Interpreting Hume on miracles

Contemporary commentators on Hume’s essay, ‘Of miracles’ haveincreasingly tended to argue that Hume never intended to suggest that testimonialevidence must always be insufficient to justify belief in a miracle. This is in markedcontrast to earlier commentators who interpreted Hume as intending todemonstrate that testimonial evidence is incapable in principle of ever establishingrational belief in a miracle. In this article I argue that this traditional interpretationis the correct one