Discussion thread Miracles and Historial Investigation
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
610
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by BaronWaterPenguin11
Discussion Thread: Miracles and Historical Investigation
Arrie Elizabeth Harlan
July 27, 2023
Are historical studies and miracle claims incompatible?
Many intellectuals once rejected the idea that historians could investigate miracle claims.
However, more recently, the climate is changing, and historians are warming to the notion that
even the slightest trace of evidence from a miracle event must be investigated to the fullest of
their ability. Naturally, any investigation should proceed based on the validity of the evidence
presented. This means that whoever is conducting any research should employ only the tools
available to them and approach the investigation with an unbiased mind. It goes without saying
that any miracle claim should be examined individually.
Can historical investigations be used to substantiate miracle claims?
Absolutely, such investigations can be used to substantiate miracle claims, and, as a matter of
fact, they most definitely should be used any time there is evidence of a possible event occurring
during a time in the past. Miracles are understood by many to be an event that cannot be
explained naturally; the miracle is such that it was not caused naturally. The belief that Jesus was
able to work miracles and exorcise demons is supported by solid evidence, and a majority of
scholars support those claims. The leading authority on such miracles of Jesus acknowledges that
the evidence supporting them is very strong.
Multiple sources of evidence indicate that Jesus had a reputation for being able to perform
miracles, even among those who were not followers of Jesus. Josephus, a Roman historian,
reported that Jesus was a “worker of amazing deeds,” and others accused Jesus of being a
magician. Later the Talmud reported that Jewish exorcists were casting out demons in the name
of Jesus. The miracles of Jesus were reported in each gospel, indicating multiple attestations.
Historians have to investigate any evidence they have to know that a seemingly unnatural event
has occurred, regardless of whether they have concerns about the validity of the evidence.
1
Some
think that historians lack the proper tools to determine whether a miracle has occurred because
any miracle requires faith. The resurrection of Jesus Christ has been thoroughly investigated and
determined to be valid.
Habermas, quoting Fuller, states that “with respect to the state of research into the early Christian
belief in the resurrection: ‘That within a few weeks after the crucifixion Jesus’s disciples came to
believe this is one of the indisputable facts of history.’”
2
1 Gary R. Habermas,
The Risen Jesus & Future Hope
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003),
4.
2
Ibid., 26.
What are the limitations of these investigations?
Some believed that historians have no tools to examine whether an event is a miracle or not since
a miracle is a matter of faith. However, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been historically
investigated thoroughly and has been found to be true. Because miracles are supernatural
episodes from God, they cannot be examined “in terms of normal research methods.”
3
How might one go about attempting to link an abnormal event with divine causality from a
historical philosophical perspective?
Habermas discusses several principles that should be applied when investigating a miracle claim,
but only two will be discussed here. The first one is multiple independent sources supporting the
historical claims. Luke, who was an excellent historian, claimed that he had ‘diligently
investigated all things from their origin’ (Luke 1:3). In addition to Luke, each of the other gospel
authors made reports of the resurrection, not to mention Mary Magdalene and Paul. In short,
there are at least nine independent sources here, all attesting to the resurrection appearances of
Jesus!”
4
Second, the “attestation by an enemy supporting the historical claims. If the testimony affirming
an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message or
cause those profits from the account, we have an indication of authenticity. “An enemy generally
is not considered to be biased in favor of a certain person, message, or cause.”
5
When the tomb
of Jesus was determined to be empty, the Jewish leaders attempted to disprove the proclamation,
“but their counterpolemic actually admitted the fact (Matthew 28:11-15). This enemy attestation
is another indication favoring the empty tomb following the resurrection since the Jewish
leadership could not eliminate this physical element of the early proclamation.”
6
Multiple sources of evidence support the resurrection of Jesus, without a doubt, the greatest
miracle that there ever was and without which the whole of Christianity would not exist.
WORD COUNT: 673.
3 Habermas,
The Risen Jesus,
4.
4
Ibid., 28.
5
Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona,
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 2004), 38.
6
Habermas,
The Risen Jesus,
23.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help