Nov 23
Response to a response to a response
James Crossley has posted a detailed response to my previous post. I wish I’d been there for the discussion. Clearly we’re methodologically on a similar page – I knew that commenting on a partial summary was dodgy, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation. Historically I suggest that the question is one of assessing whether there are reports of perceived “miracles” (whether the historian believes the report is another question), or whether the story of the “miracle” is a mythic narrative. I would, theologically, give more space to the possibility of the “miraculous” than some do. I hope I can distinguish between those judgments. (And if you want to know why I use quote marks for “miracle”, read the previous post.)
Incidentally, I don’t usually comment on other people’s typing or spelling errors, since there are plenty of kettles out there waiting to call this pot black. However, I can’t resist this one. James says:
there are ancient axceptions
I like this word. Perhaps we should start using it for all those things people cut out of the data to make it fit their theories.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:51 am
ahem, Jim is correct, no mistake.