Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent"[sic]? (2)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 18, 1997:

TILL
Otsen has cited the amazing historical accuracy of Luke as an argument
for biblical inerrancy, as if he somehow believes that because one
biblical writer was accurate in some geographical, political, and social
matters, he was therefore right in everything he wrote and that the entire
Bible must, as a consequence, be inerrant. In an earlier posting, I listed
over two dozen references that Luke made in the book of Acts to
extraordinary events. I challenge Otsen to present to us some kind of
extra-biblical evidence to prove that at least some of these events actually
happened. Until he can do this, he is in effect arguing that because Luke
knew the geography of the region he wrote about and the names of some
public officials and such like, we can thereby know that Luke was also
accurate in his reporting of the various miracle claims found in his gospel
and the book of Acts.

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent" [sic]? (1)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 17, 1997:
TILL
Otsen has posted the trite fundamentalist argument about Sir William
Ramsay, who was presumbably a biblical skeptic until he studied the
writings of Luke, after which he was so impressed by Luke's historical
accuracy that he became a dedicated Christian.  When Ramsay was
discussed earlier on the list Steve Carr noted in a posting to Errancy
date May 10th that Ramsay was actually a "Bible-believing historian." 
Carr made the following statement in his posting:

"In Ramsay's book, he describes how as a young man at Oxford ( a place
which *did* not accept religious sceptics), he studied the 39 Articles
of Faith for his Divinity exam. He corresponded with Bishop Lightfoot.
He spent months studying the NT and the OT (which he described as life-
giving). He describes the Epistle to Galatians as especially moving. He
was reminded often of his mother's love for Paul."