Historians and Miracle Claims
Most biblical scholars and historians hold that the investigation of a miracle report lies outside of the rights of historians acting within their professional capacity. In this essay, I challenge this position and argue to the contrary. A definition of history should not a priori exclude the possib...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2014
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the historical Jesus
Year: 2014, Volume: 12, Issue: 1/2, Pages: 106-129 |
| Further subjects: | B
Criteria
historical Jesus
method
methodological naturalism
miracles
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Most biblical scholars and historians hold that the investigation of a miracle report lies outside of the rights of historians acting within their professional capacity. In this essay, I challenge this position and argue to the contrary. A definition of history should not a priori exclude the possibility of investigating miracle claims, since doing so may restrict historians to an inaccurate assessment of the past. Professional historians outside of the community of biblical scholars acknowledge the frequent absence of a consensus; this largely results from conflicting horizons among historians. If this is the present state among professionals engaged in the study of non-religious history, it will be even more so with historians of Jesus. Finally, even if some historians cannot bring themselves to grant divine causation, they, in principle, can render a verdict on the event itself without rendering a verdict on its cause. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5197 |
| Contains: | In: Journal for the study of the historical Jesus
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/17455197-01202002 |