The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry [Hardcover]

Gerd Ludemann (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 2004

In this thorough exegesis of the primary texts dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, New Testament expert Gerd Ludemann presents compelling evidence that shows the resurrection was not a historical event and further argues that this development leaves little, if any, basis for Christian faith as presently defined.

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

Argument has long raged over whether assessing early Christian texts about the Resurrection as historical sources is legitimate and important. Ludemann stands squarely in the Enlightenment camp of Tom Paine--revered in the U.S. for Common Sense, reviled for the later tract The Age of Reason--and Paine's detractors call Ludemann an Enlightenment fundamentalist. Ludemann insists that a purely historical reading is important because Christians and Christianity exercise authority based on a historical claim about an act of God. If the claim is false, that authority is illegitimate. Since the claim is based on the self-deception of Peter and Paul, and other historical evidence doesn't support it, Ludemann says that thinking people can no longer call themselves Christians in good faith. This may be preaching to the choir of those against using religious, metaphysical, and ideological claims to contain historical investigations, but it is clear and succinct. The translation and historical assessment of Resurrection accounts that constitute the bulk of the book make it useful for students in and out of the choir. Steven Schroeder
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

From the Inside Flap

Although Christianity is anchored to the doctrine of the resurrection, historical research shows that from a historical standpoint Jesus was not raised from the dead. In the thorough explanation and discussion of the primary texts dealing with the claimed resurrection of Christ, New Testament expert Gerd Ludemann presents compelling evidence to show that the resurrection was not a historical event, and he further argues that this development leaves little, if any, basis for Christian faith as presently defined.

Ludemann offers fresh translations of the mist important early Christian texts concerning Jesus' alleged resurrection and assesses their historical value. Beginning with Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, in which the apostle declares that Jesus "has been raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures," and then turning to the texts of the Gospels and of other noncanonical early Christian texts, Ludemann systematically evaluates every reference to Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament, as well as in apocryphal literature. In each case he examines the purpose of the authors of these texts, reconstructs the tradition they reworked, and assesses the historical value of each account.

Since the historical evidence leads to the firm conclusion that Jesus' body was not raised from the dead, Ludemann argues that the origin of the Easter story must be sought in the visionary experiences of Christianity's two leading apostles. From a modern perspective, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that both primary witnesses to Jesus' claimed resurrection, Peter and Paul, were victims of self-deception. In conclusion, he asks whether in light of the nonhistoricity of Jesus' resurrection, thinking people today can in good conscience still call themselves Christians.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 250 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books (October 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591022452
• ISBN-13: 978-1591022459
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 1.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,522,342 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good dissection of texts, but his thesis overreaches, June 30, 2005

By 

J. J. Ramsey - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Hardcover)

What's good in the book:

* Ludemann does well at picking apart the resurrection narratives and their surrounding text. For example, he points out that Mark has Joseph of Arimathea buy a linen cloth on Friday evening (Mark 15:42-47), which would have been the Sabbath. (In the Jewish calendar, a new day starts on the evening of the previous day, so Sabbath lasts from Friday evening to Saturday evening.)

* Ludemann does not try to twist the texts to argue for a "spiritual" resurrection that is hardly more than one's spirit going to Heaven while the body is left behind.

What's not so good:

* His thesis overreaches. If the thesis had been that his reconstruction of the resurrection narratives made a supernatural explanation unnecessary, then he would have at least shown that his case was plausible, if not proved it. Instead, he goes beyond his evidence to assert that his historical explanation showed conclusively that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

* He does not deal directly with the objection made by N. T. Wright that a vision of Jesus would have been interpreted as Jesus' "angel" rather than as a sign that Jesus was resurrected, and gives the quick brush-off to objections that the disciples would have needed appearances of Jesus more solid than mere hallucinations. He could have done more here.

The book falls short of being the proof against Christianity that Ludemann wants it to be, but it has some useful analysis.

8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Highly informative, May 31, 2007

By 

Sean Holderread (Hendersonville NC, United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Hardcover)

Ludemann does his usual masterful dissection of the Gospels et al to show the resurrection for what it is/was--a powerful visionary experience. A healthy dose of commonsense plays a role in his conclusions as well--the deceased do not return to life and go gallivanting about. This is painful fact for Ludemann--one that cost him his faith ... and his job! There's a reason why the miraculous happened to the Ancients, but do not happen today. They did not occur then, either. People viewed the miraculous far, far differently then we do in the 21st Century. It was quite normal for gods to appear to their creation, for statues to weep, for faith healers to cure the sick so forth and so on. This was the norm of the day ... and this the fact of the resurrection--visionary. I think James Robinson put it best when he stated:

"... One by one, then in smaller or larger groups, the disciples experienced Jesus still calling on them to continue his message and lifestyle. Thus he reentered their lives as they experienced anew the reality of his message and in turn were commissioned to carry it on just as he had. This is the experience that was and is the reality of Easter."--The Gospel of Jesus, Robinson, James, M., p. 206

A personal note on the resurrection ... Not in recorded history has a miracle, like that which occurred in the Bible, been observed--ever. Jesus supposedly stated that this would not be the case--that believers would do greater miracles than he. Has never happened. No one has ever walked on water, calmed a storm, raised the dead, changed water into wine--nothing! Now, if they don't occur today ... they never happened to the ancients.

The dead simply do not come back to life.

13 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Historical Inquiry?, September 29, 2006

By 

K. Osteroos - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Hardcover)

The conclusions Gerd Lüdemann reaches in his book should lay to rest any questions regarding the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, however his conclusions are based more on dubious speculation than historical fact. The main focus of his argument is his hallucination theory, where the appearances of Jesus to his followers were not of a physical nature but only hallucinations beginning first with guilt ridden, mourning Peter, leading to a chain reaction of appearances to others. Paul, a Pharisee of some standing in the synagogue, also falls prey in Lüdemann's scenario to his overwhelming guilt and this triggered an epiphany not unlike that of the believers.

Lüdemann's psychoanalysis of both Peter and Paul is baffling coming from someone who purportedly values fact over supposition. That Peter is in mourning is understandable, that he was guilt ridded to the point of his mind rewriting his reality through hallucination is not supported by any documentation but springs directly from the author's mind. Paul was proud of his accomplishments as a Pharisee and absolutely nothing prior to his conversion experience hints otherwise. Because this theory lacks even minimal documentation, Lüdemann's hypothesis reeks of wild speculation more than historic inquiry.

Hallucinations are a product of the mind and the mind must have the building blocks for shaping the vision. Hallucinations do not produce an interpretation of events that is entirely new. The 2nd Temple Jewish conception was of a general resurrection at the end of time. Lacking was any notion of individual resurrection. So the seeds of the "vision" were not in place for the mind to build such an elaborate, life-changing hallucination. If this were true for Peter, it would hold true in an even stronger sense for Paul.

Hallucinations are by definition individual events. Lüdemann's theory breaks down completely when applied to appearances before a defeated group of people numbering in excess of 500, over a 40-day period, in different locations, all of whom saw the risen Jesus. Paul writes of Jesus' appearance before 500 people at once and challenges his contemporaries to look up one of them to get the truth of what happened, indicating that many of the 500 were still alive when he wrote his letter.

Lüdemann's hallucination theory, couched in a quest for historical accuracy through inquiry, is his attempt to make sense of a seemingly miraculous event and fit it into his strongly held naturalistic worldview. His worldview has no room for the laws of nature being circumvented and so he must search for the most logical reason for the early believer's convictions that still fits within his worldview. To do this he discounts the writings of people closest to the event and gives credence to 3rd century writers whom he says wrote of the resurrection as legend. His main premise is wrong, and, with that in mind, looking back at his manipulations of the texts, his skepticism of the gospel writers' motives and his unwillingness to allow for intervention by a higher power one must reject his thesis and his conclusions.