Who Said That? Post-Easter Edition

"Critical historians must start by assessing available evidence on the basis of what they know about what's probable or impossible, possible or impossible.  They therefore must start by dismissing miracle stories [the resurrection] out of hand."

You know the drill.  Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.  Answer to follow in one week.

Update on Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 09:42AM by Kim Riddlebarger

This important admission that miracle stories "must be dismissed" before historical investigation begins (based upon naturalistic a priori assumptions) comes from Anthony Flew, in his debate with Gary Habermas. Did Jeus Rise from the Dead? (Harper and Row, 1987), 63.

Comments

["lee n. field"]

Bart Ehrman'd be my guess. Sounds like a modern apostate or unbeliever.

[Ken]

How about John Domminick Crossan? He always shows up this time of year. Ehrman would be my second guess.

[Wendy]

Anthony Flew is my guess.

I'd like to hear an argument to the contrary, since in terms of historical study it seems a logical statement, but I am assuming you disagree with it.

I dismiss impossible claims from other historical sources... for example, while the Sumerian king lists are valuable historical documents that offer a lot of insights into ancient chronology, I dismiss out of hand their claim that King Dumuzid reigned for 36000 years.

Why would a historian using the Bible as a source need to accept the existence of miracles?

[Jesse]

Peter Enns in six months?

[Ken Rapoza]

John Dominic Crossan?

[Tad]

Ditto Ken

[Manfred]

Richard Dawkins

[Paul L.]

My first thought was that it was C.S. Lewis describing the mindset of critical historians (not his own, obviously).

Otherwise, it sounds like something out of the Jesus Seminar. John Dominic Crossan, perhaps.

[Matt]

Crossan

[Jon S]

Marcus Borg

[Theonomist]

Dan Barker

[Carter]

Jon had my guess. Borg it is. Resistance is futile.

[Andrew]

Some reformed fellow talking about critical historians. I don't think a critical historian would admit this. Maybe James White?

[gpleague]

Bart, no question.

[alan platt]

Sounds like Rudolph Bultman (although his modern disciples like Crossan and Ehrman and Borg would fit in. ) Such a comment does not reflect true historical research but research filtered through a metaphysical naturalistic worldview where there is no God and history is just a series of random series of events. In such a world there can be no miracles and any record of them are, therefore, dismissed out of hand.

[Alberto]

Wow I heard that he just died; was this posted before his death?