Where did the shipwrecked Paul land?

I'm just bringing this up because it's a bit of a piece of contention among many Mediterranean islands, and I live on one named Malta. In fact, I live in a place where I have a view of "St Paul's Island", the spot where Paul was supposedly found after being shipwrecked, in the distance.

Interesting thing...plenty of other places besides Malta claim to be the "Melite" spoken of in Acts...but the odd thing is that there is little to absolutely no physical evidence to support this directly. We do have Christian catacombs, but Malta was along trade routes so the spread of even a fringe religion wouldn't have been insane. What's a bit more telling is that there are Jewish catacombs as well in the exact same area, and it's thought that Malta has had a Jewish population for quite some time, so the spread of a movement that grew out of Judaism is...well..not insane.

I'd like to see what some of the Christians think about this one, as it always smelled a bit fishy to me.

acts 28:1 says "the island of malta," of course, this is probably new international - not sure that it matters. my father is a retired baptist preacher, so i asked him. i know it's not much but i hope it helps.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'd like to see what some of the Christians think about this one, as it always smelled a bit fishy to me.

I dont qualify anymore.

This might answer your question though jesusneverexisted.com...

Here is the relevant article

reply to post by redjim


It does say it in some translations...but a lot of the description...like venomous snakes...doesn't add up. I haven't spent my whole life in Malta, only a total of 6-7 now (and two of those years were the first two of my life), but I've never heard of a native venomous snake on Malta ever...

Also, I know Cypriots who disagree with the Maltese and claim that Paul shipwrecked in (Greek) Cyprus.

reply to post by LHP666


Good source, though I've come across this stuff before. I do want to see what Christians have to say because of the general...fuzziness...surrounding early Christian history.

Yeah, you're right. Paul and Luke must have totally been lying.

Darn nabbit! I feel so hoodwinked!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


...so I'm trying to understand people's positions better and you're just going to appeal to ridicule? I'm raising a legitimate curiosity because the issue came up over a lunch. I've only heard Catholic perspectives on it, as the vast majority of Maltese are Catholics.

I do know that, at the very least, the cultural tradition that Malta was converted to Christianity and remained such until the present day is blatantly false, as Malta was predominately Muslim under Arab rule, but I'd like to see people's take on one of the parts of the Bible that doesn't make too much sense for a person that lives in the area described.

This verse just doesn't make any sense:

Acts 28:6

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

An island that has no history of venomous snakes would not have a populace which expected venom reactions from snakebites.

Hoodwinked? No, maybe a second or third hand account ended up messing up the location. It's only one word in the whole text, isn't it?

The element of conspiracy is hard to see. Also, there's nothing religious at stake in which Melite was referred to in Acts. It is predictable that local people anywhere will be only too happy to show tourists where "local tradition says" any famous person visited. Local tradition says a lot of things in a lot of places.

There is nothing in the pasage that rules out Malta. Acts 26:8 doesn't say that Paul was bitten by a venomous snake, only that a snakebite created an expectation in onlookers that Paul might "swell up" or "suddenly fall dead."

Here is a contemporary report of a non-venomous exotic snake biting human beings on Malta resulting in swelling:

www.hylawerkgroep.be...

A note on the toxicity of the saliva of Hemorrhois algirus
After being bitten in the right hand, three of us (Jan, Anniek and myself) developed swelling of lymphoid glands in our right armpit. This is most likely associated with Duvernoy's gland secretion. The largest Algerian Whip Snake had the opportunity to administer a long, chewing bite to all three of us. So far, we are all still as OK as before, so no severe consequences were associated with the bite.

What Duvernoy's gland secretes is not a venom, but can be toxic to human beings if administered under the skin, as by biting.

The Acts report says only that the people in question had a disjunctive expectation that Paul would be adversely affected. We don't know the basis for that expectation. We do know the people were superstitious (they thought Paul was a god, after having thought his snakebite was retribution for a crime, after having thought that his not being drowned was bound up in divine administration of justice).

Since it is well-attested that Malta has snakes of the required toxicity to fulfill the diffuse and disjunctive specification, Malta's candidacy must be excluded on other grounds, if at all.

Hope that helps in your inquiries.

reply to post by eight bits


That was informative and interesting...and the reason I tossed it here wasn't that it was conspiratorial (except maybe a few churches that are trying to fill some collection baskets with relics...) but that it was...conjectural.

The info on the snake bites is good. I do know of other lizards that have toxic or otherwise adverse but non-venomous properties and was unaware that we had snakes of that sort here.

Eh, just a local curiosity at the end of the day.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
An island that has no history of venomous snakes would not have a populace which expected venom reactions from snakebites.

Hoodwinked? No, maybe a second or third hand account ended up messing up the location. It's only one word in the whole text, isn't it?

edit on 11/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

Hello Maddness.

I would like to suggest something.

The contention you are noting also has implications expressing the nature of the inhabitants of the, in this case Island, location.

For an overtly obvious example, we have St Patrick and his revered St Patricks Day with all its implications.

St Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland. Ireland didnt have snakes. it had pagan forms of worship, and St Patrick brought the message of Christ. I would fully expect similiar intent is utilized in this case.

Just an observation and example of such a thing.

Ciao

Shane

How is Malta?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Act 28:1

Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.

I've never heard of a native venomous snake on Malta ever...

Venomous snakes could be extinct in that closed Eco system by now, that's almost 2000 years ago.

pretty interesting... it makes one think that the 14 day journey
could be considered a 2 week abduction by Mother Nature which deposited Paul (nee Saul) in a controlled test ...
the 'snake' metaphor was the evil that Paul encountered which he overcame...

the whole epic voyage and stranding on a foreign & hostile island sorta mirrors the Greek Epic in the Golden Fleece Myth & landing on an island with a giant Cyclops living there


the Paul shipwreck myth is conjured to give some depth & human substance to the mythic person called Paul...
so as to convince the reader the myth is true & real by default



thanks for the link LHP666

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


As for which island is Malta, I could really care less. Paul could have shipwrecked on any of the small islands around them parts. Names change in two thousand years.

As for the whole venomous snakes on your island, this is super easy to explain to any one with an ounce of common sense, ESPECIALLY on a island.

Given two thousand years, don't you think the inhabitants of your island could and would have killed all the venomous snakes off by now? Its not hard to come up with this explanation if you were not BIASED.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm just bringing this up because it's a bit of a piece of contention among many Mediterranean islands, and I live on one named Malta. In fact, I live in a place where I have a view of "St Paul's Island", the spot where Paul was supposedly found after being shipwrecked, in the distance.

Interesting thing...plenty of other places besides Malta claim to be the "Melite" spoken of in Acts...but the odd thing is that there is little to absolutely no physical evidence to support this directly. We do have Christian catacombs, but Malta was along trade routes so the spread of even a fringe religion wouldn't have been insane. What's a bit more telling is that there are Jewish catacombs as well in the exact same area, and it's thought that Malta has had a Jewish population for quite some time, so the spread of a movement that grew out of Judaism is...well..not insane.

I'd like to see what some of the Christians think about this one, as it always smelled a bit fishy to me.

Kif'inti habibi? Jien Malti ukoll imma fil-australia

Ommi Malti, imma missieri ta' Australia, huma inti malti bid-demm jew tat-twelid? hemm Ingliż wisq f'Malta issa!