Customer Reviews

The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

There were all kinds of pagan miracles, and quite a few Christian miracles, reported in ancient times. If Lazarus, and the dead guy from Na'in, and the little girl, and Jesus, and the "many" saints, and the woman Peter raised, and the young man named Eutychus Paul raised...were all raised from the dead...what's the big deal about Jesus being raised? If the "many" were at least three, that's at least nine. Plus at least two from the OT. Are there more? In any event, this raising of the dead seems to have been a pretty popular theme.

It is naturally upsetting to Christians to have the central event of their faith disputed and I don't think Ludemann does a particularly tactful job of it. In the ancient world far out stories of miracles were commonplace. Vespasian healed a blind man with spittle (just like Jesus!) and healed a lame man or a man with a diseased hand (or leg,depending on the source).

The miracle cures at Asclepius' cult centers at Epidaurus and Pergamum are documented by many surviving inscriptions on stone stelae, and constitute an extensive and remarkable record. That there were many more on terracotta plaques that have not survived is known from reliable ancient descriptions of the sites. So the god Asclepius seems to have been pretty active in the miracle healing line.

We have no mental difficulty dismissing the pagan miracles, because we don't really believe in miracles and think there were credulous ancient folks much-given to exaggeration making these reports. It's not that the evidence isn't good enough. It's just that we don't find it credible on the face of it.

"And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." ~Tacitus, The Histories 4.81

St Nicholas of Myra was credited with the following: "He raised to life three young boys who had been murdered and pickled in a barrel of brine to hide the crime." There are more than a few of these raisings attributed to assorted Christian saints.

So here's the problem for believers, as I see it. If you want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, or Lazarus, or the 'many saints', or Eutychus, or the woman Peter raised, on historical grounds, I think you have to convince yourself that the evidence supports those raisings but not other miracles that you don't believe in. There's a whole industry devoted to defending the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, as evidenced by the free cut-and-paste from apologetics sites of some reviewers above, and maybe some find this very persuasive. I don't. Nor would I be convinced that the triple attestation of Vespasian's healing of the blind man meant that he really performed a miracle. I just don't believe it. Unfortunately, none of us can go back in a time machine and observe any of these events, so in the end it becomes a matter of probabilities, or faith, as the case may be.

As to Ludemann's book: sure, give it a read. Read Crossan and Ehrman, and EP Sanders. Read all the Historical Jesus books, and form an opinion. It's interesting stuff.

If I had to choose one word to describe Ludemann's book, I would have to select "disappointing." Is it too much to ask for objectivity? Of course we all approach all matter of subjects with our own biases and it would be refreshing just to find someone who is honest about them. Ludemann pretends to write a book under the guise of "historicity" when, in fact, he has an "a priori" bias regarding the resurrection. Meaning, he clearly operates under the bias that under no circumstance did the resurrection of Jesus occur, because in his worldview, it simply is not possible for this to have happened. He seems to be admitting this on pages 39-40 when he speaks of "self-evident assumptions." That is not to say, one who operates under a bias cannot write a well-reasoned argument for their stated position, but Ludemann masquerades as an objective "historian" and simply is not. First, it is interesting to see what he does concede.

Considering the significant advances in the 20th century regarding New Testament (NT) criticism and exegesis Ludemann, in order to maintain any credibility, does follow the majority of scholarly thought regarding the historical Jesus. Clearly there was a man called Jesus and he admits to the death of Jesus by crucifixion and the need to take Jesus down from the cross before the Sabbath (pg. 172). Ludemann also agrees with the majority of scholars regarding the historicity and significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 (pages 40-43). The verses were written by Paul and contain early creedal theology, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried, that he has been raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures..." and goes on to cite the appearances of Jesus. Significantly, the majority of theologians, even those critical to the resurrection theory, place this passage very early in Christian history (possibility as early as A.D. 55). This means the death and resurrection creed cited by Paul is already tradition. This leaves Ludemann in a real quandary. There are only three possible avenues he can turn to:

1) Those who claimed to see Jesus were lying.
2) They actually saw the risen Jesus.
3) They hallucinated.

Claiming they all lied is problematic as it has been generally accepted the "witnesses" suffered persecution, solitary and deprived lives, with nearly all ending in martyrdom. Hardly a motivation to maintain a lie. Since Ludemann's worldview will not allow the possibility they actually saw the risen Jesus he is only left with hallucinations. This is where all pretense of objectivity is abandoned. He discards most of the NT eyewitness accounts as worthless. Of course, this makes his thesis much easier. What is left are Paul and Peter, and any others who claimed to have seen Jesus have to be suffering mass hallucinations. Ludemann becomes an armchair psychologist and attempts to delve into Paul's psyche as a persecutor of Jews and how this "appearance" was basically a psychotic breakdown. He discounts what would seem relevant, including the account in Acts of how the appearance left Paul blind, but later miraculously healed. It seems that would be relevant when looking at the totality of the circumstances and lend to Paul's bona fides as prosecutor turned convert, especially when the story was confirmed to the apostles by Ananias (see Acts 9).

Ludemann's psychological analysis veers even further off the tracks as he tries to justify his "hallucinations" theory by appealing to other events. His scholarship is spotty, to be kind, but frankly, the more accurate term would be fraudulent. Not only is it impossible for Ludemann to know the psychology and diversity of all the reported appearances, he knows full well he is reaching back to nineteenth-century theory and "few recent scholars have pursued these avenues." (see Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope, page10).

Ludemann also knows there is the problem of the empty tomb. Once again, Ludemann dismisses the NT passages that are problematic for his theory, gives no credence to accounts of the women who were at the tomb, and he seems to believe that by quoting John Dominic Crossan (page 69) , Thomas Paine (page 177), and Ernest Renan (page 175) it somehow lends credence to his positions when, in fact, the quotations from others are only baseless opinion and add nothing of substance. Another problem is that when the NT accounts don't suit him, he simply decides they are not reliable without convincing reasoning. However, he finds value in passages from Gnostic gospels. This is ironic as the Gnostic gospels are clearly written much later than the NT passages, or even that of the early church fathers. For example, he completely ignores the writings of Polycarp (70-156 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (35-107), and Clement of Rome, all who bear testimony as to the "eye-witnesses." He completely ignores the story of St. Thomas who wanted to feel the wounds of Christ. And yet if that did not happen, how would he explain the Chaldean tradition of St. Thomas, who ministered to what is present day Iraq and is said to have been martyred in India? (see http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/chaldean.htm)

For those of you who are familiar with the writings of Anne Rice, author of The Vampire Chronicles, she is known for her detailed research. It is interesting that she has returned to the Catholic faith and now writes novels about Jesus. I ran across an interview she gave where she comments about those involved in the Jesus Seminar and other skeptics concerning the resurrection of Jesus. She said, "As I plunged into modern Bible scholarship, I assumed the skeptics would be right...I have never seen sloppier scholarship in any field of study than what I saw in so-called biblical scholarship. I soon realized that the skeptical scholars had very little evidence at all of their extravagant theories and they were anti-supernaturalists." (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1137) I don't know if she was specifically referring to Ludemann's book, but the criticism applies to him as well.

This is anything but a "historical inquiry" into the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is at best "historical speculation," and Lüdemann's conclusions are little more than assertions based on his arbitrary, atomistic textual critical methodology and anti-supernatural presuppositions.

To Lüdemann, development from one gospel to the next is evidence of distortion. This is apparent in his discussion of the tradition of Joseph of Arimethea. Lüdemann is quite troubled that each of the gospels portrays Joseph in increasingly glowing terms. Although one could interpret this development as simply the progressive inclusion of more information, Lüdemann arbitrarily declares these accounts suspect as a result.

Lüdemann also dismisses any positive reconstruction of the ending of the gospel of Mark, yet insists on a negative reconstruction of the resurrection chapters in John's gospel. He admits that Mark's gospel ends with a preposition in the Greek, yet insists that we must consider the text as it has come to us without speculating on a lost ending. Since he holds to Markan priority, he argues that the earliest tradition, therefore, records no resurrection appearances.

Yet Lüdemann is certain that we must not accept the received text of John chapter 20. He asserts that verse 11 does not chronologically connect with verses 1-10 and, therefore, declares verses 14-18 the imaginative insertion of the author, exhibiting a surprising bias against the nature of ancient biography and its often characteristically non-chronological nature. Furthermore, he insists that verses 19-23 contradict verses 24-28, since verses 19-23 do not mention that any of the disciples were missing when Jesus appeared to them, yet 24-28 declare that Thomas was missing. But verses 19-23 make no mention of the number of disciples present when Jesus appears. So how does the information in the succeeding passage constitute a contradiction? This is additional information, not contradictory information. Nonetheless, Lüdemann declares these passages unhistorical. Such arbitrary textual vivisection is characteristic of Lüdemann's method, and his arbitrary acceptance of Mark and rejection of John further reveal his bias.

Another example of Lüdemann's "historical" method appears in his discussion of the Sabbath Day meeting between the Jewish leaders and Pilate recorded in Matthew 27: 62-66. He considers the account of this meeting between "strict followers of the Jewish law" and the gentile Pilate as "incredible" and therefore historically "nil." Lüdemann does not tell us just which Sabbath law the Jewish leaders were breaking as a result of this meeting. Furthermore, the Sadducee's among this group had already proven themselves to be purely politically motivated. As for the Pharisee's among them, they had already been party to the arrest and condemnation of an innocent man by means of a bribe to an inside informer and an illegal trial in the middle of the night. At what point had these lawless co-conspirators suddenly become pristine law-abiders? Apparently, Lüdemann can easily accept that the New Testament writers had personal agendas in fabricating imaginative resurrection stories, but cannot fathom sinister chicanery among the Jewish leaders.

Finally, we come to Lüdemann's explanation of the resurrection appearances themselves. Leaning on the theories of modern depth psychology, Lüdemann psychoanalyzes the apostle Paul in order to explain his reported encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. According to Lüdemann, Paul had a "Christ complex" emerging from his conflict between the alleged harshness of the Jewish law and the attractiveness of Christ's message of grace. This conflict supposedly came to a head when Paul had a purely subjective "vision" of Christ that resolved this conflict and changed his life. Furthermore, Lüdemann asserts that this "vision" represents the pattern of all the other recorded appearances of Jesus, although these appearances allegedly were more the result of the disciples' wishful thinking and the need to resolve their "guilt-complex" that resulted from deserting their master.

In response, we must first ask why, prior to Paul's conversion, there is no evidence in the text that he was unhappy with his life. He describes himself as one progressing in his Judaism and zealous for the Law. It appears that Paul was a quite well-adjusted, anti-Christian bigot. Secondly, we must ask what "wishes" the earlier disciples had that would have motivated such a "vision." There was no anticipation among them that their deceased Master would appear again, nor was there any place in their theology for a dead Messiah. Finally, Lüdemann fails to tell us how the experience of subjective visions translated into the disciples' unanimous proclamation that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. There is no precedent in the Old Testament or Second Temple Jewish literature for such an interpretation of visions. Furthermore, Second Temple Judaism would seem to preclude such an understanding of visions, even if objective. "Resurrection" was understood by first century believing Jews to mean a physical event in space and time. So even if we grant that Paul saw a heavenly Christ, we are not compelled to believe that this was the experience of all the other disciples, nor are we compelled to believe that the Christ Paul saw was not embodied.*

In the end, Lüdemann's theory is based on historical and psychological speculation that find no support in the text. His is just another attempt to come up with a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection at any cost, since, to Lüdemann, a supernatural explanation, even if it remains the best explanation, is simply a priori unacceptable.

* For an exanded treatment of some of the thoughts in this paragraph, I recommend the book Jesus Resurrection, Fact or Figment: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000).

The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. By Gerd Ludemann. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Book, 2004. 245 pages. Hardcover; $27.00. ISBN: 1591022452.

Ludemann's book "The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry" presents the thesis that from a historical standpoint Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead. Therefore, no one can make the claim of being a Christian. Ludemann states that Christianity has never existed because its validity, by its own admission, rests on the resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1-19). But, Ludemann's historical analysis and conclusions are mistaken.
The Apostle Paul states that if Jesus did not resurrect from the dead Christianity is false and Christians, of all people, should be pitied the most. Ludemann, recognizing this, asserts that a historical investigation of Jesus' resurrection is of paramount importance. The reader will find that Ludemann's historical analysis assumes a naturalistic worldview. Furthermore, this book requires a considerable amount of concentration to read. Therefore, it would be most suited for scholars or someone who is extremely interested in the topic.
Ludemann presents three main points in his analysis of the resurrection. First, he argues that Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead because dead people don't come back to life. Throughout Chapter 3 he attempts to illustrate how the Gospel writers reworked tradition in order to add more credibility to the resurrection stories. Ludemann states the Gospels are filled with later textual emendations designed to promote the Christian religion, which have no foundation in reality. However, no book from antiquity is as well supported manuscript wise as the Bible. Even secular scholars agree that what we have today is 99% in accordance with the original writings and any deviations are nonessential issues.
Second, Chapter 4 discusses the visions of the resurrected Jesus by Peter and Paul as nothing more than hallucinations. The hallucinations occurred as a result of guilt on the part of Peter for his denial of Jesus and because of a Christ-complex by Paul, which emanates from his persecuting Christians. Ludemann states, "once we understand that visions commonly arise from the frustrations... and even yearning for power on the part of both individuals and groups, we are able to examine history...in a more revealing light". But, neither Peter nor Paul had valid psychological reasons for hallucinating about Jesus.
Third, Ludemann concludes, in Chapter 5, that no one has the epistemic right to call themselves Christians. This is true because Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead. Ludemann quoting Strauss states, "it is not because of what he (Jesus) was, but because of what he was not; not because of the truth he taught, but on the strength of a prediction (His Resurrection) which was not fulfilled... We have no further ground...any right to belong to such a church". It is clear that Ludemann believes the Christian religion is null and void. This cannot be true, for why did many of Jesus' disciples willingly give up their lives for a lie?
According to resurrection scholar Dr. Gary Habermas it is almost unanimous by scholars who have studied 1Cor. 15: 3-8 that it dates to within 3 to 7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus and that it was creedal information given to Paul. Therefore, the early Christian church believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus based on the empty tomb and the numerous post-resurrection appearances. Additionally, just because the Gospel stories don't match perfectly or have a different slant on the same topic doesn't automatically mean their accounts are false.
Ludemann's assertion that both Peter and Paul had hallucinations of the risen Jesus, which then led to mass hallucinations, is not supported by well-accepted psychological facts. According to psychological theory, hallucinations are incurred by people with an expectation of seeing a loved one again. Neither Peter nor Paul would have had this expectation. Second Temple Judaism had a belief in resurrection but it was a general resurrection of everyone at the end of the age. Secondly, and even more important, hallucinations are by their very nature individual experiences. Two people, much less eleven or 500 cannot share a hallucination. Jesus appeared post-resurrection to individuals and groups of individuals in different geographical locations and at different times. Therefore, the hallucination theory espoused by Ludemann collapses.
The third point by Ludemann logically follows from the previous two points. However, as shown above his analysis is erroneous thus his conclusions false. Ludemann's staunch naturalism is revealed in the Epilogue, "Indeed, accepting my perishability gives rise to a truer Easter vision... I can join myself to all humanity ... to dedicate my efforts to the welfare of my fellow voyagers". Ludemann's naturalistic beliefs are also clearly revealed when he quotes Emanuel Hirsch, "Today, however, imagining a body rising to enter a heavenly throne room...is impossible, for our knowledge of the cosmos admits of no such heaven." Thus, Ludemann doesn't believe in God or anything supernatural thus leading him to dismiss, out of hand, the most coherent explanation of Jesus' resurrection.
In short, I have tried to show that Ludemann's historical analysis of Jesus' resurrection is based on unsound reasoning. Ludemann's analysis of various Gospel accounts in Chapter 3 is replete with speculations not founded on any solid facts. In Chapter 4, Ludemann appears to create his own version of Psychology's view of hallucinations - manipulating psychological information in order to meet his own objectives. His conclusion in chapter 5 is false because it is based on false premises.

In his book The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, Gerd Ludemann examines the question of the resurrection by employing historical-critical methods. Briefly put, this approach assumes that what is recorded in the New Testament, especially with regard to the divinity of Jesus, is largely the result of mythmaking by those who would benefit from elevating him to god-status. Additionally, it presumes that the fields of modern science and psychology, along with their underlying metaphysics, should inform inquiries and shape the methods used to investigate past events. The methodology also requires adherence to Enlightenment period philosophies. Finally, it tends to reduce historical events and the motives of people primarily to power struggles.

Under this framework, Ludemann analyzes the resurrection accounts found in the New Testament and also some non-Canonical books. Following this, he characterizes the early Christians' faith in the resurrection as a self-deception. He justifies this result with a historical reconstruction complete with psychoanalyses of Peter and Paul. Ludemann concludes that we can no longer be Christians because Jesus of Nazareth did not rise from the dead and that the largest religion on earth is based on a fraud. He explains, "For two thousand years an abiding faith in Jesus' resurrection has displayed enormous power, but because of its utter groundlessness we must now acknowledge that it has all along been a worldwide historical hoax" (190).

Professor Ludemann's loose and circuitous arguments regarding the scriptures leave ample room for dissection and pointing out flaws in logic and exegesis, but space does not permit. Instead, I will focus on particular concluding remarks to illuminate the incoherence that results from his untenable presuppositions and method and the inessential and superfluous nature of his resolve.

To begin, Ludemann accepts the fact that no resurrection implies human existence is meaningless. While he should be following the path of Nietzsche, he espouses hope that virtues can somehow recover meaning. He petitions, "We strive to create meaning in our lives by living in humility, wisdom, and love" (210). But why should we live by these virtues to create meaning in our lives? Suppose some people find meaning in narcissism and selfishness, or perhaps just benign apathy. Shouldn't they be free to live by those values instead? Ludemann may say yes, but it seems the author wants to use the imprimatur of Christian virtues to bolster his life philosophy while denying the supernatural God that gave the founder of those virtues his authority and power. If Jesus taught that we should love others, but his resurrection is a myth and deception as Ludemann teaches, then ultimately the meaning Christians strive to create is groundless and therefore futile.

The professor also admonishes that "belief" somehow points to a weakness in humanity, and implies that it is not appropriate in our scientific age (204-05). But immediately after disparaging belief, he champions his own. He dogmatically informs us that he is persuaded to "Live in a house built on a solid foundation rather than a priestly domicile suspended in the sky" (205). Presumably, this "solid foundation" refers to beliefs that can be constructed only by human intellect. He further asserts, "Like Bertrand Russell, I believe that when I die my body will rot, and my selfhood will vanish" (210). Having discarded orthodox Christian belief, he trusts in human intellect, naturalism, and nihilism instead. The author merely exchanges one belief system for another. Does he not see his own inconsistency?

Ludemann finally concludes, "Henceforth, I am no longer cowed by the notion that death is a punishment for my sin. Nor do I hope for a resurrection...Indeed, accepting my perishability gives rise to a truer Easter vision. Now freed from the undertow of fear and in defiance of the absurd, I can join myself to all humanity by striving in all things to give the best that is in me, and to dedicate my efforts to the welfare of my fellow-voyagers" (210). In this final assertion of naturalistic dogma, he aspires to greatness in assisting his fellow human beings. However, he seems to think that his newfound freedom from the absurdity of a God who would raise Jesus from the dead, is what serves as the impetus for his altruistic ambitions. But this statement of belief is independent of his polemic and consequently his argument loses all force.

I have tried to show, in limited space, that Gerd Ludemann's naturalistic assumptions produce incongruities and self-contradictory reasoning. Assuming there is no supernatural realm requires him to conjure up fantasies to circumvent the plain meaning and simple message of an ancient text. In point of fact, I don't think professor Ludemann, in his quietest moments, really wants to live, or die, with his convictions.

The first Christians willingly died for their testimony to seeing Jesus alive again after his crucifixion. We even know from Josephus that James, the brother of Jesus, was executed for his beliefs. If Christ wasn't raised, why did all of them die for what they knew to be a lie?

Gerd Lüdemann begins his historical inquiry into the question of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by writing in chapter 1: "... if Jesus' resurrection did not take place and consequently Jesus was not revived.... Christian faith is as dead as Jesus and can be kept alive only by self-deception." In light of the stakes Lüdemann asserts that an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection is of the utmost importance.

However, after making the case for investigating the resurrection historically, Lüdemann goes astray. Chapter 2 is mostly a benign look at the different types of resurrection texts found in the New Testament. However, even in this early part of the book his agenda is clear: "Those reports within the gospel narratives that stress the bodily nature of the risen Christ are presumably of later origin (35)." The idea of a late doctrinal development regarding the bodily nature of Jesus' resurrection appearances is important in the strategy that Lüdemann desires to employ in chapter 3. He desires to discredit most of the resurrection material in the gospels as the product of late theological aggrandizement by the early church. However, even the most liberal dating of the gospels has them all completed within 65 or less years of the events. This is an incredibly short time span for reporting an event in antiquity, and severely hampers the potential exaggeration. Yet, even if Lüdemann were right in his critique of the gospel material (he's not), the case for an early and pervasive confession that Jesus was bodily resurrected can still be made. The reason for this is because Lüdemann, along with virtually all critical scholars, allows for and admits that the material recorded by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is of the utmost importance.

According to resurrection scholar Gary Habermas, virtually everyone who has studied the material in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 - including Lüdemann himself - dates it to within 3-7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. It is conceded that the material in this section is creedal material transmitted to Paul, and represents the early Jerusalem church's confession about the resurrection of Jesus. In it, we find many interesting details: Jesus Christ was buried, was raised on the third day, appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve, to more than 500 brothers - many of whom were alive at the time of Paul's writing, appeared to James, to all the apostles, and then lastly to Paul on the Damascus Road. Thus, we have a report from Paul, including the earliest material representing the church's belief, and it all points toward a heavily witnessed bodily resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, Lüdemann points out that Paul intends to place, "his encounter with Christ in parallel with the appearances of Christ to the other witnesses (44)." However, where Lüdemann takes us after discounting much of the gospel material and focusing in on Peter and Paul's eyewitness "seeings" is to assert that they both fell victim to self-deception in the form of visions brought on by intense emotional pain they felt in reference to Jesus: Peter, because he denied Jesus on the night of his crucifixion, and Paul, by reaching a point of emotional breakdown regarding his legalistic Judaism and persecution of Christians.

Surely, however, Lüdemann's thesis doesn't deal with several important facts. First, modern psychology tells us that hallucinations (this can be seen even in the cases Lüdemann mentions in chapter 4) occur with people who have an expectant desire to see a deceased loved one. Neither the denier (Peter) nor the persecutor (Paul) had that. Also, James, the unbelieving brother, would not be in a psychological state of expectancy, yet he turned from a skeptic into a pillar of the Jerusalem church. Second, hallucinations are individual in nature and cannot be shared. But Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15 that Jesus appeared to groups in different locations and over many days. Third, it is extremely difficult to believe that a mere audio-visual experience of Jesus would convince second-Temple Jews who believed in bodily resurrection (see N.T. Wright's decisive study of this issue in Resurrection of the Son of God) that they were really experiencing a risen, triumphant Christ. Rather, it was the persistent and very physical nature of the resurrection appearances that convinced a small band of Jews to preach and proclaim the resurrection of Jesus boldly in the city where earlier he had been killed. Fourth, it is extremely naive to conclude that even totally convinced hallucinatory saints could not be stopped by a simple trip to Jesus' tomb by his enemies. The Jewish authorities would have had every means and motive for producing Jesus' body. Fifth, it simply is the very best explanation of the evidence to believe that the willingness to suffer and die for the message of Christ was affected in the early church because of the rock solid conviction that they had seen and touched a bodily resurrected conqueror. Hallucinations simply could not have provided that type of unshakeable conviction.

Lüdemann's final analysis is that Christianity should be abandoned. Ultimately, though, it is the biased and highly presumptive conclusions of Lüdemann that should be rejected in favor of an explanation that does justice to the evidence of an early, transformative, powerful belief that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave.

Two years ago I left the Christian faith after ten years of extremely zealous study and service. My reason for leaving was my inability to reconcile the cosmological facts I discovered in Stephen Hawkings book A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME with the Biblical narrative. I belonged to a group of Christians who still hold to the young earth view. I was so miopic in my reading up to that point that I thought the young earth was the regular view. After reading Hawking I was blown away. Spent a year trying to find a way to save my faith and accept the truth revealed by scientific research. Unfortuantely I just couldn't keep my faith if I couldn't somehow maintain the belief that the fall in the garden in Genesis chapter one and two were not real. If it was just a myth ot allegory then what do you do with the literal sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection? But I must still confess that the historical evidence for Jesus still seems strong if only because I find no powerful alternative to explain away the facts. The main thesis I am still trying to dig up information on is that pagan religions influenced the early Christian writers. Yet everytime I think I am convinced I hear someone come along and say that THE GOLDEN BOUGH by Frazer has been totally disproven. They never say how-'time does not permit me to go into details,' they say. I am sure that if I continue my reading I will find an answer. Unfortunately for Gerd Ludemann, his thesis left alot to be desired. The one shining thing about his book is the point he made about whether you can be a Christian if Jesus didn't really rise physically and literally. This was a jab at liberal Christianity. I thought it was well stated. I surely wouldn't discourage anyone from reading this work. However it wasn't very convincing to me.