Randy wrote: "Dr. Wainwright's positions was that if you were prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, it is reasonable to so in many cases. I accepted that position then, I have seen no reason to change my mind since."
1. Miracles are possible.
2. A book contains accounts of many miracles
3. The book is historically accurate.
Looks like fallacious reasoning to me. Simple acknowledgement of the possibility of the miraculaous does not help us in determining the likeleood of the veracity of a book.
That is why I think your supernatualism vs. naturalism presuppositionalism is misguided. It is kind of like a red herring that distracts one from the real issues in interpreting and analyzing any ancient text. One has to look at the actual evidence and arguments the scholar uses in order to evaluate the validity of his analysis of a particular text.
VR: That's not how I was arguing. I didn't say that the actuality of the miraculous follows from the possibility of the miraculous. Based on his study of the NT, Wainwright thought that it was reasonable to accept certain miracle claims if didn't take some hard-line Bultmannian or Humean view on the antecedent probability of the miraculous. Antecedent probability is an important issue because how you evaluate the NT texts depends on how you perceive the antecdent probability of the miraculous.
Take the resurrection for example. The best theory to explain the NT reports if there was no Resurrection is the hallucination theory. But a lot of people had to hallucinate the same thing if it was hallucinations, and then you still have to explain the empty tomb.