Is that my fault?

[Resha Caner]

Would you agree, that a historian's job, is to determine the most likely explanation of events of the past?

No, I would not. One aspect of history is to offer explanations of past events. As I said, historians can offer alternative explanations to the claim made in the primary source. The claim/warrant process is then weighed amongst the community of historians. But as I also said, there is no guarantee that will reach a conclusion.

As a larger answer to your question, there is a spectrum of views on what historians should do. It ranges from "just tell the story, don't interpret" to "use history as a mechanism to promote the 'right' agenda in today's world".

Lastly, I agree, no one is saying miracles are impossible, but it is generally accepted, miracles are the least probable explanation for the explanation of any event.

As I said, historians are under no obligation to parsimony. Some may favor it, but there is no obligation.

 

[bhsmte]

Does anyone see the problem with Price's logic?

1. To be historical, an event must have a comparable example.
2. Samson is recorded in the Bible.
3. There are similar claims in other documents, but those have been dismissed.
4. Samson is dismissed as unlikely because it has no historical comparisons.

Historical examples improve probability of an explanation being true, would you agree?

No one is saying a miracle is impossible, they are trying to quantify the likelihood of it being true, without eliminating other possible explanations.

Do you believe miracles happen in today's world? If so, could you give me an example of something you have deemed to be a miracle?

 

[bhsmte]

No, I would not. One aspect of history is to offer explanations of past events. As I said, historians can offer alternative explanations to the claim made in the primary source. The claim/warrant process is then weighed amongst the community of historians. But as I also said, there is no guarantee that will reach a conclusion.

As a larger answer to your question, there is a spectrum of views on what historians should do. It ranges from "just tell the story, don't interpret" to "use history as a mechanism to promote the 'right' agenda in today's world".



As I said, historians are under no obligation to parsimony. Some may favor it, but there is no obligation.

Well, we have made some headway, because we disagree on what a historian's professional responsibility is when they propose to perform historical work.

They may disagree on conclusions, from interpreting evidence differently, but I find it highly unlikely, that a professional historian would disagree their job is to determine; what is most likely to have happened in the past, by following the historical method to the best of their ability.

 

[Resha Caner]

Historical examples improve probability of an explanation being true, would you agree?

No. That I have seen an airplane fly doesn't improve the possibility that an airplane with an empty fuel tank will fly. What a historical example does (among other things) is provide clues for cause.

Do you believe miracles happen in today's world? If so, could you give me an example of something you have deemed to be a miracle?

Yes, but I assume you mean a public example. This isn't going to make the conversation easier. It gets into issues of verifying the miracle, and how are we going to do that in an Internet forum?

 

[bhsmte]

No. That I have seen an airplane fly doesn't improve the possibility that an airplane with an empty fuel tank will fly. What a historical example does (among other things) is provide clues for cause.

I disagree with you here.

Yes, but I assume you mean a public example. This isn't going to make the conversation easier. It gets into issues of verifying the miracle, and how are we going to do that in an Internet forum?

Anything you would classify as being a miracle would suffice.

 

[Resha Caner]

They may disagree on conclusions, from interpreting evidence differently, but I find it highly unlikely, that a professional historian would disagree their job is to determine; what is most likely to have happened in the past, by following the historical method to the best of their ability.

Some would, and do disagree with what you're saying. For my European History class we had to use Barricades and Borders by Gildea as the main text. Gildea is a minimalist of the "don't interpret" school I mentioned above. Yuck. I hated his book. It was like reading a phone book (something else I had to do for another history class - yes, really).

Some would agree with you. I'm agreeing it's part of what historians do. But I disagree with the way you're portraying history as in some way formulaic such that I'm obligated to reject miracles.

 

[Resha Caner]

Anything you would classify as being a miracle would suffice.

I'm not sure you've really absorbed the implications of my definition.

The difficulty here is validation. I'm not a member of the RCC or Orthodox churches, so I'm not necessarily going to accept the miracles they subscribe to. The Lutheran church doesn't validate miracles. Why? Because they ascribe a purpose to miracles. Unless there is a gospel-oriented purpose, they don't officially incorporate miracles, and the Lutheran church hasn't added anything to the canon newer than ~100 AD, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

That means I have some personal experiences I could share, but no public ones. God has not given me some special revelation on public events, and I'm not going to share personal stories on the Internet. So, I'm not sure where you expect to go with this.

The best I can do is give you hypothetical examples. There is one that was widely shared in the Lutheran church (as a humorous story, not an official miracle):

ELCA Assembly: Was God in Either Whirlwind? | Christianity Today

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure you've really absorbed the implications of my definition.

The difficulty here is validation. I'm not a member of the RCC or Orthodox churches, so I'm not necessarily going to accept the miracles they subscribe to. The Lutheran church doesn't validate miracles. Why? Because they ascribe a purpose to miracles. Unless there is a gospel-oriented purpose, they don't officially incorporate miracles, and the Lutheran church hasn't added anything to the canon newer than ~100 AD, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

That means I have some personal experiences I could share, but no public ones. God has not given me some special revelation on public events, and I'm not going to share personal stories on the Internet. So, I'm not sure where you expect to go with this.

The best I can do is give you hypothetical examples. There is one that was widely shared in the Lutheran church (as a humorous story, not an official miracle):

ELCA Assembly: Was God in Either Whirlwind? | Christianity Today

no problem.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure you've really absorbed the implications of my definition.

The difficulty here is validation. I'm not a member of the RCC or Orthodox churches, so I'm not necessarily going to accept the miracles they subscribe to. The Lutheran church doesn't validate miracles. Why? Because they ascribe a purpose to miracles. Unless there is a gospel-oriented purpose, they don't officially incorporate miracles, and the Lutheran church hasn't added anything to the canon newer than ~100 AD, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

That means I have some personal experiences I could share, but no public ones. God has not given me some special revelation on public events, and I'm not going to share personal stories on the Internet. So, I'm not sure where you expect to go with this.

The best I can do is give you hypothetical examples. There is one that was widely shared in the Lutheran church (as a humorous story, not an official miracle):

ELCA Assembly: Was God in Either Whirlwind? | Christianity Today

Is it your opinion that God caused the tornado to hit the place these people were voting?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is it your opinion that God caused the tornado to hit the place these people were voting?

It is my opinion that it is possible. God has used weather to change people's minds (e.g. Jonah).

 

[bhsmte]

It is my opinion that it is possible. God has used weather to change people's minds (e.g. Jonah).

If he is trying to change their minds by this this type of force, what happens to free will?

 

[Resha Caner]

If he is trying to change their minds by this this type of force, what happens to free will?

They still have free will. A tornado does not push a button in a voting booth just as the storm did not force Jonah to go to Nineveh.

 

[bhsmte]

They still have free will. A tornado does not push a button in a voting booth just as the storm did not force Jonah to go to Nineveh.

The storm then was designed to influence, but not take away free will?

 

[Resha Caner]

The storm then was designed to influence, but not take away free will?

If it was a miracle, then yes. As the story reports, no one died.

 

[bhsmte]

If it was a miracle, then yes. As the story reports, no one died.

Ok, gotcha.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, Loudmouth, to your question, yes I understand the difference.

I thought you did, but some people are a little hazy on it.

There is often the historical person, and then the mythic person. We have real accounts of what George Washington did in his youth and as POTUS. However, George Washington really didn't chop down a cherry tree, and then proclaim that he could not tell a lie. It was a story dreamt up by one of his campaign managers.

My own thoughts as to the mythic Jesus is that he is probably a combination of many teachers that emerged during that time. At that time there were many who were claiming to be the Messiah, as well as splinter groups teaching new ideas in relation to Jewish orthodoxy.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is often the historical person, and then the mythic person.

Yes, and Jesus is no exception. There are stories about him as a child resurrecting a friend who fell from a roof, making live birds from clay, etc. Or there are the stories of Mary with flowers springing up from her footsteps. As I explain below, per the canonical journey, these stories are uncorroborated and hence not accepted by (most) churches.*

Historians will tend to put things into classes of historical (a corroborated story about an evidenced person), legendary (an uncorraborated story about an evidenced person), and mythic (an uncorraborated story about an unevidenced person).

But, such things can go both directions. Christians will claim the gospels are corroborative and so the events should be called historical (e.g. Montgomery). Unbelievers will say the gospels are derivative (via textual criticism) and not corroborative. Hence, they say the gospels are at best legendary (some will say mythic). I don't see that discussion ever being settled.

*[edit] Of course, then, there are the modern gnostics who claim some of the apostles (largely John) launched a smear campaign against Thomas to hide the true gnostic message of his supposed gospel. So, the corroborative evidence was destroyed. It goes on and on.