1. A priorirejection of miracles
First, why should miracles be rejected as actual events, unless we have prior knowledge that they can neverbe factual? Neither history, science, nor any other discipline can rule out miracles without an investigation. The claim that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature and therefore invalid is itself based on faulty reasoning and thus cannot rule out miracles a priori.^40
Current science is no longer able to postulate absolutes that can rule out possibilities in an a priorimanner, as was often believed in the past. We can only speak in terms of probabilities for any given occurrence. Even more important, the technique of examining all of the evidence before conclusions are drawn is required by the proper use of inductive research methodology. Accordingly, such an approach is utilized not only in physics, but in such varied disciplines as law,
36 James M. Robinson, A New Quest, chapter II.
37 Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 3–4.
38 It should be noted that the other major approach to miracles that we outlined in Chapter 1, the mythical strategy of David Strauss, is very similar at this point to Bultmann’s position that we just covered above.
39 Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 49–55.
40 See Gary R. Habermas, “Skepticism: Hume” in Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots, ed. by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 23– 49 for an examination and critique of Hume’s argument against belief in miracles and their relation to the laws of nature, as well as an evaluation of a number of other scholars who are inspired by Hume’s account. See also Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (London: Macmillan, 1970).
medical science, criminal justice, and journalism. Historians also investigate the known facts to find whether an event actually happened or not.^41
As former Oxford lecturer William Wand remarks, there is no scholarly reason for rejecting possibilities before an investigation. An a prioridismissal cannot be allowed, even if we do not like the conclusion that is indicated by the facts. One must decide on the basis of the known evidence.^42
Then if miracles cannot be rejected without an investigation, on what grounds can we accept part of the Gospel record and reject part of it? Such picking and choosing seems arbitrary unless there is some objective criterion for determining such a practice.
For reasons such as these, conclusions that are drawn before and against the facts are both non-historical and non-scientific. To rule out the possibility of miracles a prioriis not a valid procedure. We must investigate the evidence and then draw our conclusions.
2.Miracle-claims and historical investigation
The second major problem with this approach is the common assumption that miracle-claims cannot be investigated by historical methodology at all. Often the charge is made that miracles belong in the realm of religious faith and, as such, are out of the reach of the tools of historical or any other investigation.^43
It should be repeated that it is not the purpose of this book to determine if a miracle, as an act of God, has actually occurred. Our intention is to investigate the life of Jesus in general, and his resurrection in particular, according to historical standards. We are asking about the historical basis that we have for these events, not whether God performed any certain occurrences. For such a philosophical investigation of the resurrection as an actual miracle, which is an entirely appropriate study, the interested reader is referred to Habermas’, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic.^44
