In my last two readings of volume 2 of John Meier's A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Meier talks about miracles.
Since the time of the Enlightenment, there has been skepticism about miracles among scholars. According to Meier, that skepticism during the Enlightenment was not due to atheism, but rather (at least in part) to a belief that an orderly God would not violate his orderly rules.
How does Meier treat the miracles in the Gospels? Does he regard them as historical? My impression is that Meier acknowledges that extraordinary things such as healings may have happened during the time of Jesus, as they occur today at Lourdes and in hospitals. But Meier does not think that we can say for certain that God was the one behind those healings, for that is a theological claim that is inaccessible to history, plus atheists would probably have their own explanations of or approaches to those kinds of events. Meier also notes that the idea that Jesus performed miracles passes certain scholarly tests for historicity, such as multiple attestation (as the idea appears, not only in independent sources in and behind the New Testament, but also in Josephus).
In my reading yesterday, Meier highlights the differences between the miracles in the Gospels and the supposed miracles in pagan and Jewish sources. For example, he notes that the story of Apollonius was written in the third century (which is later than the Gospels) and argues that it may be drawing from the Gospels in some of its miracle stories; that the story of Honi the circle-drawer is an example of a developing tradition, as we start with Josephus' claim that Honi prayed for rain to end a drought (Antiquities 14.2.1) and observe rabbis adding details (i.e., placing the story in Galilee, giving a role to Hanina)----and Meier's point here may be that the story of Honi is not multiply attested; that Josephus does not present contemporaries who actually performed miracles themselves, for these figures expected for God to do something extraordinary; and that Vespasian did not do a miracle but rather applied a medicinal treatment.
Why does Meier highlight these differences? He says that he believes that pagan and non-Christian miracles can provide a context for the miracles in the Gospels, and that he is merely pointing out differences so that we accept the sources as they are. At the same time, he appears to think that Jesus was unusual within his own historical context, and he also does not seem to be overly receptive to the idea that the early Christians invented the miracles that Jesus did for missionary purposes, in a culture that valued miracles.