Rating: 
Summary: Ludeman informs best if you carefully read all contributions
Review: This is a good book to start looking at the issues involved but remember it has the drawback of being in a debate format which limits what responses can be given even though there are follow up entries from other participants. That said, I disagree with some commentators who think William Craig has done a better job in making his case than Gerd Ludemann. If one reads all the chapters then I don't find this to be the case at all. Craig's argument follows if you accept his premises or what he refers to as "facts", otherwise it falls apart. However, these are anything but "facts", a thorough examination of these shows they are mere fiction and that is what Ludemann does to a degree. What historians and scholars of early Christianity have adequately demonstrated is that Craig's "facts" are made-up stories and these scholars have given us much more secure foundations to understand the rise of the Easter faith. Ludemann presents his analysis from this standpoint and concludes that *visions* of a few, followed later by deception, power struggles, etc, led to the notion that Jesus had a *bodily* resurrection. In his contribution "The Explanatory Power Of Conversion-Visions", Michael Goulder elaborates more on Ludemann necessarily limited talk about visions.
A few interesting insights are gained as you read the book. It is said that Jesus disappeared (empty tomb) a few days after crucifixion so all authorities had to do was present the body of Jesus to refute claims of this disappearance. Yes they could have if these claims were made close to that time but its strange that accounts conveniently make these resurrection associated claims much later. Also, about fifty days later it is claimed that Jesus reappears in the flesh (*bodily* resurrection). It would have been difficult then to procure Jesus' decaying corpse as a counter-argument. Furthermore, even if one can imagine such grisly evidence being presented, that would have not impressed those that powerfully believed in a bodily resurrection and they would have dismissed this evidence as someone else. However, if the resurrection claims were just *visions* that were later transformed by deception and myth into a bodily resurrections accounts years after the crucifixion then there never would have been the real need to present a corpse earlier on, but later on there would have been a need to support the *bodily" resurrection claim. It is also interesting to note that the accounts of the resurrection are not independent accounts. Paul talks about hundreds of people seeing a resurrected Jesus. That's just Paul talking years later and there is no independent interviews or examinations of hundreds of individuals anywhere. So much for some of Craig's "hard facts".
Rating: 
Summary: Creates reasonable doubt
Review: This is an excellent format to get to the essence of the matter about Jesus Resurrection being literal and physical or a myth. I think that everyone did a good job in the book. Depending on your viewpoint coming in, you will probably grasp onto different elements. It is my opinion that when absolute truth claims are made ,that the burden of proof remains with the parties making these claims. After reading this book, it really seems that there is a reasonable doubt concerning the resurrection of Jesus. If you really want to examine this crucial event for Christianity in more detail then this book is an excellent way to do that.
Rating:
Summary: Not enough superlatives to do this book justice
Review: What better way to write a book on the resurrection than to use a debate format? Only 36 of the 206 pages in this book contain the transcript of a debate which took place between Gerd Ludemann (anti-resurrection) and William Lane Craig (pro-resurrection) at Boston College in 1997 regarding whether the resurrection of Jesus is truth or fiction. This oral debate is merely a framework for the book at large. After the transcription of the debate, articles were written in response to the debate by Robert Gundry and Stephen Davis (pro resurrection); and also by Roy Hoover and Michael Goulder (anti-resurrection). Following the critiques by these four scholars, Ludemann and Craig are allowed to write a final article in response to the critiques and to make a final case for their arguments.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 !!
Rating:
Summary: No contest, Craig shows strong case
Review: While only a fifth of this book involves the actual debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, it was the highlight of a book that also includes articles from others commenting on the points made in the debate. Unfortunately, I didn't feel Lundemann was on the same page as Craig, who laid out a clear and concise plan of why the historical resurrection is true. At the time of the debate, Ludemann apparently considered himself to be a Christian, though he has apparently changed his mind since this debate and now declares himself a nonbeliever. Ludemann has a theory (hallucination) that I just don't see how everything matches up. Ludemann does not seem to give an adequate explanation to many important points made by Craig. Except for a disconnect on the actual debate, though, the book is worth a read for those wanting two sides to the issue of Christianity's most important claim.
| 
