{"id":1294,"date":"2010-05-14T08:58:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-14T08:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2010\/05\/miracles-and-historiography-in-the-blogosphere\/"},"modified":"2010-05-14T08:58:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-14T08:58:00","slug":"miracles-and-historiography-in-the-blogosphere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionprof\/2010\/05\/miracles-and-historiography-in-the-blogosphere.html","title":{"rendered":"Miracles and Historiography in the Blogosphere"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Two opposing views on the intersection of historical study, naturalism, skepticism, miracles and related issues, expressed in the blogosphere today:<\/p>\n

Ken Pulliam\u2019s post<\/a> focuses primarily on a recent chapter by Richard Carrier asking whether the resurrection traditions are more\u00a0trustworthy than other ancient accounts of the miraculous which we dismiss.<\/p>\n

Michael Barber\u2019s post<\/a> offers a different perspective,\u00a0arguing that fairness requires that we leave room for the inexplicable.<\/p>\n

Of course, such debates about the question in the abstract are rendered unnecessary when we can simply watch the miraculous happening on YouTube<\/a>:<\/p>\n