Does Craig Keener succeed in "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" in establishing the historical validity of miracle testimonies, or does his account face methodological problems?

This question lies at the heart of contemporary debate about the possibility of historicizing miracles. Craig Keener—professor of biblical studies at Asbury University—published a massive two-volume work (1,172 pages) titled "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" (2011), considered the most comprehensive modern academic study of miracles from a historical-social perspective. His central claim: testimonies to miracles in the New Testament deserve serious historical consideration, especially in light of documented contemporary testimonies to similar phenomena.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of miracles:

"Keener has scientifically proven miracles occur." This misrepresents Keener's project. Keener does not claim to "prove" miracles in a scientific sense, but argues that testimonies to them deserve historical consideration, and that their a priori rejection is methodologically unjustified. The difference between "scientific proof" and "historical validity" is fundamental.

"Anyone who denies miracles after Keener's book is biased against religion." This is a simplistic accusation. Serious critics of Keener—such as Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman—do not reject miracles due to religious bias, but raise specific methodological problems about how to evaluate historical testimonies to supernatural phenomena.

"Contemporary testimonies prove the validity of biblical miracles." This is a logical leap. Even if we accept that some supernatural phenomena occur today, this does not automatically prove the validity of every miracle account in ancient texts. Each account needs independent evaluation.

From some naturalistic critics:

"Keener is merely an evangelist pretending to be academic." This is an unfair dismissal. Keener holds a PhD from Duke University and has over 20 academic books published by respected university presses. His work is cited even by non-Christian scholars.

"Miracles are scientifically impossible, no need to read Keener." This is an unscientific a priori rejection. Science does not prove the "impossibility" of miracles, but studies natural patterns. The philosophical question about the possibility of divine intervention transcends the scope of empirical science.

"All miracle testimonies are illusions or lies." This is an unstudied generalization. Even historians who reject miracles—such as Gerd Lüdemann—acknowledge that many witnesses are sincere in believing they witnessed something supernatural. The question is how to interpret these experiences.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share in ignoring the complex nature of Keener's project: attempting to establish a historical methodology for evaluating testimonies to supernatural phenomena, while taking into account different cultural and social contexts. Serious criticism needs to engage with this methodological project, not merely accept or reject the conclusions.

The Basic Structure of Keener's Argument

Keener builds his argument on four axes:

First Axis: Documenting Contemporary Testimonies
Keener gathers hundreds of documented testimonies to phenomena that witnesses consider "miracles" from the 20th and 21st centuries, especially from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This includes:
- Physicians' testimonies to medically unexplained healing cases
- Documentation from hospitals and medical centers
- Multiple and independent testimonies to the same event
- Cases of religious conversions linked to supernatural experiences

Second Axis: Critiquing "Western Epistemological Bias"
Keener argues that Western academia suffers from cultural bias against miracles, influenced by the Enlightenment legacy that a priori assumes their impossibility. This bias makes Western historians automatically reject testimonies that would be considered reliable in other contexts.

Third Axis: Comparative Historical Methodology
If contemporary testimonies to miracles deserve serious consideration—and Keener provides evidence they do—why do we automatically reject similar ancient testimonies? Sound historical methodology requires consistent criteria.

Fourth Axis: Rereading New Testament Miracles
In light of contemporary testimonies, Keener rereads miracle accounts in the New Testament, arguing they are consistent with patterns of testimony to the supernatural across cultures and times.

Primary Methodological Criticism

Academic critics have raised fundamental methodological problems:

The "Evaluation vs. Interpretation" Problem
Dale Allison in his critical review (2011) distinguishes between accepting that "something happened" and accepting its theological interpretation as a miracle. Many testimonies Keener gathers describe real experiences, but is the only interpretation direct divine intervention?

The "Selectivity in Testimonies" Problem
Bart Ehrman points out that Keener focuses on testimonies from Christian contexts, while similar testimonies exist in all religions. Does this mean all religions are true? Or does the phenomenon have another explanation?

The "Documentation Standards" Problem
Michael Martin argues that Keener's standards for "reliable" documentation are not rigorous enough. Many testimonies rely on retrospective memory or oral accounts, which are susceptible to distortion and exaggeration.

The "Leap from Description to Causality" Problem
Even if we accept that unusual phenomena occur, the leap to them being "divine miracles" requires additional metaphysical assumptions. Science studies phenomena, but does not determine whether they are "rare natural" or "supernatural."

Keener's Response to Criticism

Keener has developed responses in later editions and articles:

First, regarding evaluation vs. interpretation: Keener clarifies that his primary goal is to challenge the a priori rejection of testimonies, not to impose a single interpretation. If we accept that phenomena beyond the ordinary occur, then discussion of their interpretation becomes legitimate.

Second, regarding selectivity: Keener acknowledges testimonies exist in other religions, but focuses on the Christian context because it is his subject of study. This does not negate the need for similar studies of other religions.

Third, regarding documentation standards: Keener distinguishes between different levels of documentation and presents the most strongly documented cases separately. He argues that even weaker testimonies deserve consideration within the general pattern.

Fourth, regarding causality: Keener clarifies that as a historian, he studies what people believe they experienced. The philosophical question about the ultimate nature of these phenomena transcends the scope of history.

Contemporary Currents in the Debate

The "Open History" current includes Keener, Gary Habermas, and Mike Licona. They argue that historical methodology should not a priori exclude the possibility of the supernatural.

The "Methodological Criticism" current includes Dale Allison, John Dominic Crossan, and Amy-Jill Levine. They accept the seriousness of some testimonies but demand more rigorous criteria for historical evaluation.

The "Methodological Naturalism" current includes Bart Ehrman and Gerd Lüdemann. They insist that history as a science must assume methodological naturalism, even if the historian does not commit to philosophical naturalism.

Value and Limitations

Keener's work has real value in:
- Documenting a contemporary global phenomenon often ignored academically
- Challenging a priori assumptions in historical methodology
- Opening serious academic discussion on a previously marginalized topic

But it has clear limitations:
- The transition from "documented phenomena" to "divine miracles" remains a philosophical leap
- Focus on the Christian context limits comprehensive conclusions
- Some documentation criteria need greater rigor

From the Perspective of Rational Probability (rajḥān ʿaqlī)

Keener's work contributes to the debate without settling it. From the perspective of rational probability:
- It weakens the claim that miracles are "impossible" or "never happen"
- It opens space for considering historical testimonies more fairly
- It does not by itself prove the validity of any specific religion or miracle
- It adds to other considerations in cumulative evaluation

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

The period 2020-2026 witnessed tangible developments in this file. Keener himself continued defending his project in articles and lectures, emphasizing the cross-cultural dimension in healing testimonies, especially with the growth of field anthropological studies from sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. In contrast, Ehrman developed his criticism in later works, emphasizing that the density of testimonies does not compensate for the absence of rigorous methodological control. Among notable developments: analytical philosophers entered the debate forcefully, as Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew presented Bayesian models for evaluating miracle testimonies, moving the conversation from the level of "do we accept testimonies?" to "how do we calculate their probabilities?" Likewise, the Global Medical Research Institute (GMRI) project issued longitudinal studies of healing cases whose subjects claimed supernatural intervention, with pre- and post-medical documentation more rigorous than what was available to Keener. Today's debate is more methodologically mature: it no longer revolves around "can miracles happen?" but around the precise epistemological criteria for evaluating historical testimony to rare phenomena, a shift partially credited to the influence of Keener's work in reopening this academic door.

For Reading

- Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts