Yes, I do.
Fair enough that in like manner you have your reasons for not accepting what some historians might say about the Bible. Were you to study other ancient history, though, I think you will find at the very least that the Bible is not worse off than other ancient documents. I think it is in much better shape, but you probably think me biased. Regardless, if you put the Bible in proper context with other history, it will either drive you to presentism or toward a new consideration of its veracity.
Caner, I have looked at the veracity of the NT quite deeply and I am aware of the various opinions from historians as to it's credibility. In looking at the logic they all use and what they base their opinion on, I have come to the conclusion that the NT is on weak footing and much of it has to be taken on faith, as opposed to a high degree of it being reliable. I will add this, of the scientists that work closest with evolution, maybe 1% have doubts as to whether the theory is solid. When it comes to the historians that have studied the NT as their profession, the percentage that doubt the veracity of good portions of it, make up a much larger percentage (much much higher) than the professionals who have doubt in regards to the evidence for evolution. To me, that is quite telling.
I'm sure there are, but they have nothing to corroborate their view. So, it's nothing more than opinion. The most typical strategy employed is the "common man" strategy, which doesn't achieve the ends for which they strive.
Nothing to corroborate their view? When you read various opinions, they typically explain what they are basing their opinion on, it isn't some willy nilly shot in the dark. Determining historical credibility should start with a strict adherence to following the historical method, after that, some historians interpret what they find differently. Some are bias towards supporting the christian story, some are bias against the christian story and others are more objective.
Well, the historical method would never attempt to "verify" a miracle anyway. I have to say, though, I am making assumptions about what you mean since you haven't expanded on a definition of that term.
The historical method has been in place for a long time and is well established. And, I have been saying all along, historians would never substantiate any claim of a miracle, for the reasons I already stated.
You are right that history is not an exact science. In fact, per the modern meaning of the word "science," I'm not sure it should be applied to history at all. Though history is a study of the past, it is much more than an establishment of fact. It delves into the soft attributes of human interaction.
The historical method attempts to put a scientific twist into how history is investigated, but the method is certainly not as rigoris or as testable as the scientific method. Bias comes into play much more, when it comes to history.
So, part of history incorporates whatever archaeology might provide in terms of physical verification. It incorporates corroboration - keeping in mind that the enemies of Christianity are just as likely to lie in their denial of miracles as supporters are to wish themselves into believing miracles are true. But history also looks at the impact of the claim. The Bible exists. What does that mean to the history of the people it touched?
Other holy books exist as well and what it means is; the theology of the book is very important to many. How much of the book is accurate, is another matter, but the theology will always be there for people to interpret in the thousands of different ways they currently do, as is the case with other religions and other holy books.
In terms of whether miracles are possible, that is more a question for science (i.e. the physical sciences) to decide than history. Again, one would have to give a definition of what a miracle is (or better yet what event one is speaking about) before science can study it. Even then, I expect scientists will give their answer carefully. If the answer is not affirmative, it would likely be, "Science cannot yet explain how this might happen."
If a miracle is a suspension of natural forces, then science may struggle to answer the question, because they would have to observe that suspension to verify the same.
I do have to say, though, that wandering off into the "We know what was behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain" becomes a matter of uncorroborated speculation which often reveals a biased approach. Tread carefully when you start to see those kinds of answers.
