r Giffert, one of our American
biblical critics, had felt compelled by the geographical and historical
evidence to abandon in part the older unfavorable criticism of Luke and
to admit that the Acts is more trustworthy than previous critics
allowed. Above all, "he saw that it was a living piece of literature
written by one author." In a word, Luke is being vindicated in every
regard.

Some of the supposed inaccuracies of Luke vanish when careful
investigation is made. Some of his natural history details, for
instance, have been impugned and the story of the viper that "fastened"
itself upon St. Paul in Malta has been cited as an example of a story
that would not have been told in that way by a man who knew medicine and
the related sciences in Luke's time. Because the passage illustrates a
number of phases of the discussion with regard to Luke's language I make
a rather long quotation from Ramsay:

Take as a specimen with which to finish off this paper the
passage Acts xxviii, 9 _et seq._, which is very fully
discussed by Harnack twice. He argues that the true meaning of
the passage was not understood until medical language was
compared, when it was shown that the Greek word by which the
act of the viper to Paul's hand is described, implies "bit"
and not merely "fastened upon." But it is a well-assured fact
that the viper, a poisonous snake, only strikes, fixes the
poison fangs on the flesh for a moment, and withdraws its head
instantly. Its action could never be what is attributed by
Luke the eye witness to this Maltese viper; that it hung from
Paul's hand and was shaken off into the fire by him. On the
other hand, constrictors, which have no poison fangs, cling in
the way described, but as a rule do not bite. Are we, then, to
understand in spite of the medical style and the authority of
Professor Blass (who translates "momordit" in his edition),
that the viper fastened upon the apostle's hand? Then, the
very name viper is a difficulty. Was Luke mistaken about the
kind of snake which he saw? A trained medical man in ancient
times was usually a good authority about serpents, to which
great respect was paid in ancient medicine and custom.

Mere verbal study is here utterly at fault. We can make no
progress without turning to the realities and facts of Maltese
natural history. A correspondent obligingl