Editing Historicity of the Bible (section)

====Miracles of Jesus====
{{further|Miracles of Jesus}}

Scholars are divided on the matter of miracles with no consensus on their historicity; some ruling them out a priori, others defending the possibility of miracles, and others defending them outright.<ref>Beilby, James K.; Rhodes Eddy, Paul, eds. (2009). "Introduction". The Historical Jesus: Five Views. IVP Academic. pp. 38–39. {{ISBN|978-0830838684}}. "Contrary to previous times, virtually everyone in the field today acknowledges that Jesus was considered by his contemporaries to be an exorcist and a worker of miracles. However, when it comes to historical assessment of the miracles tradition itself, the consensus quickly shatters. Some, following in the footsteps of Bultmann, embrace an explicit methodological naturalism such that the very idea of a miracle is ruled out a priori. Others defend the logical possibility of miracle at the theoretical level, but, in practice, retain a functional methodological naturalism, maintaining that we could never be in possession of the type and/or amount of evidence that would justify a historical judgment in favor of the occurrence of a miracle. Still others, suspicious that an uncompromising methodological naturalism most likely reflects an unwarranted metaphysical naturalism, find such a priori skepticism unwarranted and either remain open to, or even explicitly defend, the historicity of miracles within the Jesus tradition."</ref> New Testament scholar [[Bart Ehrman]] argues that though some historians believe that miracles have happened and others do not, due to the limitations of the sources, it is not possible for historians to affirm or deny them. He states "This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.<ref>Ehrman, Bart D. (2001). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0195124743}}. "I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe."</ref> According to [[Mike Licona]], among general historians there are some postmodern views of historiography that are open to the investigation of miracles.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Licona |first1=Michael R. |title=Historians and Miracle Claims |journal=Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |date=20 November 2014 |volume=12 |issue=1–2 |pages=106–129 |doi=10.1163/17455197-01202002}}</ref>