Sir William Ramsey who set out to show that the book of Acts was not historically accurate or reliable. Why? Because he believed it was written in the second century, years after the time of Christ, and the events of the New Testament. “Therefore”, he said, “writing the Second century you could not be accurate about the detail about the first century.”
But he totally changed his opinion, and said that “Luke is unsurpassed in accuracy historically.” Why? Because for example in the book of Acts, chapter 19 verse 31, Paul says that in Ephesus, Paul befriended a lot of political leaders. Known as Asiarchs. For example it says, “Also some of the Asiarchs who are friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to venture into the theater for the safety of his life.” And yet the scholars said, “This is wrong because there is no such thing as the title Asiarchs.”
And they said, “Well of course, if Paul is right in the second century, or Luke that therefore, you could expect mistakes like that about the first century.” Until they discovered among Strabo the ancient writer speaks of these officials were chosen from “among the wealthiest and most aristocratic in the provinces and they were called Asiarchs.”
All the sudden Sir William Ramsey said, “Wait a minute, if he was writing the second century, how could he be so accurate in detail about the first century when all the scholars said, ‘That is not true.’” He started to think, “You know, I bet Paul is accurate in other areas of detail that he started to look at.” Yes, the New Testament can be trusted.
Sir William Ramsey set out to show that the book of Acts was not historically accurate or reliable. Why? Because he believed it was written in the second century, years after the time of Christ, and the events of the New Testament. “Therefore”, he said, “writing the Second century you could not be accurate about the detail about the first century.”
But he totally changed his opinion, and said that “Luke is unsurpassed in accuracy historically.” Why? Because for example in the book of Acts, chapter 19 verse 31, Paul says that in Ephesus, Paul befriended a lot of political leaders. Known as Asiarchs. For example it says, “Also some of the Asiarchs who are friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to venture into the theater for the safety of his life.” And yet the scholars said, “This is wrong because there is no such thing as the title Asiarchs.”
And they said, “Well of course, if Paul is right in the second century, or Luke that therefore, you could expect mistakes like that about the first century.” Until they discovered among Strabo the ancient writer speaks of these officials were chosen from “among the wealthiest and most aristocratic in the provinces and they were called Asiarchs.”
All the sudden Sir William Ramsey said, “Wait a minute, if he was writing the second century, how could he be so accurate in detail about the first century when all the scholars said, ‘That is not true.’” He started to think, “You know, I bet Paul is accurate in other areas of detail that he started to look at.” Yes, the New Testament can be trusted.
Summary: Sir William Ramsey originally believed that Acts was written in the second century and was not historically accurate until he examined the external evidence for this book. Using verse 31 in chapter 19, Ramsey discovered that Luke’s using of the word “Asiarchs” referred to political leaders of Paul’s day, even though critics held that there was no such title as Asiarchs. Ramsey discovered in the works of the ancient writer Strabo that he also referred to these officials called “Asiarchs.” Ramsey continued to wonder how if Luke wrote in the second century, how could he be so accurate about so many first century details. Ramsey began changing his mind regarding the accuracy of the New Testament.
Questions:
© 2024 Josh McDowell Ministry | All rights reserved.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
