Historical methodology

[Zzyzx]

.
Some who purport to be historians attempt to gain debate advantage by citing their ‘historical methodology’ (and lack of such by others).

Exactly what ‘historical methodology’ has been used in relation to supernatural claims?

Animals conversing in human language
Virgins giving birth
Long-dead bodies coming back to life
Haircut affecting physical strength
Water magically turning into wine
Calming storm by command
Curing diseases and disabilities
Walking on water
Commandments on gold or stone tablets
Ascending into the sky

[Jagella]

Exactly what ‘historical methodology’ has been used in relation to supernatural claims?

If some miracle did occur, then by definition it would be a historical event. So at least in principal, miracles could be considered historical. I'd be more than happy to accept any miracle as a historical event if the evidence was good enough to convince me. For example, if Jesus or anybody else rose from the dead, then I'd like to see that person alive.

Anyway, historians do use a sort of methodology to try to determine if a claim is historically credible. As far as I know no miracle claim has ever passed muster as far as these methods are concerned.

But even non-miraculous claims are difficult to establish as historical using these methods. Richard Carrier, a historian, has critiqued these methods and found them wanting. He writes that they really cannot be relied upon to know the past.

So not only are Christians unable to establish the miraculous Jesus as historical, the "apocalyptic-preacher" Jesus may well have never existed either.

[John Human]

There are some who evidently think that 'historical methodology' can somehow support supernatural claims and stories.

I guess I missed those posts. I got a baptism-by-fire in Christian apologetics as an 18-year-old, trying to fend off Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Then I got an Ivy League degree in history, and when by chance I came across "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" again, it wasn't difficult to come up with effective rebuttals.
_______________

[rikuoamero]

The historical method does not address the metaphysical. If a person believes that the miraculous is possible or impossible, neither conclusion can be proved and both conclusions are faith based.

I would tend to agree, but miracles are still exceedingly improbable. If a set of Roman texts (and only Roman texts) insisted that virtually all the people of a country begged the Romans to invade and overthrow their cruel rulers, and asked for higher taxes to fund infrastructure, and roundly condemned a small minority who revolted, and praised the Romans' vicious retribution.... There's nothing impossible about such a scenario, but we would and should remain highly sceptical due to its sheer improbability and relative likelihood that the claims are merely Roman propaganda/legend. Not all conclusions are equal even if the miraculous is admitted as a theoretical possibility.

I would find this scenario very hard to believe, yes. It's not physically impossible though: people can vocally express such sentiments, or write them down, armies can march, taxes could be levied and gathered, and minorities killed brutally...but everything happening as you write it? Humans generally speaking have always been suspicious of outsiders.

[Tcg]

The historical method does not address the metaphysical. If a person believes that the miraculous is possible or impossible, neither conclusion can be proved and both conclusions are faith based.

Given that neither can be proved, only one conclusion requires faith. It does not require faith to not accept an unproven conclusion.



Tcg