Customer Reviews

Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology

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

 

 

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).

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.

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.

Although, Professor Luedemann is obviously learned, and has done much thought on the subjects of early Christian origins and the resurrection specifically his ideas do not hold up under any sizable scrutiny.

From the very beginning it is easy to tell Luedemann believes the church has not been interested in the truth in its pursuits of spirituality. So he writes, "this book is specifically not written with a view to its results being useful for the church; its main aim is to investigate the historical truth." Because of this we must look to Prof. Luedemann to tell us what the church was not honest enough, or curious enough, to find out. Unfortunately, for Luedemann his analysis is wrong. The church has done very careful study of the issue of the resurrection, and truth was their main concern. As Paul writes in 1 Cor 15, the truth/reality of the resurrection is of utmost importance to the church, because without a TRUE, HISTORICAL resurrection there is no Christianity. The whole religion is based on the FACT of the resurrection, and if it is not true then to be a Christian is worthless.

In regards to Luedemann's arguments I can mention a few. First, he argues the New Testament (specifically the parts which refer to the bodily resurrection) is dated late. This is quite mistaken. In regards to standards of judging the accuracy and reliability of documents of antiquity, the NT is very, very early. In fact, Luedemann contradicts himself when he concedes 1 Cor 15 to be dated very early. To see a popular treatment on this you might want to pick up Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. If you would like a much harder work to really delve into on this issue see NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Another angle Luedemann takes is to systematically discredit the eyewitnesses who claimed to see Jesus alive after his death and burial. Unfortunately, this is one of his weakest points. There is no reason to disbelieve the accounts of the eyewitnesses. Luedemann's main tact here is to take some form of naturalistic explanation for all of these accounts. However, naturalistic interpretations do not fit the facts. For Example, Luedemann cites group hallucination at one point. But there is no such thing as group hallucination. Hallucinations, by definition, are individual occurrences. Strobel's Case for the Real Jesus, and Case for Christ answer this emphatically.

One person Luedemann specifically tries to discredit is Paul. According to Luedemann, Paul was attracted to the Christian lifestyle while he persecuted them. One day he hallucinates and decides his hallucination was that of the Risen Jesus. This is a possible explanation, but unfortunately, we have the passage from 1 Cor. 15 which emphasizes Paul was not the only one to have see Jesus. Paul ends this passages by saying, "The people who saw Jesus risen are still alive today. Go ask them what happened." This is how confidant Paul was. He wanted people to try and disprove his claim. He knew people would back up his story.

Much of the book is riddled with problems such as above, but there is one final problem in this work.

Near the end of the work Luedemann includes a chapter on whether or not we can be Christians if we accept his analysis to be unassailable. He spends the entire book trying to prove the resurrection is not a historical fact, then he comes to the end and says we can still be Christians if we hold to this view. This is false! Christianity is based on the resurrection. Without it there is no conquering of sin. Without it we cannot live transformed lives. Without it we cannot be followers of a risen Christ, instead we are followers of a delusional madman. To paraphrase scripture, "If Christ is still in the grave we are still in our sins." Luedemann is far off base in this view.

This book is readable, it is informative, but it is not right. I would not recommend it to anyone truly searching for the truth. Instead, I only recommend it to people who want to do some very serious thinking and defense of the faith. But first, pick up any of Gary Habermas' work, or The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright. Both these authors are much more honest in their analysis.

Luedemann's work is fair to middling, at best.

This tome is something of an aporetic description of what "must have happened" in place of the traditional description of the rise of the Christian faith.

Paul was really a nice guy, but felt like he couldn't be that way until he was around Christians (who he felt guilty for persecuting), so his brain cooked up an image of a dead guy who he'd never met who made him feel all warm and fuzzy (and psychosomatically blind for a while). He decided then that the image he saw was none other than the Son of God, the Resurrected Messiah. This explanation works as long as you believe that Paul was insane. We have no other evidence to support that thesis, though.

Peter was just another disciple of Jesus who ran off when he was arrested. He felt so guilty about Jesus' death, however, that his brain cooked up a vision of his dead teacher which inspired him to found the church at Jerusalem. He ended up fighting with James who also felt guilty so (can you see a pattern here?)his brain cooked up an image of his dead brother.

Pentecost? The appearance to 500 mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15? Luedemann kills two birds with one stone here. Both legends are based on one common group hallucination in which people had a really good time and felt like Jesus was there with them, kind of like if they had played a live version of "Truckin'" at Jerry Garcia's funeral.

Luedemann claims to be an historian. He is not. Rather, he is a speculator.

He claims that depth psychology can be of use to biblical interpreters. Psychology is far too amorphous and unreliable for historical interpretation. Here's why:

Herr Luedemann could sit across the table from me and ask me as many questions as he would like about whatever topic he felt needed his attention, and he would never have the slightest idea of what was going on in my mind, except through the matrix of whatever the latest in psychology could theorize.

Now, let me write down something that may take a few hours to compose and wait two millenia, then let him say what was going on in my head. Good luck, Gerd.

His book fails because his methodology and tools are flawed and, in the end, it takes less faith to believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead than it does to believe that Jungian psychology can accurately interpret the human mind.