N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

 N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, pp. 136–37.

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, pp. 136–37.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Red-Headed League’, in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992), p. 177. Examples from Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes are nearly standard in the study of abductive reasoning. E.g., see Eco and Sebeok, The Sign of Three. In many ways it is semioticians, such as Eco, that are forwarding work in this area.

 Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘The Red-Headed League’, in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992), p. 177. Examples from Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes are nearly standard in the study of abductive reasoning. E.g., see Eco and Sebeok, The Sign of Three. In many ways it is semioticians, such as Eco, that are forwarding work in this area.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Pojman, Philosophy, p. 29.

 Pojman, Philosophy, p. 29.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, p. 136. One must note that abduction regularly does this. The reason is that while affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in deductive reasoning, in abduction it provides support for one’s hypothesis by: (1) avoiding the contrary, denying the consequent (Modus tollens), and (2) revealing evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis. Nevertheless such evidence is just that: evidence, not proof.

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, p. 136. One must note that abduction regularly does this. The reason is that while affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in deductive reasoning, in abduction it provides support for one’s hypothesis by: (1) avoiding the contrary, denying the consequent (Modus tollens), and (2) revealing evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis. Nevertheless such evidence is just that: evidence, not proof.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Pojman, Philosophy, p. 30.

 Pojman, Philosophy, p. 30.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 99.

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 99.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Ibid., pp. 99–100.

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, p. 137.

 Newman, ‘(W)righting the History of Jesus’, p. 137.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Wright, ‘In Grateful Dialogue’, pp. 246–47.

 Wright, ‘In Grateful Dialogue’, pp. 246–47.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 85.

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 85.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Ibid., p. 82 (emphasis in original) Wright’s concern for intentionality parallels speech-act theory in some ways. Both argue that intentionality is a vital component in determining meaning. In other words it is through ‘doing things’, whether with words (speech-act theory), physical actions (action theory), or both (Wright’s worldview analysis) that one’s intentions become clear to interpreters/historians. On speech-act theory, see J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1962); John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

 J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Essays in Postfoundationalist Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 41. A brief list of those who advocate the use of critical realism in theology and/or biblical studies includes: J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Theology and the Justification of Faith: Constructing Theories in Systematic Theology (trans. H. F. Snijders; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); Niels Henrik Gregersen and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (eds.), Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Ben F. Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (Princeton Theological Monograph Series; Allison Park, pa: Pickwick, 1989); John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998); idem, Science and Christian Belief: Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (London: spck, 1994); Langdon Gilkey, Nature, Reality and the Sacred (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971); Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 1991); Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World (Harrisburg, pa: Trinity Press International, 1999); Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundin, Literature Through the Eyes of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1992); and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

 J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Essays in Postfoundationalist Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 41. A brief list of those who advocate the use of critical realism in theology and/or biblical studies includes: J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Theology and the Justification of Faith: Constructing Theories in Systematic Theology (trans. H. F. Snijders; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); Niels Henrik Gregersen and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (eds.), Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Ben F. Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (Princeton Theological Monograph Series; Allison Park, pa: Pickwick, 1989); John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998); idem, Science and Christian Belief: Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (London: spck, 1994); Langdon Gilkey, Nature, Reality and the Sacred (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); Ian Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971); Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 1991); Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World (Harrisburg, pa: Trinity Press International, 1999); Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundin, Literature Through the Eyes of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1992); and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Van Huyssteen, Essays in Postfoundationalist Theology, p. 43.

 Van Huyssteen, Essays in Postfoundationalist Theology, p. 43.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Ibid., p. 48.

 Ibid., p. 44; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 81–92. This is in fact what Wright is getting at with his distinction between history-E (not available for us to observe) and history-W (what we have access to in order to ‘know’ of history-E, to which we do not have direct access). Included in this definition of history-W are archaeological fragments such as coins, arches, inscriptions, etc.

 Ibid., p. 44; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 81–92. This is in fact what Wright is getting at with his distinction between history-E (not available for us to observe) and history-W (what we have access to in order to ‘know’ of history-E, to which we do not have direct access). Included in this definition of history-W are archaeological fragments such as coins, arches, inscriptions, etc.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 37.

 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 37.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Ibid., p. 89 (emphasis in original).

 Wright, ‘In Grateful Dialogue’, p. 251.

 Wright, ‘In Grateful Dialogue’, p. 251.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation