Professor McGiffert, in his "Apostolic Age," denies that Luke is the author of Acts of Apostles, and affirms that the book was written between 80 and 95 A. D. In the February number of the Expositor, Prof. W. M. Ramsey reviews his arguments on this question, and [281] defends the Lucan authorship. In the course of his review he says two things, to which I call attention. First, he speaks in the following terms of the ignorance and blundering charged by McGiffert on the author of Acts:

      I can find no parallel in literary history for a supposition so violent. One is used to such maltreatment of history among ignorant students, who are experimenting to discover what is the minimum of knowledge which will be accepted as a "pass" by an examiner. But, except among the examination papers of passmen, I have seen nothing to parallel the ridiculous and shameless ignorance which is thus attributed to the compiler--an ignorance which might almost suggest the theory that Acts is the rejected examination paper in history of some lazy candidate for inatriculation in some ancient university.

      This is a very apt illustration. It applies not only to McGiffert's representation of the author of Acts, but to the representation of Biblical writers in general, which we find in the books of the rationalistic critics. Matthew, Mark and John, together with the "redactors" of the Old Testament narratives, were all a set of blunderers and ignoramuses, if we may believe the gentleman who know much more about Jesus and Paul than was known by those who were "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."

      Second, in the closing paragraph of his review Professor Ramsey says:

      We have in Dr. McGiffert's work a book which shows many very great qualities, and which might have ranked among the small number of really good books, if it had not been spoiled by a bad theory as to the fundamental document on which it must rest.

      It is not, then, a really good book; it is one that is spoiled by a bad theory. Such is the judgment, not of a "traditionalist," but of one who is recognized as a critic among critics. [282]

      Professor Ramsey makes another remark that is so certainly true, and is spoken with such emphasis, that I must quote it in conclusion:

      The fact is that, unless Acts is accepted as good authority, we must resign ourselves to be ignorant about the apostolic period, and must cease to make any dogmatic statements as to what is possible or impossible.

[SEBC 281-283]