Rating: 
Summary: A Great Debate
Review: Comparing "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment" with the similar book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up", I found that the former was a much better read. Both debaters in "Jesus' Resurrection" give a clear and concise outline of their main points and the essays provided are representative of both sides. In evaluating the debate and essays, being as objective as one can be, I believe that a better case was given for the "Resurrection Hypothesis" compared to the "Hallucination Hypothesis". Ludemann and company rely on unfounded presuppositions. Namely, a late dating of Mark's Gospel, improper exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and a dogmatic denial of miracles. Obviously this topic is founded on the beliefs in God and miracles. It would probably have been more appropriate to have a debate on the existence of God and the plausibility of miracles since liberal theologians seem to deny their existence. Nonetheless, the reader profits from reading the book through gaining an understanding of two major systems of belief.
Rating:
Summary: Craig Buries Ludemann, Goulder, and Hoover...
Review: Established Fact #5: On the day this book was published, the Resurrection theories of Gerd Ludemann, Michael Goulder, and Roy Hoover were laid to rest by William Lane Craig.Ludemann, Goulder and Hoover tried their best to attack Dr. Craig's argument, but they failed miserably. Dr. CRAIG ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM THAT THEY HAD. After reading Dr. Craig's final response, there is no question who had the better theory. This was an excellent debate. Read it. (All of it!)
Rating:
Summary: CRAIG WINS.
Review: No doubt who has the stongest evidence on his side. Also, Craig is right when he points to philosophical prejudice as the cornerstone of the liberal attack on the ressurection. They have excluded the possibility of the event a priori, and Ludemann basically admits it. How can one find truth if at your starting point you have blinders on?
Rating: 
Summary: Once Upon a Time in Palestine
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Once Upon a Time in Palestine
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Ludeman is pathetic: Can we get a better Atheist?
Review: Sadly, the debate in this book is one sided. It is not editorial bias or theological agenda, but due to Ludeman's pathetic job of arguing. After reading his opening statement, I knew that Craig had him. Here is a list of Ludeman's errors: * AD FIDENTIA (attacking opponent's confidence in his position): "But I would like to ask my opponent whether he really thinks Jesus went to heaven." (40) * PRESUMPTUOUS (Knowing things only an omniscient being could know): "even the most respected scholars I know get cold feet when they talk about the resurrection of if they have to deal with the questions of whether Jesus' body rotted away." (41) * FACTUAL ERROR: There is not just one eye-witness in the NT (Mark), but also Matthew and John. Furthermore, Luke's account is scholarly (Luke 1:1-4) * FALSE HISTORICAL PARALLELISM and DISCARDED DIFERENTIA on the visions of Mary and the visions of Jesus. * RED HERRING 1: Accusations of Christianity being anti-Semitic. (FALLACY OF CONSEQUENCES) * RED HERRING 2: The discussion of Joseph of Arimathaea. * RED HERRING 3: Mary's perpetual virginity (Which is not Protestant, but Catholic dogma.) * UNDER-PRECISION (MEGATRIFEL): The phrase "empty tomb" not part of 1 Corinthians 15. The tomb is implicit: deal with it! * RAND'S RAZOR: Ludeman's hidden premise is that he disagrees with miracles. All of the above is merely smoke and mirrors. And that is just his opening statement! The one bothersome irrelevancy is the charge of anti-Semitism. Ludeman is German, so he is naturally sensitive to the issue. It is a "hot button" issue, but out of place in this debate on the Resurrection. The historical question at hand is whether or not the tomb was empty, and if it was, how do we account for it? For whatever reason,. Ludeman constantly brings up the charged issue of anti-Semitism, as if that settles the question. True, Christianity has been abused. The Great Schism, Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation prove an apostasy. However, that is not the pint of the debate. Ludeman wants Copan to discuss anti-Semitism at the expense of discussion the tomb. Copan wisely sticks to the sated purposed of the debate: "It's difficult to criticize a theory [Ludeman's] which hasn't been explained." (46) Ludeman makes the critical mistake of the empricists: he expects his data to do all the talking. Most people in the "hard" sciences are feeble, or even ignore logic entirely; they expect the data to explain itself. They forget that there is a world of difference between raw data and processed information. As Sherlock Holmes said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." (Boscomb Valley Mystery)
Rating:
Summary: Ludeman is pathetic: Can we get a better Atheist?
Review: Sadly, the debate in this book is one sided. It is not editorial bias or theological agenda, but due to Ludeman's pathetic job of arguing. After reading his opening statement, I knew that Craig had him. Here is a list of Ludeman's errors: •AD FIDENTIA (attacking opponent's confidence in his position): "But I would like to ask my opponent whether he really thinks Jesus went to heaven." (40) •PRESUMPTUOUS (Knowing things only an omniscient being could know): "even the most respected scholars I know get cold feet when they talk about the resurrection of if they have to deal with the questions of whether Jesus' body rotted away." (41) •FACTUAL ERROR: There is not just one eye-witness in the NT (Mark), but also Matthew and John. Furthermore, Luke's account is scholarly (Luke 1:1-4) •FALSE HISTORICAL PARALLELISM and DISCARDED DIFERENTIA on the visions of Mary and the visions of Jesus. •RED HERRING 1: Accusations of Christianity being anti-Semitic. (FALLACY OF CONSEQUENCES) •RED HERRING 2: The discussion of Joseph of Arimathaea. •RED HERRING 3: Mary's perpetual virginity (Which is not Protestant, but Catholic dogma.) •UNDER-PRECISION (MEGATRIFEL): The phrase "empty tomb" not part of 1 Corinthians 15. The tomb is implicit: deal with it! •RAND'S RAZOR: Ludeman's hidden premise is that he disagrees with miracles. All of the above is merely smoke and mirrors. And that is just his opening statement! The one bothersome irrelevancy is the charge of anti-Semitism. Ludeman is German, so he is naturally sensitive to the issue. It is a "hot button" issue, but out of place in this debate on the Resurrection. The historical question at hand is whether or not the tomb was empty, and if it was, how do we account for it? For whatever reason,. Ludeman constantly brings up the charged issue of anti-Semitism, as if that settles the question. True, Christianity has been abused. The Great Schism, Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation prove an apostasy. However, that is not the pint of the debate. Ludeman wants Copan to discuss anti-Semitism at the expense of discussion the tomb. Copan wisely sticks to the sated purposed of the debate: "It's difficult to criticize a theory [Ludeman's] which hasn't been explained." (46) Ludeman makes the critical mistake of the empricists: he expects his data to do all the talking. Most people in the "hard" sciences are feeble, or even ignore logic entirely; they expect the data to explain itself. They forget that there is a world of difference between raw data and processed information. As Sherlock Holmes said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." (Boscomb Valley Mystery)
Rating:
Summary: Creates reasonable doubt
Review: Sadly, the debate in this book is one-sided. It is not editorial bias or theological agenda, but due to Ludemann's pathetic job of arguing. After reading his opening statement, I knew that Craig had him. Here is a list of Ludemann's errors: * AD FIDENTIA (attacking opponent's confidence in his position): "But I would like to ask my opponent whether he really thinks Jesus went to heaven." (40) * PRESUMPTUOUS (Knowing things only an omniscient being could know): "even the most respected scholars I know get cold feet when they talk about the resurrection of if they have to deal with the questions of whether Jesus' body rotted away." (41) * FACTUAL ERROR: There is not just one eye-witness in the NT (Mark), but also Matthew and John. Furthermore, Luke's account is scholarly (Luke 1:1-4) * FALSE HISTORICAL PARALLELISM and DISCARDED DIFERENTIA on the visions of Mary and the visions of Jesus. * RED HERRING 1: Accusations of Christianity being anti-Semitic. (FALLACY OF CONSEQUENCES) * RED HERRING 2: The discussion of Joseph of Arimathaea. * RED HERRING 3: Mary's perpetual virginity (Which is not Protestant, but Catholic dogma.) * UNDER-PRECISION (MEGATRIFEL): The phrase "empty tomb" not part of 1 Corinthians 15. The tomb is implicit: deal with it! * RAND'S RAZOR: Ludeman's hidden premise is that he disagrees with miracles. All of the above is merely smoke and mirrors. And that is just his opening statement! The one bothersome irrelevancy is the charge of anti-Semitism. Ludemann is German, so he is naturally sensitive to the issue. It is a "hot button" issue, but out of place in this debate on the Resurrection. The historical question at hand is whether or not the tomb was empty, and if it was, how do we account for it? For whatever reason, Ludemann constantly brings up the charged issue of anti-Semitism, as if that settles the question. True, Christianity has been abused. The Great Schism, Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation prove an apostasy. However, that is not the pint of the debate. Ludeman wants Copan to discuss anti-Semitism at the expense of discussion the tomb. Copan wisely sticks to the stated purposed of the debate: "It's difficult to criticize a theory [Ludeman's] which hasn't been explained." (46) Ludeman makes the critical mistake of the empricists: he expects his data to do all the talking. Most people in the "hard" sciences are feeble, or even ignore logic entirely; they expect the data to explain itself. They forget that there is a world of difference between raw data and processed information. As Sherlock Holmes said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." (Boscomb Valley Mystery)
Rating:
Summary: Ludemann is pathetic: Can we get a better Atheist?
Review: Sadly, the debate in this book is one-sided. It is not editorial bias or theological agenda, but due to Ludemann's pathetic job of arguing. After reading his opening statement, I knew that Craig had him. Here is a list of Ludemann's errors: •AD FIDENTIA (attacking opponent's confidence in his position): "But I would like to ask my opponent whether he really thinks Jesus went to heaven." (40) •PRESUMPTUOUS (Knowing things only an omniscient being could know): "even the most respected scholars I know get cold feet when they talk about the resurrection of if they have to deal with the questions of whether Jesus' body rotted away." (41) •FACTUAL ERROR: There is not just one eye-witness in the NT (Mark), but also Matthew and John. Furthermore, Luke's account is scholarly (Luke 1:1-4) •FALSE HISTORICAL PARALLELISM and DISCARDED DIFERENTIA on the visions of Mary and the visions of Jesus. •RED HERRING 1: Accusations of Christianity being anti-Semitic. (FALLACY OF CONSEQUENCES) •RED HERRING 2: The discussion of Joseph of Arimathaea. •RED HERRING 3: Mary's perpetual virginity (Which is not Protestant, but Catholic dogma.) •UNDER-PRECISION (MEGATRIFEL): The phrase "empty tomb" not part of 1 Corinthians 15. The tomb is implicit: deal with it! •RAND'S RAZOR: Ludeman's hidden premise is that he disagrees with miracles. All of the above is merely smoke and mirrors. And that is just his opening statement! The one bothersome irrelevancy is the charge of anti-Semitism. Ludemann is German, so he is naturally sensitive to the issue. It is a "hot button" issue, but out of place in this debate on the Resurrection. The historical question at hand is whether or not the tomb was empty, and if it was, how do we account for it? For whatever reason, Ludemann constantly brings up the charged issue of anti-Semitism, as if that settles the question. True, Christianity has been abused. The Great Schism, Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation prove an apostasy. However, that is not the pint of the debate. Ludeman wants Copan to discuss anti-Semitism at the expense of discussion the tomb. Copan wisely sticks to the stated purposed of the debate: "It's difficult to criticize a theory [Ludeman's] which hasn't been explained." (46) Ludeman makes the critical mistake of the empricists: he expects his data to do all the talking. Most people in the "hard" sciences are feeble, or even ignore logic entirely; they expect the data to explain itself. They forget that there is a world of difference between raw data and processed information. As Sherlock Holmes said, "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." (Boscomb Valley Mystery)
Rating: 
Summary: Craig wins, is not questioned on highly dubious propositions
Review: This book was a big disappointment for me as I do not believe in the resurrection. I, however liked the way William Lane Craig fleshed out his points, he was very concise and got to the heart of the matter immediately. Ludemann on the other hand, only responded to two or three of Craig's fifteen points in support of the burial, empty tomb, and post mortem appearances of Jesus.
This book does a lot to bolster the faith of the more credulous christians, yet Dr. Craig does not to attempt to justify some of his more dubious claims. For example Dr. Craig claims there are four pieces of evidence that establish the historicity of the burial: 1."Jesus' burial is attested in the very early information handed down by Paul"(1Cor.15:3-5). This early christian creed does not put the burial of Jesus in a time place or setting, rather it is a creed, something in which this congregation had faith.
2."The burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel". Scholars have deduced that there may in fact have been an ancient source document "Q". This theory emerged to explain much of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common. (word for word in many cases) This source document however, contains sayings only and does not contain the hotly contested passion narrative. Dr. Craig offers no support to his claim of very old source material. Of the empty tomb: 1."The empty tomb story is part of very old source material used by Mark." Once again, what this ancient source material consists of Dr. Craig fails to enlighten us.
2."The old information by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the empty tomb" Again there are several ways in which this passage can be taken, a literal physical resurrection or a spiritual one (which was a common thing in those times)
3."The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment" While true, mere simplicity does not have to imply authenticity.
4."Women's testimony was worthless in first century Palestine, counting in favor of the women discovering the empty tomb" We do not know the intentions of Mark when he made women discover the tomb. All of the male disciples had abandonded Jesus by that time so he needed someone to go to the tomb. Mark may not have meant for his story to be taken literally, therefore it would not have mattered who discovered the tomb.
5."The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus shows that the body was missing from the tomb"
This is the worst of all of Craig's arguments as it is completly circular. Where does he get this information? From Josephus? Tacitus? Paul? No, he gets it in one line from the gospel of Matthew. No other sources attest to this debate which supposedly
raged on in the first century. Dr. Craig cannot take one line from the book of Matthew and use it to construct a fictional point of contention...
| 
