An interesting case of snake-bite is briefly related in Acts xxviii., 3–6. It is stated that “when Paul (after being shipwrecked on the Island of Melita) 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. 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. And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 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.” This narrative is interesting in several respects, but there is one feature that deserves to receive special mention, viz., the fact that Paul experienced no harm from the bite of a poisonous serpent--a wound which frequently proves fatal. Inasmuch as the account distinctly states that the reptile “fastened on his hand” and that “the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand,” the conclusion is warranted that one or both of the creature’s fangs had entered the hand by a curving route, and probably in such a manner that the free end of each fang, from which the poison is ejected, passed completely through the skin from within outward. When the bite of a poisonous snake is of a character such as I have just described,--and not a few of them have this character,--only a very small quantity of the venom is lodged in the subcutaneous tissues, where the larger blood- and lymph-channels lie, and as a consequence the person bitten escapes serious harm. On the other hand, when the fangs enter the flesh in a less decidedly curving direction, thus permitting a greater quantity of the venom to reach and remain in the deep-lying tissues, serious or even fatal results may be anticipated. The point, then, which I desire to make is simply this: Paul’s escape from death in this instance may perfectly well be ascribed to natural causes. The Israelites, at a certain stage of their history, appear to have completely divorced the practice of medicine from the priestly function. In one place, for example, it is stated that King Asa sought relief from his ailment, not from Jehovah, but from the physicians. Jeremiah expresses astonishment that not a single physician is to be found in Gilead. May this not be interpreted as signifying that regularly established physicians were at that time (595 B. C.) to be found in some parts of Palestine? And, at a much earlier period (1500 B. C.), Job calls his friends “physicians of no value” (Job xiii., iv.). From these and a number of other statements in the Bible it seems permissible to believe that, at a very early period of history, the Jewish physicians occupied an entirely independent position.