Historians and Miracle Claims
Updated: Oct 12
By Dr. Michael R. Licona
Originally published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Volume 12 (2014), pp. 106–129.
Can historians investigate claims of miracles, or must such events be excluded from historical study?
Many biblical scholars and historians maintain that miracle claims fall outside the boundaries of professional historical investigation. Under this approach, historians may examine what people believed they experienced, but they cannot determine whether a miracle actually occurred.
In Historians and Miracle Claims, Dr. Michael Licona challenges this limitation. He argues that defining history in a way that automatically excludes supernatural explanations may prevent historians from reaching an accurate understanding of the past.
Licona examines the influence of methodological naturalism, the role of personal worldviews in historical interpretation, and the challenges of establishing common standards for historical research.
He proposes that historians should neither assume supernatural causation nor dismiss it before examining the evidence. He also suggests that historians can sometimes establish whether an extraordinary event occurred without necessarily determining its cause.
The implications are especially significant for the historical investigation of Jesus' resurrection. Rather than ruling out the resurrection hypothesis because it involves a miracle, Licona argues that historians should evaluate it alongside competing explanations using the available historical evidence.
Read the complete academic article to explore Licona's arguments, historical methodology, and engagement with other scholars.
Comments