Summary
Title: The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry
Author: Gerd Lüdemann
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591022452
Pro:
• New translations of biblical texts
• Detailed arguments and analyses of resurrection accounts
Con:
• Probably won’t be taken seriously by many Christians
Description:
• Analysis of biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus
• Argues that the resurrection tales are not historical
• Concludes that the basis for Christianity is false
Book Review
Currently one of the most famous critics of traditional Christian doctrines would be Gerd Lüdemann, a professor of the history and literature of early Christianity at the University of Göttingen, Germany. He has written a number of books analyzing and ultimately rejecting central tenets of Christian faith that believers have held to for centuries.
One of those beliefs is the doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection. In 1994 he published the book The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology. After several years of work and reflection on critics’ comments, he has come out with the revised and updated book The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry.
Although there have been any number of changes with the most recent book, there is one important difference that perhaps overshadows all others. Now, without reservation, Lüdemann concludes that the non-historicity of Jesus’ resurrection must be accepted and this, he argues, transforms Christianity into a colossal error. This is not a conclusion that many, if any, Christian believers will readily accept — but it is one that Lüdemann explains and supports with a wealth of detailed arguments.
Christianity in a curious and unenviable position. One the one hand, it wants and needs to be a fundamentally historical religion. An important feature that is often touted against other religions is that Christianity's central defining feature, the resurrection of Jesus, occurred within history. It is supposed to be a verifiable, historical event and this allegedly distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.
On the other hand, the resurrection of Jesus is also supposed to be a miraculous event that cannot be replicated. It was the supernatural working of God that cannot be fully understood — a religious mystery that must be accepted on faith. Historical events can be investigated and evaluated using the scientific tools of historiography. Miraculous events caused by God cannot be so investigated. So in which category is the resurrection of Jesus supposed to be placed?
Lüdemann falls squarely in the rationalist, Enlightenment school of thought that treats claims such as that of Jesus’ resurrection as being valid subjects of historical analysis. Some insist that his disregard of divine intervention in human history makes him a “fundamentalist,” but there is simply no other way for a historian to proceed. The will and whim of gods just isn’t something that historians can factor into any description of the past.
Most of his investigation of the issue involves a very lengthy chapter full of new translations and assessments of resurrection accounts. The texts include the canonical, like Paul’s letters, and the noncanonical. This alone will make the book a valuable asset for students of early and biblical Christianity, even if they disagree with Lüdemann’s conclusions.
Lüdemann quotes Michael Goulder:
- “So there was no resurrection of Jesus. Psychological explanations are available for the early, appearance tradition; and known intra-ecclesial controversies about the nature of the resurrection explain the Gospel tradition.”
Then he goes further:
- “[T]he insistence by Paul and early Christian faith generally on the “fact” of Jesus’ resurrection by God must now be regarded as a falsification. Therefore, unless we totally redefine the word, people can no longer justify calling themselves Christian.”
We can safely assume that most Christians won’t heed this advice, but even so they would do well to at least listen to it and seriously consider the perspective from which it is given. It does them no good to go on assuming that there are no problems with their beliefs and that the basis for their religion is absolutely secure.
