What do you think?
Rate this book
Was Christ born at Bethlehem?: A study on the credibility of St. Luke
Book by Ramsay, William Mitchell
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1898
About the author
William M. Ramsay
70 books18 followersSir William Mitchell Ramsay, FBA was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honourary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honourary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honourary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 8, 2025
A STAUNCH DEFENSE OF LUKE AS A HISTORIAN
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.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1898 book, “Understanding that a certain criticism implied a sort of challenge to apply my theory of Luke’s character as a historian to the Gospel, I took what is generally acknowledged to be the most doubtful passage, from the historian’s view, in the New Testament: Luke 2:1-4… This passage, interpreted according to the view I have maintained---that Luke was a great historian, and that he appreciated the force of the Greek superlative … gave the result that Luke was acquainted with a system of Periodic Enrollments in Syria, and probably in the East generally. I looked for evidence of such a system; and it was offered by recent discoveries in Egypt… I have enlarged [this]… into an argument against the view that Luke sinks… below the standard exacted from ordinary historians.” (Pg. vii-viii)
He explains, “Luke gives us the result of his own investigations into the historical surroundings of the life of Christ. But if his investigations were of such a character that he confused the census of 8 B.C. with that of 6-7 A.D., and imagined that Christ was born ‘in the days of Herod the King,' during a census held about ten or eleven years after the death of Herod… It is no wonder … that Luke’s History has fallen under suspicion so strong that the case in its favor has been generally considered weaker than that in favor of any other important book in the New Testament… [even a] friendly scholar… found that my ‘treatment of St. Luke as a historian seems too optimistic.’ But it is an essentially inconsistent position to fancy that we can accept three-fourths or nine-tenths of what Luke says as true, and reject the rest. Destroy a historian’s credit in one critical point, and there remains nought.” (Pg. 46-48)
He asserts, “The fact that there exists no evidence of such frequent taking of census in Syria, as we suppose, constitutes no disproof of our theory. The evidence has perished. Twenty years ago no one dreamed to what a degree of minuteness and perfection the registration of inhabitants, property and values in Egypt was carried by the Romans. The evidence seems to have perished.” (Pg. 170)
He states, “Luke’s statement that the enrollment was applied to Palestine is therefore in perfect accord with the situation as revealed by Josephus during the last years of the life of Herod. The question that remains is: In what year was the enrollment made in Palestine? The year was generally observed in the southern part of the Province Syria and perhaps followed by Josephus in his history, began in the spring. 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.” (Pg. 185)
He argues, “For Herod’s enrollment… there is open only the late summer of 7 or 6 B.C. Unless we have omitted some important factor (which is, of course, far from improbable, considering how scanty the evidence is), the enrollment can hardly be brought down so late as 5 B.C.; and we have seen that 8 B.C. is excluded by other considerations. Between the years 7 and 6 it is difficult to choose... Luke, however, gives additional information about the Savior’s life, which affords reasonable confidence that 6 B.C. was the year of Christ’s birth.” (Pg. 195-196)
He acknowledges, “Luke does not refer to any Passover during that whole period except the last. He was not interested in the relation of Jesus to the Jewish feasts, and hardly alludes to the subject after the Passover that occurred in the Savior’s twelfth year. Hence we cannot expect from him much direct evidence bearing on the Passovers during the teaching of Jesus. Moreover, Luke had little of the sense for chronology… 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 contemporaries… That which seemed most important for the … Church at the time was what Luke most desired to record with absolute accuracy and trustworthiness… the facts of his Birth, Death and Resurrection.” (Pg. 203-204)
He explains, “We come now to the last serious difficulty in Luke’s account of the ‘First Enrollment’; he says that it occurred while Quirinius was administering Syria. The famous administration of Syria by Quirinius lasted from about A.D. 6 to 9… Obviously the events described by Luke are irreconcilable with that date. There was found near Tibur… a fragment of marble with part of an inscription… The inscription records the career and honors of a Roman official who lived in the reign of Augustus… He conquered a nation… he governed Asia as proconsul; and he twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus…
"[T]hese indications are sufficient to show with practical certainty… that the officer who achieved this splendid career was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. His government of Syria, A.D. 6-9, was therefore his second tenure of that office. He had administered Syria at some previous time. Is not this earlier administration the occasion to which Luke refers?... Luke does not specify exactly what was the Roman office which Quirinius held at the time when this first enrollment was made. The Greek word which he uses occurs elsewhere in his History, indicating the office of procurator [Lk 3:1]… Hence the word, as employed by Luke, might be applied to any Roman official holding a leading and authoritative position in the province of Syria.” (Pg. 228-229)
He adds later, “These lines of reasoning make it most probable that the two years during which Quirinius was administering Syria and conquering, Quirinius was administering Syria … cannot have been later than B.C. 5-3, and may have been earlier.” (Pg. 236)
He summarizes, “But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A.D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does … but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him… 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.” (Pg. 246-247)
Most of Ramsay’s writings will be of keen interest to those studying Biblical Archaeology and Apologetics.
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.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1898 book, “Understanding that a certain criticism implied a sort of challenge to apply my theory of Luke’s character as a historian to the Gospel, I took what is generally acknowledged to be the most doubtful passage, from the historian’s view, in the New Testament: Luke 2:1-4… This passage, interpreted according to the view I have maintained---that Luke was a great historian, and that he appreciated the force of the Greek superlative … gave the result that Luke was acquainted with a system of Periodic Enrollments in Syria, and probably in the East generally. I looked for evidence of such a system; and it was offered by recent discoveries in Egypt… I have enlarged [this]… into an argument against the view that Luke sinks… below the standard exacted from ordinary historians.” (Pg. vii-viii)
He explains, “Luke gives us the result of his own investigations into the historical surroundings of the life of Christ. But if his investigations were of such a character that he confused the census of 8 B.C. with that of 6-7 A.D., and imagined that Christ was born ‘in the days of Herod the King,' during a census held about ten or eleven years after the death of Herod… It is no wonder … that Luke’s History has fallen under suspicion so strong that the case in its favor has been generally considered weaker than that in favor of any other important book in the New Testament… [even a] friendly scholar… found that my ‘treatment of St. Luke as a historian seems too optimistic.’ But it is an essentially inconsistent position to fancy that we can accept three-fourths or nine-tenths of what Luke says as true, and reject the rest. Destroy a historian’s credit in one critical point, and there remains nought.” (Pg. 46-48)
He asserts, “The fact that there exists no evidence of such frequent taking of census in Syria, as we suppose, constitutes no disproof of our theory. The evidence has perished. Twenty years ago no one dreamed to what a degree of minuteness and perfection the registration of inhabitants, property and values in Egypt was carried by the Romans. The evidence seems to have perished.” (Pg. 170)
He states, “Luke’s statement that the enrollment was applied to Palestine is therefore in perfect accord with the situation as revealed by Josephus during the last years of the life of Herod. The question that remains is: In what year was the enrollment made in Palestine? The year was generally observed in the southern part of the Province Syria and perhaps followed by Josephus in his history, began in the spring. 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.” (Pg. 185)
He argues, “For Herod’s enrollment… there is open only the late summer of 7 or 6 B.C. Unless we have omitted some important factor (which is, of course, far from improbable, considering how scanty the evidence is), the enrollment can hardly be brought down so late as 5 B.C.; and we have seen that 8 B.C. is excluded by other considerations. Between the years 7 and 6 it is difficult to choose... Luke, however, gives additional information about the Savior’s life, which affords reasonable confidence that 6 B.C. was the year of Christ’s birth.” (Pg. 195-196)
He acknowledges, “Luke does not refer to any Passover during that whole period except the last. He was not interested in the relation of Jesus to the Jewish feasts, and hardly alludes to the subject after the Passover that occurred in the Savior’s twelfth year. Hence we cannot expect from him much direct evidence bearing on the Passovers during the teaching of Jesus. Moreover, Luke had little of the sense for chronology… 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 contemporaries… That which seemed most important for the … Church at the time was what Luke most desired to record with absolute accuracy and trustworthiness… the facts of his Birth, Death and Resurrection.” (Pg. 203-204)
He explains, “We come now to the last serious difficulty in Luke’s account of the ‘First Enrollment’; he says that it occurred while Quirinius was administering Syria. The famous administration of Syria by Quirinius lasted from about A.D. 6 to 9… Obviously the events described by Luke are irreconcilable with that date. There was found near Tibur… a fragment of marble with part of an inscription… The inscription records the career and honors of a Roman official who lived in the reign of Augustus… He conquered a nation… he governed Asia as proconsul; and he twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus…
"[T]hese indications are sufficient to show with practical certainty… that the officer who achieved this splendid career was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. His government of Syria, A.D. 6-9, was therefore his second tenure of that office. He had administered Syria at some previous time. Is not this earlier administration the occasion to which Luke refers?... Luke does not specify exactly what was the Roman office which Quirinius held at the time when this first enrollment was made. The Greek word which he uses occurs elsewhere in his History, indicating the office of procurator [Lk 3:1]… Hence the word, as employed by Luke, might be applied to any Roman official holding a leading and authoritative position in the province of Syria.” (Pg. 228-229)
He adds later, “These lines of reasoning make it most probable that the two years during which Quirinius was administering Syria and conquering, Quirinius was administering Syria … cannot have been later than B.C. 5-3, and may have been earlier.” (Pg. 236)
He summarizes, “But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A.D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does … but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him… 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.” (Pg. 246-247)
Most of Ramsay’s writings will be of keen interest to those studying Biblical Archaeology and Apologetics.
Displaying 1 of 1 review