Miracles and Historical Method

There are natural miracles. Any unexpected, fortunate event can be called a miracle. But nothing supernatural is at work there. For there are just as many unexpected, unfortunate events, so the world’s luck balances out in the end—or at least it would, without the interference of human design. For in a society where more people are more compassionate and community-conscious, “miracles” will actually happen more often than tragedies, as there will be more Good Samaritans than Joe Criminals. Likewise, in a society that has embraced humanist values and followed them in the pursuit of technological and political ends, miracles will be so common people will start taking them for granted—so common, in fact, that they are actually expected, and thus no longer called “miraculous.” Here in the U.S. miraculous medical cures are effected every day. Calls to 911 often produce miraculous rescues. People are routinely resurrected from the dead by CPR, medicines, and electric defibrillators. Never mind all the other amazing things we do, which we now take for granted but would have been wonders beyond wonders a few centuries ago, from sending men to the moon to lighting a city without flame.

But there is another kind of thing people sometimes mean by “miracle”: a supernatural miracle. I do not mean the mere linguistic superstition whereby people take a patently natural miracle and “assume” it must have a supernatural cause (“A hundred people died in that crash, but I was spared. Clearly a miracle from God!” What? A God who liked you more than the hundred others he let die?). No, I mean here what people say is the bona fide act of a supernatural being. This applies equally to all paranormal beings, from angels to ghosts to gods. Are there any of those sorts of miracles, events that clearly could not have been natural but had to have been caused by supernatural agents?

Even from the start things add up toward doubt: the lack of evidence for these beings, the lack of plausible mechanisms that explain their existence or activity, the lack of evidence for any such mechanisms, and finally the general inference to metaphysical naturalism. That’s enough to be skeptical of miracles. This doubt is even further justified in those cases where there is positive evidence against a particular entity or phenomenon, as there often is. Of all events claimed to be clear cases of a supernatural miracle, those open to adequate investigation were all found to have natural explanations (amazing but normal coincidences or fortunate turns of events), or to be the exaggerated or erroneous accounts of natural events, or false stories altogether.

First and foremost, however, the reason to doubt miracles is historical, not philosophical. When we look for evidence of any event that could not have happened by accident, human design, or the inevitable course of nature, but instead only by some intelligent, superhuman power, we come up with too little to trust. So there is no reason as of yet to believe any supernatural miracles occur. Such miracles would be both logically and physically possible, if there actually were any supernatural beings around to carry them out, and who actually did so. No miracle has ever been adequately documented, and thus we have no evidence, and no reason, to believe there are such things. Don’t believe everything you read.

But wait, you might ask: if history is so plastered with lies, exaggerations and errors of judgment, how can we trust any history at all? What if it’s all bunk? How do we tell the difference? How do we identify a well-supported fact of history anyway? Well, I’ll tell you. It takes experience, hard work and a good dose of critical thought.

A reasonable belief in historical facts is usually established by two kinds of arguments: the argument to the best explanation, and the argument from evidence. It does not begin with the ‘assumption’ that all stories are to be trusted unless you have a specific reason otherwise. Rather, you must have specific reasons to trust a story before you can regard it as true. Without such reasons, any particular claim is as likely false as true (indeed, even more likely, given the overabundance of false stories on record).

So the first thing the historian must do, and that anyone must do if they want to get to the bottom of any historical claim, is analysis. The historian has to ascertain as best he can where all the evidence comes from, the date of its composition or creation, the background and objectives of its author or creator, and what the claim or object actually means in the context of its time, society and culture. He must try to find out what sources were used by an author. How did the author come to know what he reports? How could he have come to know it? When did he write it down? Why did he write it down? Has anyone tampered with it? Is the author already known from past studies to be trustworthy with this sort of material?

In all, there are four stages of analysis one must engage in to thoroughly examine a historical claim. First is textual analysis. We must use the methods of textual criticism and paleography to find out whether the document we presently have is authentic and accurately reflects its original (since usually only copies of copies exist today). Second is literary analysis. We must ascertain what the author meant, which requires a thorough understanding of the language as it was spoken and written in that time and place, as well as a thorough grasp of the historical, cultural, political, social, and religious context in which it was written, since all of this would be on the mind of both author and reader, and would illuminate, motivate, or affect what was written. Third is source analysis. We must try to identify and assess the author’s sources of information. Finally, only then can we begin historical analysis proper, and thus assess the reliability of the claim as now understood. As you can see, history is a difficult business.

The historian needs to know everything he can about where certain stories or artifacts came from, and why they exist, in order to assess their relevance and weight. Conversely, if the historian cannot ascertain these things, then the evidence becomes less compelling or useful. The less you know about the sources of your evidence, the less reliable it is in establishing any truth. This entails one particular lesson above all: always ask for the primary sources of a claim you find incredible. Many modern scholars will still get details wrong or omit important context or simply lie. Since proper history gets done by citing the actual evidence, so claims can be checked, always challenge people who make amazing claims without backing them up.

The historian must also endeavor to gather all the evidence. He can’t just count on one item. He has to go and look around for everything that could relate to the case, and bring it all together without omission or abject distortion. And what is relevant is not always immediately obvious or easy to find, which is one reason why expertise in a particular historical period and culture is often indispensable to doing history well. Another reason is that the historical context often changes our perspective, especially in regards to the state of ignorance and gullibility in the ancient world. Make sure you understand all aspects of the historical context. So again, beware of scholars who make amazing claims about some historical event but who are not experts, or even experienced historians at all.