Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology [Paperback]

Gerd Ludemann (Author), Gerd Luedemann (Author), John Bowden (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 1, 1995

What actually happened at the resurrection of Jesus? Gerd Luedemann suggests that this question-considered unanswerable by many-is of crucial importance to Christians and that it can be answered more specifically than has been the case in recent studies. Luedemann begins with the oldest list of witnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinithians 15) and proceeds from there to three texts from Paul and the Gospels to investigate the events of Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost. The Easter faith, which Luedemann finds had originally nothing to do with the empty tomb, ultimately stems from visions of Peter and the other disciples, both men and women. These, along with Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, Luedemann examines by means of historical criticism and depth psychology. He concludes that the original core of the Easter faith reflects the message of Jesus as the experience of forgiveness of sins and the overcoming of death.

Product Details

• Paperback: 276 pages
• Publisher: FORTRESS PRESS; 1st Fortress press ed edition (January 1, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080062792X
• ISBN-13: 978-0800627928
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.3 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,456,865 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

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Love it or hate it, a must-have book on the resurrection, October 1, 2000

By 

[e-mail] (USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Paperback)

Written in 1994 while Professor Leudemann was still a Christian, this book caused such a storm of protest in Germany that the original publisher declined to publish a second impression. But the same honesty which made the book so controversial is also what makes it so valuable. Leudemann decided to write this book because he was dissatisfied with so much of what he read, and therefore the book is a comprehensive treatment of the resurrection. He systematically surveys all of the passages in the New Testament which pertain to the Resurrection, beginning with 1 Corinthians 15 and ending with the last chapter of John. In each instance, Leudemann writes like a sober historian, carefully considering each passage from a redactional, traditional, and critical historical perspective. Leudemann argues that the tomb stories are late--Jesus may have received a dishonorable burial--and likewise the appearance stories are largely legendary. But *something* did happen. Leudemann skillfully extracts as much information as possible about that something from Paul's often cryptic statements, in order to formulate his own hypothesis as to how Christianity began. Whether one one agrees, disagrees, or suspends judgment about Leudemann's hypothesis, all serious students of the Resurrection narratives will want to be familiar with this important book. My only complaint about the book is the lack of a bibliography and detailed indices (e.g., NT verses, subject, author).

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Ludemann is Honest, yet Very Mistaken, September 26, 2006

By 

Scott Pearl (Nampa, Idaho) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Paperback)

For some time now Ludemann has been wrestling with the idea of how to understand Christian faith in light of our knowledge of history and since the publication of this book his views have changed.

When this book was published, Ludemann believed one could still remain a Christian even while denying Christ's resurrection. But in the book, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment (which was adapted from a debate between Ludemann and William Lane Craig), Ludemann makes it clear he no longer holds this position. In my opinion, Ludemann is correct that Christianity should collapse if Jesus did not rise from the dead.

But as far as the main point at hand--whether Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead--Ludemann today holds very much the same position he did when this book was written, viz., Jesus did not rise from the dead. In his denial of the resurrection, though, his case is very mistaken.

One of Ludemann's weakest points comes right at the beginning of the book. Ludemann states that miracles "cannot be the object of scientific historical work.....David Hume already demonstrated that a miracle is defined in such a way that no testimony is sufficient to establish it" (p. 12).

Unfortunately, there is no elaboration or defense of Hume here as many philosophers have critically examined Hume's arguments only to demolish them. So it doesn't serve Ludemann's purposes well to make such a hasty remark.

The fact is, Hume's assertion begs the question. The only way one could determine that no testimony is sufficient to prove a miracle is to already believe that miracles cannot exist. Ludemann's reliance on such a fallacious claim without any interaction with the countless number of critical reviews Hume has received misleads the uninformed reader.

When we get to specific evidences concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Ludemann's case is similarly troubled. According to Ludemann the early church could not have known where Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was located because "it can be presupposed that had Jesus' tomb been known, the early Christians would have venerated it and traditions about it would have been preserved" (p. 45). Not only does Ludemann not state why this can be presupposed but now it is he who is begging the question.

Ludemann's point begs the question in that it would only be true if Jesus did not rise from the dead. If Jesus' body still laid in the tomb then, yes, veneration would be expected. But if Jesus did rise from the dead, why must one presuppose this?

The only significance a tomb in which a holy man is buried possesses is that it holds the remains of a holy man. But if the remains are not in the tomb, what do we make of the tomb other than a hole in the ground? There would simply be no reason to venerate a hole in the ground. If Christ rose from the dead, the tomb would have been conquered and, more importantly, utterly irrelevant. Thus, ironically, given the resurrection, we would expect the lack of veneration of Christ's tomb and this fact seems to support the exact opposite conclusion which Ludemann holds!

In discussing 1 Corinthians 15:3-10, Ludemann makes one of the most remarkable statements in the entire book. He states, "We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus" (p. 38). This tradition includes Christ's death for our sins, his burial, his resurrection on the third day, and that he appeared to Peter, then the Twelve, his appearance to more than 500 people at once, his appearance to James and all the apostles, and his appearance to Paul.

So we are expected to believe that, within the small span of two years, these elements completely destroyed the truth. Consider that A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford researched how long it took a legend to completely erase the truth in the Ancient Near-East and not even two full generations were enough time! Furthermore, when you consider that for other secular ancient writings several hundred years divide our first present copy with the original. But, as Ludemann admits, this is simply two years. However, by the above standard, two years is a historical blip!

This is why the scholar Gary Habermas has concluded that there are minimal facts of Jesus' resurrection which cannot be denied, but once these minimal facts are accepted there is no better explanation for them than Christ rose from the dead.

Having said all this I have found Ludemann to be an honest scholar and would recommend this book to anyone wanting to know the basic arguments brought forth against the resurrection. But if you do decide to read this I would also recommend reading Doug Geivett's and Gary Habermas's In Defense of Miracles. Many of Ludemann's objections are answered in this book.

Perhaps the best book I can recommend if you are interested in Ludemann's book is the one I mentioned toward the beginning of the review (Jesus Resurrection: Fact or Fiction). This debate between Ludemann and Craig was very insightful on the topic of Christ's resurrection and should not be missed.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Ludemann's desperate theory, January 4, 2011

By 

J. R. Fraser - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Paperback)

Gerd Ludemann's vision/hallucination theory, which has since been republished in different formats, is not based on historical conclusions and evidence but rather on the author's own biases against the supernatural. This is clear in his statement that "David Hume already demonstrated that a miracle is defined in such a way that `no testimony is sufficient to establish it'." He later says that "the literal statements about the resurrection of Jesus . . . have lost their literal meaning with the revolution in the scientific picture of the world." Ludemann is starting from a presumption of naturalism and trying to squeeze the historical evidence into that model rather than following the evidence wherever it leads.

Hume's argument has been refuted multiple times, perhaps most recently and effectively by John Earman in Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Ludemann's commitment to Hume leads him to postulate outlandish theories based on discredited Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis. According to Ludemann's speculation, Peter had a vision of Jesus which was brought on by his guilt over having betrayed him. When he spoke of this vision to others, they became "infected" somehow, leading to their own visions. He never does explain the naturalistic mechanism by which one person's vision can "infect" someone else. Certainly I have heard other people talk about visions, but it never induced one in me. Ludemann wants us to believe that Peter's vision infected dozens of other people to the point where they would sacrifice their freedom, property, and even their lives to tell others that Jesus had risen from the dead. To say that this thesis lacks sufficient explanatory power is a gross understatement.

But none of this explains the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, so Ludemann has another psychoanalytical theory for that. Saul suffered from some kind of "Christ complex" which is what led him to persecute the church, but then the inner conflict of his suppressed guilt resulted in a powerful vision which transformed him into the remarkable and tireless apostle to the Gentiles. Again Ludemann relies on Freudian pyschobabble in explaining all of this. Besides the obvious weakness of this theory, he also fails to show that Paul only had a vision. Ludemann engages in questionable exegesis of Paul's letters to show that Paul only claimed a vision. He goes so far as to suggest that Paul really was blinded on the Damascus road, and that this blindness was "hysterical blindness." This in itself shows another problem with Ludemann's approach: he approaches the evidence in an ad hoc manner as it suits him. Thus he considers Paul's blindness in Acts to be historical, but not the fact that Paul's companions were also affected by the phenomenon. No historical or evidential basis is given for this. He simply picks and chooses his evidence because it fits his theory that way. In the same way, Ludemann regards Peter's denial of Christ as historical but the discovery of the empty tomb by the women as not.

However, Ludemann is to be given credit in some respects. For example, he recognizes that the list of appearances given by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is very early, dating back to within 2-3 years of the crucifixion. He recognizes that Paul's claim included seeing Jesus, and that other "vision" theories which only include a light but not the person of Christ are inadequate. However, his attempt to show that Paul's vision of Jesus was merely an internal, subjective experience rather than an objective one comes up short on exegetical and historical grounds.

Despite the one or two good points in the book, it is mostly a fairly desperate, ad hoc theory based on outdated and discredited psychoanalytical theories, and that treats the evidence inconsistently. Ludemann simply determines the final destination in advance and then tries to find some way to get there. It's actually a credit to the strength of the evidence for the Resurrection that he is compelled to create such an outlandish hypothesis. Ludemann's thesis is unpersuasive and is unlikely to convince even most skeptics. But for naturalistic explanations of the evidence for the Resurrection, it may be the best that skeptics can come up with.