<span>This contribution compares two views of the Resurrection of Christ; a traditional view that assumes that at the Resurrection, the dead body of Christ was transformed with the result that after the Resurrection, the grave was empty, and a revised view that assumes that the grave was not empty and that the Resurrection of Christ is not something that happened in this world, but in heaven. On the basis of a consideration of arguments for and against both views, the author argues for the traditional view. He goes on to show, however, that the traditional view cannot be adopted by historians who apply the principle of analogy. He argues, moreover, that this principle cannot be abandoned altogether. In the case of alleged singular events or miracles, however, this principle cannot be applied. This means that even if, as the author argues, the Resurrection is </span><em>Geschichte </em><span>(it really happened in this world, and the grave was empty), it falls outside the scope of </span><em>Historie </em><span>(it cannot be ascertained by the methods of strict historiography).</span
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.