Historical events are often parts of many fields, not just history. For example the destruction of a town by a volcano falls into:
- History, because of the historical record.
- Archaeology, because of the ruins of the town.
- Geology, because of the identity of the volcano.
I have noticed that proponents of the historical resurrection of Jesus often use historians or new testament scolars as authorities for the events. The claim is, that the new testament is a trustworth record of eye witnesses.
I say: Even if it is true, that historians agree at this point, they aren't all relevant experts. Because they aren't experts on medicine, concerning the possibility of a resurrection and psychology, concerning the different ways of experiences.
A record of a miracle, which is trustworth historian's rules, is like the record of the distruction of a town by a volcano, which doesn't exists. If apologist want to use only historians they should give arguments, why the word of a historian makes all the troubles within the other fields irrelevant. If a historian say: "Jesus resurrected!" and a pathologist says: "That's impossible.", then it is biased to conclude, that only the pathologist can be wrong. Maybe the historian is the fooled one, maybe his epistemic rules don't work here, not the ones of the pathologist. Thus the event would just be unclear and unexplaned because of conflicting evidence.