Behind the groundbreaking mythical interpretation in David Friedrich Strauss' Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbetet (1835-1836) stands a fundamental denial of the historical possibility of miracles. In later editions of Das Leben Jesu and other works, Strauss' relates this rejection to a Humean and naturalistic stance: human experience has demonstrated the constant and exceptionless workings of the laws of cause and effects, which undermines the historical credibility of miracle testimonies. This incorporation of the rejection of miracles into historical criticism is a trademark of much modern exegesis, all the way from Strauss via Ernst Troeltsch to contemporary scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman. Even though many exegetes still defend the exclusion of miracles from critical history, the situation is very different in current debates in the philosophy of religion, where Hume's arguments against miracles as well as ontological naturalism - the view that everything that exists can be explained by natural causes and laws - are under heavy fire. My presentation will discuss the Hume-Strauss-Troeltsch-Ehrman trajectory and denial of miracles as a historical possibility. No attempt will be made to trace back the direct influence of Troeltsch, Strauss, and Hume on contemporary biblical scholars. The aim is more modest: I will highlight Hume's critique of the credibility of reported miracles, developed during the Deist controversy against the backdrop of the Newtonian mechanical worldview, and analyze how something similar to this Humean position is a fundamental presupposition of the historical-critical methods advocated by Strauss, Troeltsch, and Ehrman. The presentation will conclude with some brief thoughts on how the way that many contemporary biblical scholars - on questionable, Humean grounds - take a rejection of miracles a priori for granted in historical analysis point to the need for a more profound dialogue between biblical scholarship and philosophy of religion.