speaking author of Acts believed that all snakes were poisonous and constructed that little scene to show Paul surviving his snake bite because God wanted to get him to Rome.

BTW - try logging off all your yahoo accounts and logging back on. I've never had that particular problem, but the connection between yahoo and yahoogroups can be strange.

What Robbins says is:

Quote:

Dear Chris,

You, S. Porter, Ben Witherington III, and others are setting up a requirement for my thesis that it is not necessary for my thesis to meet.

I am grateful that you acknowledge that there is a "change from some kind of narration" to first person plural "we" when a sea voyage begins in all the texts you cite: Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon; The Voyage of Hanno the Carthaginian; The Third Syrian War; and Dio Chrysostom. You (as others before you) are interested in "disqualifying" these changes in narration, in one way or another, from being a "literary convention." This is, as I indicated before, an "exclusionary" strategy of great interest to certain (but not all) historical, literary, and theological interpreters.

I simply am interested in the "presence" of this "change of narration" in these four texts (and others) in a context of the "formulaic presence of first person plural narration for sea voyages in Homer's Odyssey" (a text with ongoing presence and influence during the Hellenistic period) and the presen[ce] of "we passages" in Acts that are closely related to sea voyages.

Toto · 02-17-2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
. . .
In any event, even Josephus mentions some miracles, does that mean he should be discounted as a historical source?

Josesphus cannot be accepted uncritically. He had his biases and blind spots. But since he was attempting to write history and not a theological document, and since we know enough of his life to know what his biases are, he is a useful historical source.

Acts on the other hand is an adventure story going from one miracle to another, by an unknown author who never identifies himself or herself but who has a clear ideological and theological bias. It would be credulous at the least to treat it as an historical source for any particular event.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2003, 09:35 AM	#52
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Sauron, A great number of harmless creatures were traditionally considered to be deadly - for instance several large Italian spiders are harmless but big and hairy. Likewise the gecko and salamander were considered highly dangerous. The people thought the snake was dangerous because they thought all snakes were dangerous. Publius had a fever and recovered. Big deal and no surprise that the narrator thought Paul was responsible. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

02-17-2003, 10:10 AM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Bede (I don't think you're Nomad, are you?) So you are saying that the stupid "barbarian" islanders were confused about their local snakes? Why would they think that all snakes were poisonous without any experience of poisonous snakes? Divine revelation? And your version seems to leave Paul as a typical fake faith healer, who lets nature take its course and then claims credit. How exactly does this support your faith?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.