Open AccessHistorians and miracles: The principle of analogy and antecedent probability reconsidered
Author(s) -
Michael R. Licona,
J.G. van der Watt
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
hts teologiese studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.282
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2072-8050
pISSN - 0259-9422
DOI - 10.4102/hts.v65i1.129
Subject(s) - miracle , analogy , adjudication , antecedent (behavioral psychology) , historicity (philosophy) , philosophy , assertion , epistemology , doctrine , interpretation (philosophy) , law , political science , theology , linguistics , psychology , developmental psychology , politics , computer science , programming language
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