My friend, Mike Bird, offers a report on this year’s Tyndale Fellowship regarding a paper given by Roland Deines on navigating the trappings of historiography, miracles, and the potential of allowing for the divine in history. It’s a perennial problem and worth a look on your part.
Posted by: Michael | July 12, 2009
Miracles and Historiography… Again
Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: historiography, miracles, Roland Deines, Tyndale Fellowship
On 1) I think it is sufficient to use the same criteria for deciding whether to “accept” a “miracle”, no matter what text we might be looking at. So if a miracle report is accepted as prima facie true, then all should be treated the same, but if it is only accepted if it can be corroborated to modern standards of authenticity, then all should be subject to the same standards. Unfortunately, the first approach requires to accept all miracle accounts – including as he says Christian, Muslim, and Hindu. And, the second approach may allow acceptance of some miracles in principle, but in practice allows none.
Historically, I think most confessional scholars have used another criterion – corroboration to some arbitrary standard, loosely compatible with the standard employed for the non-miraculous. Again, employing this method against the board yields some very mixed and confusing results. I prefer the modern standard across the board myself.
2) What’s so wrong with modern epistemological standards? I’d say they’ve been very productive. If anything, I would like to see further advances in method. What’s the value in going back to the days of alchemy for our methods of study?
By: smijer on July 12, 2009
at 12:58 pm
Smijer:
On 1): That is the questions, isn’t it? You’re in line with the majority of critical scholarship here.
On 2): I think the discussion at this point is to make advances in methodology. There’s a plethora of literature out there on this topic. Still, it does seem to be a bit arrogant for us to assume that our way of viewing the world is “correct,” regardless of it’s relative novelty and geographic concentration in the West.
Tough issues, and there is plenty of work to be done. Thanks for chiming in.
By: Michael on July 12, 2009
at 9:55 pm
Yes, it can… still – it is our way. Should we use a way that doesn’t seem right to us to avoid arrogance? Humility is going ahead with the standards that make sense to you, being open to correction, and being honest that this is “the best we can do” – not ultimate truth.
By: smijer on July 12, 2009
at 10:09 pm
The problem with (2) is that it presupposes anti-supernaturalism. And so I agree with Michael W.: It is a bit arrogant to suggest the entire history and thought of the world up until the 1800’s was wrong because they believed the existence of God to actually mean something with regard to the possibility to miraculous.
By: Rob Kashow on July 13, 2009
at 9:46 am
Rob, I don’t think 2) must presuppose anti-supernaturalism. I think modern standards can be open to the possibility, but reasonably make very strict demands of corroboration for the miraculous, since we observe that so many purported cases, upon investigation, fall short of the supernatural claim. Of course, in practice, I can think of no historical miracle claim that would be accepted under such standards – but that jibes well with our inability to find modern instances that are acceptable under those standards. In short, I’m not talking about presuppositions, but instead standards based on our experience about how to investigate.
By: smijer on July 13, 2009
at 9:51 am
I appreciate your nuancing. But I don’t think that’s Bird’s point. The lack of belief in miracles roots in the critical period/enlightenment and deism in the 1900’s which is, I think, Bird’s emphasis.
I think what your doing is saying, ‘okay fine, but we can find middle ground.’ meaning, we don’t need to go to the extreme of that those did during the rise of the critical period, but that does not necessary throughout their inquiries. Is this a fair assessment of what you are suggesting smijer?
By: Rob Kashow on July 13, 2009
at 10:59 am
*throughout* = *throw out*
Mike if you could edit that and then delete this post. Thanks!
By: Rob Kashow on July 13, 2009
at 11:01 am
I think that’s about it. I’m in trucking, so I’m not an expert on any of this – I just like to read, think & talk about these topics.
By: smijer on July 13, 2009
at 11:07 am
I agree smijer, it is fun to dig in to these issues. Besides discovering Bird’s actual intent is impossible thus lending itself to debate.
I just visited your blog for the first time and I’ll be checking in more often to keep updated with your thinking.
By: Rob Kashow on July 13, 2009
at 11:28 am
I’m sorry the above post wasn’t in English. I hope you’ll understand anyway.
By: smijer on July 12, 2009
at 12:59 pm
This is such a difficult question because as a Christian I want to affirm my belief in miracles but I do not know how you could ever prove a miracle using critical historical tools. I wonder if the best historians can do is to say that a first century writer believed in the reported miracles or to suspend judgment when faced with an inexplicable event (which I think is where faith and one’s theological worldview takes over). What do you think?
By: Mike Koke on July 12, 2009
at 3:34 pm
Mike K: Thanks for weighing in. Going by authorial interpretation of the event may well be the most a historian can do with the report of a miraculous event. That’s where I am right now, but I’m open to other approaches. The longer I’m in biblical studies, the more I find that my faith and worldview are in many ways independent from the rigorous historical inquiry I subject the text to.
By: Michael on July 12, 2009
at 9:58 pm
Michael:
My main question regarding the miracles is simply, and bluntly, “if then, why not now?” Yes, I do think there are “miraculous” happenings today yet, but nothing of how they are described or intended (and I use that word hesitantly) in the NT. Perhaps this is an unfair criteria, but it does seem pertinent to me. The ancient world seems to be replete with miracles, well beyond Jesus for that matter, but today not so much. Is it evidence of ancient naivete or contemporary bias and presumption?
Just something I think about.
By: John Anderson on July 12, 2009
at 10:20 pm