Customer Reviews

What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection

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

 

 

This book is designed to be a more popular version of Ludemann's 1994 volume, THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS: HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, AND THEOLOGY. Ludemann presents the same arguments as he did in his 1994 volume, but in a much easier-to-read format. I use WHAT REALLY HAPPENED... as a companion to the 1994 volume.

Just as was the case in his 1994 volume, Ludemann argues that a strictly historical investigation of the New Testament texts does not support apologetic claims: Jesus may not have received an honorable burial, the empty tomb story is legendary, the appearance stories are embellished, etc. Ludemann concluded that "We can no longer take the statements about the resurrection of Jesus literally" (p. 134) and that "the tomb of Jesus was not empty, but full, and his body did not disappear, but rotted away" (p. 135). But Ludemann also concluded that a person could consistently accept the results of his devastating historical investigation and yet remain a Christian. Interestingly, it appears that Ludemann no longer holds this view and, indeed, no longer even claims to be a Christian. (See the introduction to the North American edition of Ludemann's GREAT DECEPTION.)

Like the 1994 book, my only complaint about WHAT REALLY HAPPENED... is the lack of a bibliography and detailed indices (e.g., NT verses, subject, author).

This volume is a condensed and somewhat more easily readable version of the case Ludemann presents in _The Resurrection of Jesus_, now apparently not in print. In each volume, he argues on textual grounds that the resurrection of Jesus was in fact not a literally historical event. Readers should be aware that as of his most recent book -- _The Great Deception: What Jesus Really Said and Did_ -- Ludemann, with admirable intellectual honesty, has declared himself to be no longer affiliated with Christianity. Nor will anyone who reads this book have any trouble seeing why. Indeed, the question will be why people who share Ludemann's beliefs continue to remain within the fold.

I applaud Gerd Lüdemann for recognizing this important point: "The resurrection of Jesus is the central point of the Christian religion." He begins What Really Happened to Jesus with these words, and they are a welcome recognition of the place of the resurrection of Jesus in both the theology and historical origins of Christianity. I also appreciate his desire to understand and not check his mind at the door when it comes to the resurrection, and agree that one should be free to question religious assertions. I even found a few well-made points and interesting, worthwhile ideas and arguments that warrant further thought.

However, my criticism must start with an observation I made time and again as I read the book: the consistent gap between premises and conclusion is *startling*. I was amazed at the poor level of argumentation offered throughout the book, and can count on one hand the number of times where conclusions actually followed (in the sense of logical structure of the arguments, not necessarily the soundness of the premises). Examples of this consistently poor argumentation, as well as other fallacies, errors and problems abound; those I cite here are fairly representative of what you can find in this book.

The pattern Lüdemann's argumentation usually takes is along these lines: one *could* think of/explain the text this way; therefore, they *have* no historical value. Notice the illogic - a certainty cannot follow from mere possibility.

This fallacious pattern of argumentation is aided by a lack of creativity in thinking. Many times a "problem" in the text is proposed and an answer given as the only option available (which only aids him in eliminating meaningful historical yield from the text), when it really isn't hard to see an alternate explanation that allows the text to retain its historical credibility. For example, when critiquing the empty tomb account in Mark, Lüdemann finds the fact that the women bought spices after the Sabbath, or "in the morning before sunrise" as he puts it, indicative of the narrator's lack of historical interest. However, this shouldn't be a problem - sabbath ends at sundown, and they probably bought the spices Saturday evening.

Throughout the book, Lüdemann makes claims without any support whatsoever. For example, he claims that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus were not originally associated with the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) but were inserted there by Mark to make a better transition to Chapter 16. Never is any support for this claim provided. Likewise, he continually makes mere pronouncements, even ones his critics would agree with ("An appearance of Jesus to Peter is certainly historical") without any real support.

Occasionally, Lüdemann even seems to commit an outright self-contradiction. After suggesting an *early* Palestinian origin to the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, he then wrote, "It seems historically certain that Mary Magdalene was witness to an appearance of Jesus." However, after a brief (and unrelated) discussion of the identity of Mary, he abruptly concludes, "Nevertheless, the tradition of an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene is evidently fairly late." (p. 66-67) Not only is this never supported by evidence or argument, it is directly contradicted by his own immediate prior comments!

Several times in this book, Lüdemann utilizes the following fallacious criterion: if something in the text is being used to argue against a rival idea or claim, it cannot be used as historical evidence. This is similar (no pun intended) to the criterion of dissimilarity used by the Jesus Seminar, and is questionable on similar grounds. It unfairly rules out a very real historical possibility - that the New Testament writers were arguing against a rival idea or claim *because it was contrary to what had actually happened*, and they were using historically reliable traditions to do so. To regard these parts of the text with suspicion and scrutinize them is one thing, but to rule them out of evidence at the outset is uncalled for, and not, in my opinion, good historiography. (I was also forced to ask, why exactly are traditions that are supposedly recorded later automatically assumed to be unhistorical? This assumes the dynamics of a non-oral culture, which Mark D. Roberts has shown to be a mistake.)

"None of the stories we have investigated comes from eyewitnesses; they have passed through the hands of a community and/or a theologically trained figure. So the historical yield on the resurrection of Jesus is thus far unsatisfactory." Here we see Lüdemann's overriding criterion for discerning unhistorical material - that there was an intermediary group or individual that transmitted the account. However, if this criterion were applied to all ancient documents claiming to give a historical account, we would have to admit that much of what is taught in history books is based on unsatisfactory historical yield.

After surveying some of the serious problems in argumentation, the verdict for Lüdemann's conclusion - that the appearances of Jesus to various disciples were visions or hallucinations brought on by grief or guilt - does not look good. There have been problems associated with that view that are argued elsewhere in the resurrection literature - such as the observations that hallucinations cannot explain the diversity of appearances, and cannot explain why the disciples came to believe in the *resurrection* of Jesus (concept not in the minds of the disciples). There are other substantive critiques of many of his claims and conclusions, such as the empty tomb being a later invention as a necessary corollary to a bodily resurrection, or his Bultmannian inability to accept a literal resurrection in a scientific age. Rather than reproduce those here, I have chosen to focus on his how well the book is argued, and whether or not he succeeds in supporting his conclusions; for a treatment and critique of those substantive issues, see books by Craig, Habermas, Wright, Bauckham, etc.

Those issues aside, then, it is highly questionable whether Lüdemann has made a significant argument for his conclusions in the first place, given the poor logic evidenced in this book.

This is an enlightening book by Luedemann. One criticism I have hears leveled against the book is that the events as reconstructed by Luedemann are insufficent to account for the rise of Christianity. But the question that this book provoked in my mind is how have most Christians come to thier faith? By having objective visions of the resurrected Jesus or through an internal, existensial decision? In any event a excellant read reflecting the thoughts of modern New Testament scholarship.

In What Really Happened to Jesus - A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, Gerd Ludemann attempts to resurrect (Yes, pun intended) two failed naturalistic theories that were flogged to death (sorry, I couldn't resist) nearly a century ago by the majority of critical scholars. The two theories that Ludemann promotes is 1) a modified legend theory combined with 2) the same old hallucination theory, which Ludemann just re-packages by calling it the "Vision theory."

Although Ludemann claims to take a historical approach to this investigation, his findings and conclusions are purely subjective. Through a "historical reconstruction", Ludemann arbitrarily revises the biblical accounts of the resurrection, generally giving preference to the earlier manuscripts, as untainted by traditions (legends) which, he believes, trickled into the later narratives (i.e., "The legend of the guards at the tomb"). This approach fails to follow the rules for historical textual analysis which gives the benefit of the doubt to the historical text and maintains an unbiased "innocent until proven guilty" approach. Ludemann, on the other hand, takes a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, unlike the majority of historical and literary scholarship who "...continue to follow Aristotle's eminently just dictum that the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself" (Pg 28 of Montgomery's History, Law, and Christianity). Ludemann's unjustified reversal of the burden of proof, contrary to the rules of historiography and literary criticism, is one of the many fatal flaws that doom his project. If we applied his method to other works of ancient antiquity, we would be left in a state of chaos and uncertainty about what really happened and would have to discard the majority of what has been recorded in history, based upon subjective historical reconstructions.

In conclusion, Ludemann states, "The critical investigation of the various resurrection appearances produced a surprising result: they can all be explained as visions." (Pg 129) Peter was the first to experience the vision, which Ludemann interprets as a psychological result of failed mourning and the overcoming of a guilt complex. He then makes the incredible statement, "The first vision became the initial spark which prompted the further series of visions mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians 15. The subsequent appearance of Christ can be explained as mass psychoses (or mass hysteria). This phenomenon was first made possible by Peter's vision." (Pg 130) His theory slides further into absurdity when he claims that the visions (hallucinations) were "infectious" spreading to the other disciples and even up to 500 people at once. Since space does not permit a rebuttal of the hallucination theory in this context, I will refer anyone interested to read any of Gary Habermas' books on the resurrection. One in which he deals with this theory is The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. After listing eleven powerful arguments which dismantle this theory he states, "Intriguingly, hallucination approaches to the resurrection would seem to be at odds with current medical, psychological, and historical knowledge on hallucinations." (Pg 12).

Unfortunately, it appears Ludemann's rationalist presuppositions prevents him from believing that miracles are possible, so he is forced, as others have been throughout history to try to explain away the data that collectively points to a literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even to list just the historical facts that virtually all researchers, including skeptics, agree upon shows the enormous hurdles that one needs to overcome in order to reconcile these facts. For instance, consider the following list: 1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. 2) He was buried, most likely in a private tomb. 3) Soon afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope. 4) Jesus' tomb was found empty very soon after his interment. 5) The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. 6) Due to these experiences, the disciples' lives were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief. 7) The proclamation of the resurrection took place very early, at the beginning of church history. 8) The disciples' public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus has been crucified and buried shortly before. 9) The Gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus. 10) Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping. 11) James, the brother of Jesus and former skeptic, was converted when, he believed, he saw the risen Jesus. 12) Just a few years later, the radical persecutor of the church, Saul of Tarsus (Paul), became a Christian believer due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

In order to buy into Ludemann's naturalistic theory, one ironically needs an enormous amount of faith to go against the mountain of evidence, logic, reason, and scholarship that seems to confirm a literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The question for us today is this - If Jesus did conquer death by rising from the grave, what implications does it have for us today? Was Jesus who he claimed to be? Can we believe what he taught? Or should we follow in Ludemann's footsteps, making a blind leap of faith into eternity? "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep [died] in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." I Corinthians 15:17-19

I'll spoil the surprise for you, Gerd Ludemann concludes that "a consistent modern view must say farewell to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event." This book is a shortened version of 1994's The Resurrection of Jesus. History, Experience, Theology. Ludemann mentions in the preface that many of the arguments have been omitted, and "those looking for evidence...for the arguments put forward should refer to the larger edition."

I can't imagine any amount of missing evidence that could swing this book from the land of conjecture into the land of possibility, much less the land of truth. He tours the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial and concludes that because Joseph of Arimathea is presented in a positive light, that all of the burial accounts are not historically reliable. He assumes that Joseph was not a follower of Jesus, and since the Gospels present him favorably they must be hiding something. This idea manifests itself out of thin air for no other reason than to trick readers into distrusting the Gospel narratives. Next Ludemann decides that no one actually knew where the tomb was - because if they had "early Christians would have venerated it, and traditions about it would have been preserved." This seems blatantly ridiculous to me - the Gospel accounts were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Jesus death and burial (although Ludemann adds roughly 10 years to each compared to other critical scholars), so anyone reading one of the four stories about Mary visiting the tomb would have been able to cry foul. It doesn't enter his mind that perhaps the disciples knew the empty tomb should not be turned into a shrine, since Jesus was after all alive. Knowing this they instructed believers to avoid "venerating it" and turning it into some sort of icon. Having concluded that no one knew where the tomb was, Ludemann asserts that the stories of the resurrection came first, and then the legend of the empty tomb was attached.

Ludemann continues his smoke and mirrors trick by explaining away resurrection appearances to Peter and Paul. Peter it seems was just mourning Jesus - and according to some "mourning expert" interviewed for the book, visions and feelings of proximity are normal for mourners. Peter did a poor job of mourning because instead of becoming fainter, Jesus grew clearer and more real. Appearances of Jesus to Peter when he is with the other disciples are dismissed as `unhistorical' so that the failed mourning hypothesis isn't tested. With Paul we are supposed to believe that his experience on the road to Damascus was a vision. However, visions don't cause your traveling companions to hear voices as well, nor do visions strike a person blind (both of which are recorded in Paul's case).

Lastly Ludemann attacks the appearance to over 500, referenced in 1 Corinthians 15. In the passage, Paul mentions that Jesus after appearing to Peter and other disciples appeared to over 500 and that most of those 500 are still alive, implying that if you disbelieve the story you can ask them yourself. Ludemann tries to connect this to the events of Pentecost, described in Acts 2. On the day of Pentecost, according to the Bible - Peter and the other Apostles were gathered together and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages. As the sound broke out, people gathered and heard "the wonders of God in our own tongue." Some passersby claimed they had been drinking too much and that was the cause of the disturbance. Peter got up and explained the story of Jesus death and resurrection and after his sermon about 3,000 were added to their number. The same story according to Ludemann: The disciples were gathered and began speaking not in other languages but in incomprehensible babble (Luke, the author of Acts made up the part about other languages - even though the participants would have still been around to verify or discredit his story). As Peter began to speak a mass hysteria came over the crowd. This mass hysteria lead some to believe they had seen Jesus. Hmm..... Mass hysteria is a noted phenomenon. Mass hallucination however, is not. There has not been a single incident where multiple people shared a hallucination. Couple that with the fact that it is unlikely that Luke lied because people would have called him out on it and the story is dubious. However, the kicker (for me) is that the appearance to 500 probably ISN'T Pentecost anyways. There were between 100 and 200 believers before Pentecost, and the story records 3,000 joining their number. Paul wouldn't have exaggerated the number if the point was credibility, and he wouldn't have used a number that was a fraction of the truth either. It is more likely that the appearance to 500 is something that wasn't recorded by the Gospel authors, but was well known enough that Paul mentioned it.

Ultimately, this book only works as something people who already doubt the resurrection would read to confirm their beliefs. Ludemann makes conclusions with little to no argumentation and expects his readers to follow him. He doesn't respond to any standard arguments for the resurrection as historical fact which have been put forth for centuries. He appeals to the pseudo-science of mass hysteria and visions during mourning. He presents us with the following: The tomb wasn't empty, the appearances weren't real, and the resurrection didn't happen. The problem with that line of reasoning is the fact that anyone reading the Gospels or Paul's letters could have discovered this on their own if those things are true. In addition, he doesn't account for the rise of Christianity out of Judaism if the resurrection story was a legend tacked on to Jesus' life years later. If you're interested in an intellectually honest and historically thorough investigation of the claims about Jesus resurrection please read N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

"Let us say quite specifically: the tomb of Jesus was not empty, but full, and his body did not disappear, but rotted away... A consistent modern view must say farewell to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event." So concluded Gerd Ludemann in the closing pages of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO JESUS: A HISTORICAL APPROACH TO THE RESURRECTION.

With his goal a "purely historical investigation" Ludemann observed that since the evangelists were not neutral observers, he would treat everything said with skepticism, a hermeneutic of suspicion. He began with 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, a text containing a widely recognized early creed. Conceding that all the appearances mentioned occurred in the "first couple of years after the crucifixion of Jesus," he nonetheless attempted to pry apart the appearances, casting doubt on when Paul reported each of them to the Corinthian church, so he could observe that "The final form of its tradition (what the appearances were like) had not yet been fixed." The nature of the appearances, and their alleged "later" morph from vision to bodily resurrection, was very important for his subsequent argument about them. N.T. Wright, analyzing this passage, argued that Paul was merely appealing to bedrock facts that he knew were common knowledge in the Corinthian church. Wright observed as an aside that he found Ludemann's "traditio-historical analysis [of this passage] almost entirely worthless."

Cleverly, he used differences between the gospels to cast doubt on the details but then used similarities to argue for a common source and eliminate multiple attestation. With that he was able to sweep away the historicity of Jesus' burial, the women's Easter morning visit to the tomb and their role as first witnesses to the resurrection, plus Peter and John's tomb visits. All are "without historical value for the question of the `resurrection events.'" Indeed his analysis revealed a presupposition beyond mere skepticism and suspicion. Ludemann seemed to favor a hermeneutic of deceit. The evangelists were not just biased but dishonest, inventing stories out of whole cloth to suit their apologetic needs. He would have us accept that a community called to lives of integrity, with Jesus Christ as their exemplar, would tolerate the fabrication of their foundational stories. Would Peter allow a story, a complete forgery, of his visiting the empty tomb to be invented twenty years hence? Would he die for such a story? Not likely.

With the empty tomb so disposed, the contest moved to "visions" of the risen Jesus. Ludemann began his investigation by observing that "The accounts of the resurrection of Jesus...ha[ve] nothing to do with the real historical event." So what happened? Ludemann returned to the formula in 1 Cor 15. Visions began with Peter, mourning Jesus' death and his own failure in denying him, finding relief in a "seeing" or hallucination of the risen Jesus. Peter's vision provided the "initial spark" that prompted the rest of the visions. Let the reader judge for himself the adequacy of Ludemann's explanation for each vision. Hallucinations are subjective experiences of individual minds. As such they are not something that can be seen by a group of people. What then of the twelve and the five hundred? In Luke 24 the disciples were invited to touch Jesus and also watched him eat. Are we to believe that they all identically hallucinated this complex event? Ludemann sidestepped this problem by denying the historicity of the twelve despite multiple attestations including the early creed in 1 Cor 15. Though Luke, the careful historian, described an entirely different event, Ludemann attributed the five hundred to Pentecost, an event after the Ascension. Hallucinations typically require a particular, expectant state of mind. Yet Peter was consumed with guilt and remorse while James and Paul were respectively in denial and opposition. He attributed Paul's vision to a "Christ complex" brought on by self-hatred for persecuting Christians or his possible unconscious conversion before his conversion. For Ludemann, nearly any state of mind would do. He also did not address why the conflagration of visions ignited by the spark of Peter's experience was suddenly extinguished. His analysis neither explained the origins of the visions nor their sudden ending. By contrast, even critical scholars allow that Jesus actually appeared in some objective sense. Contrary to his stated goal, Ludeman's investigation was not "purely historical," but flew in the face of the historical data.

Though Ludemann parsed many words, he neglected "resurrection," a word 1st century Jews, with their 2nd Temple theology, understood as a bodily resurrection. They had other words for visions. Though pre-scientific, they also knew that dead people stayed dead. Wright maintained that to convince them otherwise would require both an empty tomb and appearances of the risen Jesus. Nothing else could explain the beliefs that arose from the beginning of the church. Ludemann's end of book attempt at an alternative scenario failed to explain the historically attested rise of these beliefs just as he failed to explain away the empty tomb and appearances of the risen Jesus.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a secure fact of history. That's "What Really Happened to Jesus."

Better reads: THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD by N.T. Wright and THE RISEN JESUS AND FUTURE HOPE by Gary R. Habermas.

In this book, Gerd Lüdemann undertakes the worthy project of ascertaining whether or not Jesus Christ really rose from the dead. His method is to discuss each New Testament passage related to Jesus' burial, resurrection, and subsequent appearances. In the manner of the Jesus Seminar, he pronounces judgment on the historicity of each passage, concluding that most are unhistorical, based on conjecture and fanciful interpretations. Lüdemann's inevitable conclusion is that Christ's resurrection was not real, but rather a series of visions experienced by Peter, Paul, James, the other disciples, and more than 500 others. He says, "the critical investigation of the various resurrection appearances produced a surprising result: they can all be explained as visions" and also "the original seeing of the Easter witnesses was a seeing in the spirit; they did not see a revived corpse." He variously describes these visions as "psychological processes", "religious intoxication", "mass ecstasy", "mass psychoses", and "mass hysteria."

Lüdemann's theory is just one of many suggested naturalistic explanations of Christ's resurrection that have been around for centuries. Lüdemann's particular view falls into the category of hallucination theories--the idea that Christ really did not rise from the dead and all the supposed witnesses of the resurrection actually had the same subjective vision. This theory was popular in the 19th century, but eventually fell out of favor. The problem with naturalistic hypotheses of the Resurrection is their nagging failure to explain all of the known data, namely the death of Jesus, his empty tomb, his many resurrection appearances, and the transformed lives of the disciples. The hallucination theory is no exception. Here are five reasons to disbelieve Lüdemann's theory.

First, hallucinations are private, individual events. How could hundreds of people share exactly the same subjective visual perception? There were simply too many appearances, in too many different circumstances, to different groups of people to be explained as mass hallucination. Even if one thought that the phenomenon was an illusion, a perceptual misinterpretation of an objective reality, such as the Marian apparitions that are common today, it would be difficult to believe. These types of group experiences require a sense of expectation and emotional excitement. This was exactly the opposite of the disciples, who were depressed, frightened, and confused by the unexpected death of their friend. Furthermore, Jewish theology did not anticipate individual resurrections; rather they believed in a corporate resurrection of the righteous at the end of time. Christ's followers were clearly not expecting him to be raised from the dead.

Second, why did the hallucinations abruptly end after 40 days? Why didn't the eye-witnesses continue to have them as well as new believers?

Third, wouldn't any of the witnesses try to touch the risen Christ and thereby discover the non-corporeal nature of their vision? In fact, the Gospels recount several such instances that demonstrate the bodily nature of Christ's resurrection, but Lüdemann simply dismisses all of them as unhistorical.

Fourth, hallucinations do not transform lives. Studies have shown that those who have experienced hallucinations disavow them in the presence of others who have not "seen" the same thing. However, the disciples who were eye-witnesses to the resurrected Christ were beaten, tortured, and murdered while boldly preaching that Jesus died and came back to life.

Fifth, if Christ really wasn't raised from the dead, then the fledgling religion could have been quickly crushed simply by exhuming his decaying body from the grave and thus proving to everyone that he was still dead. Lüdemann claims, "The tomb of Jesus was not empty, but full, and his body did not disappear, but rotted away." However, the empty tomb is a well-attested fact and refuting it requires yet another naturalistic theory, but Lüdemann avoids the issue altogether.

The Resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity. This is what drove Paul and many since him to check it out so thoroughly. Although Lüdemann tries valiantly to hold on to his Christian faith despite his rejection of the real bodily resurrection of Christ, he doesn't seriously wrestle with Paul's bold proclamation that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor 15:14). If the Resurrection didn't happen then Christianity is false, plain and simple.

Lüdemann reveals his naturalistic presuppositions when he says, "Earliest Christian faith arose out of the interpretation then of an event against the background of the world-view then, in other words in the framework of the possibilities then. Today we interpret the same event differently, namely within the framework of today's possibilities...With the revolution in the scientific view of the world, the statements about the resurrection of Jesus have irrevocably lost their literal meaning." Lüdemann thinks that two thousand years ago people were gullible enough to believe in a real resurrection, but today we're much smarter and realize that such miracles cannot occur. I think Lüdemann underestimates the ancients. I'm quite sure they grasped the concept that dead men normally stay dead. Even they would require substantial evidence to believe otherwise. The evidence for the empty tomb and Christ's appearances is so strong that Lüdemann seems guilty of first arriving at his naturalistic conclusion and then rearranging the facts to suit it. Unfortunately, the evidence weighs heavily against his view. He makes far too many assertions and provides far too little proof to believe his claims.

On page 130, Mr. Ludemann sums up his conclusions this way, "At the same time this means that the assumption of a resurrection of Jesus is completely unnecessary as a presupposition to explain these phenomena (i.e. the post-mortem appearances of Jesus). A consistent modern view MUST say farewell to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event." MUST? Do you notice the shift from possibility to necessity? He makes the case, at least in his own mind, that Jesus's post-mortem appearances could be explained as the self-induced hallucinations of the so-called eyewitnesses. But then he declares that since this is a possibility it is therefore a necessity! Surely there is another possibility, that Jesus did rise from the dead just as the Bible claims. So, what logic forces us to conclude the former? The logic is simply Mr. Ludemann's preference that it be that way. This kind of "reasoning" is like that segment of the scientific community that declares, "If God did not exist, then man, in order to deal with his mortality, would invent Him. Since this is a possibility, then it must be a reality. Therefore, there is no God." Such lapses in logic indicate obvious bias and not an objective search for truth. It would be reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the rest of the work suffers from the same kind of bias. For these reasons I would not recommend this book.