I’m always a bit nonplussed by statements like this. Alone amongst the gospellers, Luke at least claims to be writing history (by addressing Theophilus in chapter 1). But to regard him as amongst the elite historians of the classical world…???
He didn’t name his sources. He didn’t date anything. He drew most of his material from Mark without attributing it. And when he felt like changing something to suit his own theological agenda, he did so. Luke is at best an average historian, well below the standards we see from Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny etc.
With all due respect to Ramsey, he lived in an era before modern biblical criticism, so the outpouring of praise he gives to Luke seems (at best) quaint.
Here is just one basic example of why your so-called " modern criticism" is flawed in its techniques.
In the
Gospel of Matthew, Jesus talks about how the Temple will be destroyed.
This happened in the year AD 70.
Now, a “liberal” scholar (starting out with the
assumption that there is no such thing as the supernatural, God, etc.), will read that and say, “Well, since we “know” that it is impossible for somebody to know future events, we can infer that this was written
after the fact,
after the year AD 70.”
I know that that was only a simple example, but that is pretty much how they dissect every book in the Bible.
Having read many of these ridiculous books, I saw nothing to their claims (even when I was an atheist). What I *did *see, however, was a bunch of arrogance.
And just so you know, not all scholars agree with their methods. Even within *their own *circles, liberal scholars disagree on their ideas.
As a matter of fact, it was because I was able to leave my “comfort zone”
as an atheist and seriously consider what other scholars had to say that I saw the historicity in Christianity when I studied world religions.
after that; Poe’s Law applies.