Abstract:
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 Geschichte (it really happened in this world, and
the grave was empty), it falls outside the scope of Historie (it cannot be ascertained by the
methods of strict historiography).
