The adjudication of miracles: Rethinking the criteria of historicity
This is the second article in a series of two that discusses whether historians are within their professional rights to investigate miracle claims. In the first, I made a positive case that they are and then proceeded to examine two major arguments in support of a negative verdict to the issue: the...
| 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: | This is the second article in a series of two that discusses whether historians are within their professional rights to investigate miracle claims. In the first, I made a positive case that they are and then proceeded to examine two major arguments in support of a negative verdict to the issue: the principle of analogy and antecedent probability. I argued that neither should deter historians from issuing a positive verdict on miracle claims when certain criteria are met and the event is the best explanation of the relevant historical bedrock. In this second article, I examine three additional objections commonly appealed to by biblical scholars: the theological objection, lack of consensus and miracle claims in multiple religions. The resurrection of Jesus is occasionally cited as an example. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2072-8050 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: HTS teologiese studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.4102/hts.v65i1.130 |
