Historians and miracles: The principle of analogy and antecedent probability reconsidered
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 article, I challenge this assertion and argue to the contrary: Historians are within their professional rights to investig...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2009
|
| In: |
HTS teologiese studies
Year: 2009, Volume: 65, Issue: 1 |
| Further subjects: | B
Historicity of Miracle Stories
B Miracles B Principle of Analogy B Biblical Hermeneutics B Antecedent Probability |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| 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 article, I challenge this assertion and argue to the contrary: Historians are within their professional rights to investigate miracle claims and to adjudicate on the historicity of the events. I present a positive case for the historian’s right to adjudicate on miracle claims and address two major objections to this conclusion: the principle of analogy and antecedent probability. At times I use the resurrection of Jesus as an example. This is the first of two articles. In the second, I will address three additional common objections: the theological objection, the lack of consensus and miracle claims in multiple religions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2072-8050 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: HTS teologiese studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.4102/hts.v65i1.129 |
