Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Submitter

James Rice
View other files from this member

SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

Submitted: Apr 03 2012 02:17 PM
Last Updated: Apr 03 2012 02:17 PM
File Size: 179K
Views: 2579
Downloads: 266
Author: W.M. Ramsay
theWord Version: 3.x - 4.x
Tab Name: Was Christ Born in Bethlehem

Support WordModules.com

theWord Module Download:
Download Ramsay, W.M - Was Christ Born in Bethlehem

1

What is theWord? How do I view theWord Modules?

Author:
W.M. Ramsay

theWord Version:
3.x - 4.x

Tab Name:
Was Christ Born in Bethlehem

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar, as well as Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford University. He is now probably most remembered for his studies (in what is now Turkey and Asia Minor) of St. Paul's missionary journeys and of Christianity in the early Roman Empire, and for his endorsement of the historical accuracy of Luke and the Book of Acts.

In this 1898 book, Ramsay argues that "Luke was a great historian," and seeks to defend the accuracy of the events in the early chapters of Luke's gospel from charges of inaccuracy---particularly as regards the census of Quirinius (the biblical 'Cyrenius' is the Greek version of his Roman name) reported in Luke 2:2. He notes the seriousness of this charge, saying, "The confounding of one census with another in this case would be one of the serious things, which condemn the would-be historian as hopelessly incapable of accuracy or sound historical judgment." Later he adds, "If he made a blunder, as seems generally admitted, that would be a sufficient refutation of the view which I have maintained, that he was a great historian."

As his suggested resolution, Ramsay suggests Quirinius was 'governor' of Syria on two occasions (the first as a military governor, not the "political" one), and argues that an inscription found in 1794 backs this up. About the dating of this earlier census, he writes, "In Syria, therefore, the periodic year was probably 9-8 B.C., and the actual numbering would take place in the year 8-7 B.C." He later argues that this should be moved up a year, then states, "Between the years of 7 and 6 it is difficult to choose ... Luke, however, gives additional information about the Saviour's life which affords reasonable confidence that 6 B.C. was the year of Christ's birth."

Ramsay writes, "these positions, with the experience in Oriental affairs acquired in them, marked out Quirinius as the proper person to guide the inexperienced Gaius Caesar ... These lines of reasoning make it most probable that the two years during which Quirinius was administering Syria and conquering the Homonadenses cannot have been later than B.C. 5-3, and may have been earlier.... This extraordinary command of Quirinius lasted for at least two years, and had come to an end before the death of Herod in B.C. 4.... Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. Will full consciousness, (Tertullian) corrects Luke's statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader in Syria."

Despite his belief in the general accuracy of Luke's record, Ramsay states, "Luke had little sense for chronology, the value of which in clearly understanding or describing any series of incidents had not been appreciated so early as the first century.... Want of chronological sense or interest may seem a serious defect in a historian. But we are too apt to forget that Luke was not writing for us, and that he was not even writing for posterity. He wrote for the benefit of his own contemporaries."

He says in conclusion, "They go on to put many other stumbling-blocks in the way, but none of these cause any difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle that Luke was a great historian who wrote good Greek of the first century kind."

One may agree or disagree with Ramsay's apologetic (the fact that the inscription he relies on does not preserve the NAME of the individual is unfortunate). Still, this book, like all of Ramsay's works, remains in print today as a testimony to its continuing value to students of the New Testament.