G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 1 http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2010/10/sir-william-mitch
In my last blog entry, we discovered Simon Greenleaf was not converted from
atheism to Christianity despite the numerous claims by Christian apologist
after apologist. In fact, if you search “Simon Greenleaf atheist” in
Google, you will find reams of pages, all with Christians gleefully stating
this. All wrong.
Another claimed conversion is that of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay. While I
was at, I decided to confirm this claim, and guess what I found out? Another
untruth! I would argue in some situations, a downright lie. Again, google-
whack “William Ramsay atheist” and you will again see Christian apologetic
sites braying how he was converted from atheism to Christianity by his
scholarly attempt to debunk it. A typical example from Lee Strobel:
That’s why I was especially fascinated by the story of Sir William
Ramsay of Oxford University in England, one of history’s greatest
archaeologists. He was an atheist. He spent 25 years doing archaeological
digs to try to disprove the book of Acts which was written by the historian
Luke…Instead of discrediting Luke’s account, Ramsay’s work kept
supporting it. Finally he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate
historians who had ever written. Influenced by the archaeological evidence,
Ramsay became a Christian.
The Case for Christ
Or Josh McDowell:
”He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced
task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the
home of the Bible, where he would ‘dig up the evidence’ that the Book was
the product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to
be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story
of Paul’s travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on
the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the
Bible. Here he spent fifteen years literally ‘digging for the evidence.’
Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the
Roman Citizen.
“The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its
attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced
intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after
book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional
evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as
tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many
infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted
Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having
been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.”
Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (I don’t have a copy of ETDAV, but this
quote is also listed at Conservapedia. If someone can demonstrate this is
inaccurate in any way, I will modify it.)
[Edited to add: Although Josh McDowell apparently has removed this quote
from later editions of ETDAV. See Comments Below.]
Untrue. Wrong. False.
A brief background on Sir William Ramsay: (Not to be confused with Sir
William Ramsay the Nobel Prize winning Chemist as this website does with the
wrong picture!)
He was a British archaeologist, born on the 15th of March 1851, with his
primary works around the turn of the century (1900.) . Educated at the
universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Göttingen, and a fellow of Exeter
College, Oxford (1882; honorary fellow 1898), and Lincoln College (1885;
honorary 1899). In 1885 he was elected professor of classical art at Oxford,
and in the next year professor of humanity at Aberdeen. From 1880 onwards
he travelled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized
authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's
missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. His
numerous publications include: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890)
; The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); The Cities and Bishoprics of
Phrygia (2 vols., 1895, 1897); and St Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen (1895; Germ. trans., 1898).
This was taken from his entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. [Warning:
HUGE pdf] (But See also this entry that quotes the Encyclopedia ) Nothing
about his religious beliefs. Nothing about them changing. Nothing about
causing a huge scandal, or others being converted due to his writings.
I couldn’t find a single writing of his where he indicated he was an
atheist at any time. Nothing about his conversion to Christianity…for any
reason, let alone a specific study. More importantly, in all the writings I
could find, he listed reasons for his archaeological studies, but never,
ever mentions attempting to prove Christianity incorrect.
For example, in his Preface to the First Edition of St. Paul, Sir Ramsay
indicates the reason he studied this issue was at the instigation of fellow
scholars. Nothing about his wanting to prove Christianity, or Luke or
anything whatsoever incorrect!
So where did this idea come from? The closest I could come to the root of
this allegation was within I Don’t have enough Faith to be an atheist where
Geisler and Turek state:
Classical Scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsay began his
investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped
change his mind. He wrote:
“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then,
in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I
found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an
authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was
gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed
marvelous truth.”
The problem with this quote is that it is a lie. Notice the inserted “[Acts
]” followed by the ellipses. Do you wonder why “Acts” was added? Do you
wonder why words were omitted? Upon reading the WHOLE quote, you will see
why. And the reason I call this a lie. Unfortunately, I have to give you a
little background.
At this time (late 19th Century), in biblical studies, there was a growing
debate as to who Paul was writing to, when writing the Epistle of Galatians.
(Gal. 1:2). See, Galatia was not a city, unlike the Epistle of Romans
written to Rome, or Corinthians written to Corinth; Galatia was a region.
Paul was writing to a number of Churches. The debate and division was
between the “North Galatia” theory as compared to the “South Galatia”
theory. (See this site for a description of the issue.) Was Paul writing to
north Galatia, south Galatia or both?
Bishop Lightfoot had written a treatise on Galatians, wherein he argued for
the North Galatia theory. William Ramsay disagreed—he held to a South
Galatia theory. In his book, The Church in the Roman Empire Before 170 AD (
published 1890) Ramsay says, “I regret to be compelled, in these earlier
chapters, to disagree so much with Lightfoot’s views as stated in his
edition of Galatians; perhaps therefore I may be allowed to say that the
study of that work, sixteen years ago, marks an epoch in my thoughts and the
beginning of my admiration for St. Paul and for him.” (page 6)
Ramsay goes on to explain he will be arguing for the South Galatia theory
against Lightfoot. For another example of Ramsay’s position, you can read
the Expositor article of 1894 where Ramsay again argues the “south Galatia
” view is more harmonious with Acts than the “north Galatia” view.
Simple, right? Yet one more (amongst millions) of scholarly disagreements
over some biblical topic—Ramsay purported South Galatia, others held to
North Galatia.
Having this understanding, let’s look at the Geisler & Turek quote again:
“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]…. It did not lie, then, in
my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I
found myself more often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an
authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was
gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed
marvelous truth.”
But contrast this with the entire quote:
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any
prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to
the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the
ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had, at one time
, quite convinced me. It did not lie, then, in my line of life to
investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself more
often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the
topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in
upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In
fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was a second-century
composition and never relying upon its evidence as trustworthy for first-
century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some
obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious
objection to accepting it as a first-century work. According to the almost
universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through
surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-
contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul’s work in Asia Minor into
accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important
part of the work that was devoted to the northern part of the peninsula of
Galatia. [emphasis added]
St. Paul, The Traveler and the Roman Citizen, pg 19
Do you see? The “it” that William Ramsay referred to in the second
sentence was most certainly NOT Acts, as claimed by Geisler & Turek, if we
read the preceding sentence (conveniently left out by Geisler & Turek) we
see that “it” is conclusion he will be attempting to justify to the reader
. To remove that first sentence (and the first clause in the second) and
then insert the word “Acts” when the author is clearly not talking about
Acts is a lie.
We might as well claim Nixon said, “I am…[a thief and] a crook.”
Secondly, we would question what the Tubingen theory was, if Ramsay was
abandoning it. The Tubingen Theory was that Acts was a second century
document, intended to reconcile the differing positions of the Apostle Peter
and the Apostle Paul. Again, this is a biblical scholarly debate which
Ramsay abandoned a former biblical position—not an abandonment of atheism.
But most importantly, we see the crucial reason Ramsay could not subscribe
to the North Galatia theory, was the conflicts it created with Acts. In
other words, he held Acts in such high regard, it caused him to disagree
with his friend, Lightfoot--because Ramsay felt he must stay true to Acts.
Ramsay, in this paragraph, is indicating why he fell on one particular side
in a biblical squabble. NOT that he was against Acts’ historicity (far from
it) and in fact, primarily became convinced to the South Galatia theory
because of his adherence to Acts’ historicity.
Yet another “atheist turned Christian” story debunked.
Perhaps the most regrettably notion within is the blatant mistruth offered
by Geisler & Turek (and [at the least] the complete lack of study by Strobel
and McDowell) You would think that would bother some Christians…
Edited to Add:
I have found a kernel of truth to this claim of a “changed skeptic.”
According to Ramsay in his The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the
Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915) he initially subscribed to the
theory that Acts was compiled in the later 2nd Century, and addressed the
doctrinal issues of that time. For that reason, Ramsay did not utilize Acts
as reference material for what happened in the First Century.
However, he came to realize Acts did accurately reflect the geography. This
article (pdf) explains:
In his search for information bearing on the geography and history of
Asia Minor he at first paid slight attention to the early Christian
authorities. He had gained the impression in his studies that these were
quite unworthy of consideration for a historian; anything having to do with
religion belonged to the realm of the theologians, not that of the
historians. When he spent time copying Christian inscriptions in his
earliest years of travel, he felt the time to be wasted―even though a sense
of duty compelled hint to make copies of them. Finally, in a desperate
search for any information of a geographical and antiquarian nature, he
began to study the journeys of Paul in this region of the world as described
in the Book of Acts. He hardly expected to find any information of value
regarding the condition of Asia Minor in the time of Paul; rather, he
thought he would find material bearing upon the second half of the second
century of the Christian era, i.e. the age (he thought) in which the author
of Acts lived.
Ramsay was not trying to disprove Acts. Why would he? He didn’t think it
applicable to this period. He simply felt it would not be relevant. Upon
discovering one accuracy, he began to rely upon Acts as being historically
accurate to the First Century.
This is still very far from Ramsay, the hardened atheist skeptic going out
to battle on behalf of his cheering heathen colleagues, all expecting to
prove the entire New Testament to be completely false, only to discover the
very sandals of Jesus, and subsequently becoming a Christian.
I added this in fairness of complete disclosure. | E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | | G******e
发帖数: 9567 | | a***g
发帖数: 2402 | 4 谢谢分享。
最开始我还以只有华人基督徒比较喜欢举这个例子，没想到这是个世界性的话题。
应了那句话了，Ramsay爵士不只是英国的，更是全世界的：）
其实，我们现在已经很难再去求证Ramsay爵士到底是怎么想的，毕竟人家已经作古了。
作为今人，如果有兴趣的话可以研究研究他的著作，但在没有一个公认的结论前（恐怕
也不容易有结论了）还是不要再把老爵士拿出来作见证了。
【在 G******e 的大作中提到】
: BHistory 找到反驳证据了吗？
| G******e
发帖数: 9567 | 5 不管怎么样，福音是传到了。
【在 a***g 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢分享。
: 最开始我还以只有华人基督徒比较喜欢举这个例子，没想到这是个世界性的话题。
: 应了那句话了，Ramsay爵士不只是英国的，更是全世界的：）
: 其实，我们现在已经很难再去求证Ramsay爵士到底是怎么想的，毕竟人家已经作古了。
: 作为今人，如果有兴趣的话可以研究研究他的著作，但在没有一个公认的结论前（恐怕
: 也不容易有结论了）还是不要再把老爵士拿出来作见证了。
|
|
