Can secular historians conclude that a miracle occurred…? Regarding the resurrection (as mentioned earlier), even Bart Erhman concedes that something extraordinary happened that fueled the tremendous growth of Jesus’ early ekklesia. There’s no way to explain 2.5 million Christians by the year 300 unless something extraordinary had taken place to fuel this massive growth of Jesus’ early ekklesia from the tiny sect that it began as.
Bart Erhman says that you can show historically that people claimed they saw Jesus alive after He was dead, and you can draw the conclusion that they likely believed it. But he asserts that if you yourself agree that Jesus was raised from the dead…if you yourself believe that Jesus’ resurrection was an act of God in history…then what you’re doing is no longer history ~ it’s faith. And I disagree with that assertion.
He’s saying that a historian can’t conclude that a miracle ‘has’ occurred. Why are we supposed to assume that miracles don’t occur…? Maybe the best explanation ‘is’ that a miracle ‘has’ occurred, especially in light of all of the evidence. To philosophically rule it out in advance is a bias.
I’d ask Bart Erhman…when he says that what you’re doing above is no longer history, it’s faith…what does ‘he’ specifically mean by faith. Again, I think that faith and reason are complementary, not contradictory. Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true, to me anyways.
