The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

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).

Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Sarot,Marcel
Format: Digital revista
Langue:English
Publié: University of Pretoria 2014
Accès en ligne:http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222014000100052
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
id oai:scielo:S0259-94222014000100052
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S0259-942220140001000522015-08-19The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of JesusSarot,MarcelThis 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). University of Pretoria HTS Theological Studies v.70 n.1 20142014-01-01journal articletext/htmlhttp://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222014000100052en
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Sudáfrica
countrycode ZA
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-za
tag revista
region África del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Sarot,Marcel
spellingShingle Sarot,Marcel
The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
author_facet Sarot,Marcel
author_sort Sarot,Marcel
title The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
title_short The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
title_full The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
title_fullStr The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
title_full_unstemmed The ultimate miracle? The historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
title_sort ultimate miracle? the historicity of the resurrection of jesus
description 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).
publisher University of Pretoria
publishDate 2014
url http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222014000100052
work_keys_str_mv AT sarotmarcel theultimatemiraclethehistoricityoftheresurrectionofjesus
AT sarotmarcel ultimatemiraclethehistoricityoftheresurrectionofjesus
_version_ 1756006149751046144