Religious Studies On William Vanderburgh's Book, "David Hume On Miracles, Evidence, and Probability"

Religious Studies recently reviewed the book by William Vanderburgh: David Hume on Miracles, Evidence, and Probability. In the Appendix to my own book on miracles I reviewed it very favorably as well. Here are some snippets from the short review:
In David Hume on Miracles, Evidence, and Probability William L. Vanderburgh presents a concise defence of David Hume’s ‘Of Miracles’. By providing a more in-depth look at the relevant biographical details of Hume as well as an expanded investigation of Hume’s broader epistemology, Vanderburgh argues that many commentators, both historical and contemporary, have either misunderstood or misrepresented Hume. At the heart of Vanderburgh’s defence of Hume is the rejection of the arguments put forth by Hume commentators such as Richard Price, John Earman, and others who have attempted to interpret ‘Of Miracles’ from a Bayesian perspective. Vanderburgh argues that approaching Hume’s epistemology from this perspective is fundamentally wrong and that Hume’s argument ought to be interpreted using a non-mathematical probability framework.
Vanderburgh makes a very straightforward and convincing argument. Seemingly working his way, one by one, down the list of prominent Hume detractors, Vanderburgh methodically points out the crucial flaws in each of their arguments or interpretations of Hume, thereby undermining their conclusions of Hume’s failure.
This monograph will make an excellent addition to the bookshelves of Hume scholars, epistemologists, and, in a more limited sense, philosophers of religion. 
--Reviewed by Leland Harper of Siena Heights University.
As you should know I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, all future discussions of Hume's view of miracles should deal with Vanderburgh's book. I think believers should also deal with my defense of Hume in my own book on miracles, which draws on Vanderburgh, but that's for others to judge.