Was the resurrection of Jesus a fact of history or a figment of imagination? Was it an event that entailed a raised and transformed body and an empty tomb? Or was it a subjective, visionary experience--a collective delusion? In the view of many, the truth of Christianity hangs on the answer to this question. Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? is a lively and provocative debate between Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig and New Testament scholar and atheist Gerd Lüdemann. This published version of a debate originally set at Boston College is edited by Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, who invite the responses of four additional scholars. Robert Gundry, a New Testament scholar, and Stephen Davis, a philosopher, argue in support of a historical and actual resurrection. Michael Goulder and Roy Hoover, both New Testament scholars, offer their support for Gerd Lüdemann's view that the "resurrection" was based on the guilt-induced visionary experience of the disciples. The book concludes with a final response from Lüdemann and Craig.

Average Customer Review: ( 27 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

The basic issue at dispute in this debate is whether or not miracles are possible, and all of the participants seem to recognize this. Craig, Gundry, and Davis actually make a few arguments in favor of the possibility of miracles, while their opponents seem to simply assert their view as dogmatic truth without so much as an argument citing some evidence in support of their claim that miracles are impossible and that god does not exist.

The argument over the resurrection itself centers around Craig's claim of four well established historical facts: the burial of Jesus in a tomb, the discovery of the tomb as being empty, post-mortem appearances of Jesus to some of his followers, and the origin of the disciples belief that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. Much to my surprise, Ludemann concedes the burial of Jesus as being probably true (p. 52) and he also strongly believes that the followers of Jesus experienced "visions" of Jesus after his death, yet he says these visions were only in the minds of the followers and not actual cases of seeing an external object. However, Ludemann does not believe the tomb of Jesus was ever found empty (the body decayed), and he's a little unclear about exactly what he thinks the disciples thought their visions meant. Hoover and Goulder seem to recognize that Ludemann has dramatically weakened his case by agreeing that Jesus was buried in a tomb. They know that once this point is conceded it becomes extremely difficult to say that nobody ever bothered to check the tomb for a body while the disciples in Jerusalem were claiming Jesus had risen.

As a Christian, its obvious which side of the debate I'm on, but speaking as objectively as possible, I honestly believe William Lane Craig was the clear winner of this debate. His arguments were much more thorough and he directly addressed the points raised by all three of his opponents. Meanwhile, Ludemann shied away from addressing some of the main critiques of his opponents. This was especially true regarding some of Gundry's critiques. Of the four respondents, I found Gundry's to be the most helpful both in addressing Ludemann and in fine-tuning Craig's argument.

Who should read this book? Agnostics wondering whether or not there is a god. Ex-Christians who think Christianity is for the weak-minded and gullible. Christians doubting the truthfulness of their faith. Christians wanting the perfect resource on the issue of the resurrection. Anyone else who has ever wondered what all of the hype over this "Jesus of Nazareth" character is about.

No matter what your background is, you will learn something beneficial from this book. Read it with an open mind and you might learn even more than you'd imagined. This is definitely the best book on the resurrection that I've ever read. Buy it !!

37 of 41 found the following review helpful:

Once Upon a Time in PalestineApr 25, 2002
By Jason A. Beyer
Philosopher William Lane Craig has spilled a lot of ink over the topic of the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus. Craig argues that the best explanation for the apparent resurrection of Jesus is that God actually did raise Jesus from the dead. More recently, Craig has taken to defending his ideas in debate with liberal theologians who doubt that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. This is the second book Paul Copan edits that records such a debate. In the first, *Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?*, Craig's sparring partner is John Dominic Crossan. While the first is a dud (Craig and Crossan largely talk past each other, and Craig repeatedly questions Crossan's rationality), but this second installment is much better. In *Jesus' Resurrection*, Craig and Gerd Ludeman do more to confront each others' positions directly.
Craig bases his belief in the resurrection on what he sees as four incontrovertible facts: (1) Jesus was buried, (2) Jesus' tomb was discovered empty, (3) Some people report having seen Jesus after his death, and (4) Jesus' followers preached the resurrection when they had every reason not to. Craig argues that the best explanation for these facts is that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead. Ludeman argues instead that Jesus' followers had visions of the risen Jesus for psychological reasons.
Craig certainly comes off better in the debate. Craig is a brilliant debater (even though he tends to blithely appeal to scholarly consensus, and is by no means above declaring his opponents irrational or prejudiced against him), and Ludeman is not. Not surprising--one would expect a philosopher to be a better debater than a historian. Because of this, many will conclude that Craig comes away the victor, as having demonstrated his case.
However, when one gets to the responses to the debate by four excellent scholars that one gets to see the gaps in Craig's arguments. (Craig himself does an excellent job of making the gaps in Ludeman's arguments apparent.) In particular, Michael Goulder's piece develops an idea similar to Ludeman's in a way that is far more sophisticated than Ludeman's view.
In the end, as with most debates, the issue ends unresolved. Craig is surely right that Ludeman's theory does not explain (or explain away) facts (1) and (2), and does not do especially well at explaining facts (3) and (4). But Ludeman's hypothesis is not the only, and I doubt even the most plausible, naturalist alternative. And Craig never really considers the possibility that (1)-(4) are not well-established facts at all. Only for Jesus' crucifixion do we have any references from non-interested sources. In his debate with Crossan, who denies that (1) and (2) are facts at all, Craig's only response is to claim that Crossan's position is not that of most Bible scholars, as if mere consensus determined truth. It is too bad that Crossan did not take Craig to task when he had the chance.
In short, while Craig does a good job of confounding Ludeman's arguments, he does not do so admirably when his own views are called into question, generally responding with blatant appeals to consensus and personal attacks. (As an aside, I take especial offense at the claim he makes in nearly all his apologetic works that his opponents deny his view because their philosophical commitments prejudice their evaluation of the evidence, while refusing to acknowledge the possibility that his belief in miracles has prejudiced HIS reading of the evidence. Sometimes I feel that Criag doth protest too much.) Yet for all that, Craig is undoubtedly a brilliant thinker who takes his task seriously and approaches it accordingly. His arguments cannot be ignored. And neither can the arguments of his opponents, which in their own writings (not in the context of a debate) are presented with much more force.
*Jesus' Resurrection* will not resolve the issues, but it does an excellent job of showing what the issues are. This is certainly not the place to finish an examination into the (alleged) resurrection, but it is a great place to start. With patience and care, one can get a lot out of this book, whatever one's religious persuasion happens to be.

15 of 16 found the following review helpful:

The crux of Christianity; what happened Easter morning?Feb 24, 2001
By Bruce H
I quite enjoyed this book; previously I had seen the debate on the Internet. It is useful to re-examine the content again by reading rather than simply listening. One of the main benefits is that you get footnotes for the quotations and citations the speakers use which is valuable information. Proper documentation is essential to a debate such as this.

The Debaters

Dr. William Lane Craig

Position: Research professor at Talbot School of Theology

Ph. D - University of Birmingham, England (Philosophy)

Th. D - Universität München (University of Munich), Germany (Theology)

Dr. Craig defends the traditional Christian position that Jesus Christ was physically resurrected on Easter morning.

Dr. Gerd Lüdemann

Position: Professor of New Testament at Georg-August-University, University of Göttingen, Germany

D.Theol. - University of Göttingen

D. Habil. - University of Göttingen

Dr. Lüdemann defends what he calls the "vision" hypothesis in which the disciple's experience Jesus as being risen but not in a veridically objective sense. Note: Dr. Lüdemann is a Fellow of the infamous, (what I would describe as "ultra-liberal") Jesus Seminar.

The Debate

Dr. Craig begins the debate with five points of agreement with Dr. Lüdemann; one is especially important to highlight here, "the resurrection of Jesus us the central point of the Christian religion." Dr. Craig then proceeds to offer four basic facts which must be explained (and yes, Dr. Craig offers much evidence to prove his major points):

i) Jesus' honourable burial.

ii) The discovery of Jesus' empty tomb on Easter morning.

iii) Jesus' postmortem appearances

iv) The origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection.

Furthermore, Dr. Craig offers four criteria by which any hypothesis (commonly used criteria) explaining the above four facts must explain namely:

i) Significant explanatory scope and power

ii) Plausibility

iii) Not being ad hoc.

iv) Being in accord with accepted beliefs

v) Outstripping all rival theories

Dr. Craig's basic structure takes command of the debate; my only disappointment was that though I disagree with Dr. Lüdemann, I would like to have heard his hypothesis.

Dr. Lüdemann

Dr. Lüdemann primarily argues in a reactionary manner to Dr. Craig's statements and rebuttals. Dr. Lüdemann does make some argumentation to dispute Dr. Craig's four established facts; at some points there is very detailed argumentation over the text of certain New Testament passages. Much of Dr. Lüdemann's arguments seem to reduce to, "This is a miracle! Come one, we enlightened, scientific-minded, modern people are beyond that sort of primitive thinking." However, Dr. Lüdemann offers little to defend this assertion however it illustrates one of the major background issues of the debate. It comes down to two questions: 1) Does the Christian God exist? 2) Does the Christian God act in history?

Indeed, these questions are logically prior to the details of the resurrection.

Responses

Several contributors submit papers to give their views on the debate. Two scholars argue "for" Dr. Craig and two argue "for" Dr. Lüdemann. I would like to note, (I do not intend to make an ad hominem here) that Roy W. Hoover is also a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar. One essay that helped to forward Dr. Lüdemann's hypothesis named, "The explanatory power of conversion-visions," by Michael Goulder; here one can see how *potentially* Dr. Lüdemann's hypothesis could work. The most challenging, one might say controversial essay, was entitled, "The Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity," by Roy W. Hoover. In this essay, Hoover says that, basically, Dr. Lüdemann is in search of the truth (i.e. veracity) whereas Dr. Craig is only interested in defending the out-moded tradition of Christianity (i.e. orthodoxy). Hoover even claims that Christianity could survive without the Resurrection; that life could have some sort of existential meaning any way. Hoover also claims (by citing Paul Tillich, a Christian liberal theologian interested in integrating existentialism and Christianity), that the Crucifixion was an actual event that came to be a religious symbol whereas the Resurrection was a religious symbol that "became" to spoken of as it were an actual event. This sort of Kierkegaardian "believe it, even if the facts are against you," and the idea, that a basically fictional (a.k.a. vision or hallucination) "event" can lead significance to one's life is very annoying to me. However, this perception that Christians basically believe false propositions is the common understanding in the media.

However, Dr. Craig finishes the book with his masterful 44-page response. He answers every major objection to his four facts, submits both his and Lüdemann's hypothesis to the criteria he offered earlier (from a third-party; Craig didn't just conjure up this criteria) and shows the woeful inadequacy of the vision/hallucination hypothesis and the superiority of the Resurrection hypothesis, "That God raised Jesus from the dead."

On a closing note, I would have liked to see more rebuttal of Hoover's essay by Dr. Craig, nonetheless, Dr. Craig shows that Christianity can be defended on historical and philosophical grounds and that it is a faith that makes sense.

Also, I would recommend Dr. Craig's excellcent book, "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth & Apologetics," where he offers numerous arguments for God's existence and dismantles the objections of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. I would warn that Dr. Craig writes at sophisticated academic level; attention and study is required (for those interested in learning how to defend the Christian faith, I would highly recommend Lee Strobel's two books, "The Case for Christ," and, "The Case for Faith.")

16 of 19 found the following review helpful:

HonestlyJul 07, 2001

Others reviews will be more detailed than this one, but here are some interesting points about this debate. Ludemann is a quick thinker, but seemed to be unprepared for Craig. This suprised me. In the video of the debate you will notice a disturbedness about Ludemann after Craig first speaks. It seemed as though he had never dialoged with a Evangelical in a serious way and he was somewhat suprized by the tightly strategic professonial debating style that Craig is famous for. Ludemann made a big mistake. He was debating against his own mental image of how an Evangelical thinks, instead of Craig. He merely attacks different things about traditional belief instead of wrestling Craig's points. Ludemann seemed to think that attacking a traditional view of the Bible added with a presuppostion of naturalism was enough. Craig was smart. He merely pointed out over and over that Ludemann had not answered his points, and quickly attacked Ludemann's points that actually dealt with the subject of the debate. In the video of the debate Craig is more than polite towards Ludemann's many interuptions (Breaking the debate rules and making Ludemann look like he was mad or something). Forgive me for sounding hard on Ludemann, but his behavior really did make Craig seem more likable and more prepared. One of the most strange moments of the debate was when Ludemann tryed to make a case against the resurrection and therefore the divinity of Jesus by stating that belief in the divinity of Jesus naturally leads to murder(can someone say "extreme?"). Read all the other reviews to get a more hard facts understanding of the debate.

12 of 14 found the following review helpful:

Excellent Reading, and RevelatoryFeb 06, 2002
By D. Peterson
This is a highly readable debate. Lüdemann clearly comes off the loser, I think, which is very interesting: Antony Flew manifestly lost HIS debate (on the same topic) with Gary Habermas some years back. One begins to wonder whether this is really the best that critics of the Resurrection can muster. Perhaps they're simply so used to assuming that it's absurd that they've failed to notice that they haven't actually formulated a rigorous argument against it.

Neither Flew nor Lüdemann seems to have taken his opponent very seriously; both paid a heavy price for their negligence.

I would recommend this little book for those who imagine that skepticism about Christianity is by nature more intellectually respectable than Christian faith. It may jar them a bit. Which would be very good for them.

See all 27 customer reviews on Amazon.com