Why does atheist historian Gerd Ludemann accept the post-mortem experiences of the risen Jesus?

A conflict of worldviews
A conflict of worldviews

William Lane Craig explains why even atheist historians like Gerd Ludemann accept that the earliest followers of Jesus had experiences in which Jesus appeared to them as resurrected Lord.

Excerpt:

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars, for the following reasons:

1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’s resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred.

2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of such appearances.

With respect to the first supporting line of evidence, it is universally accepted on the basis of the early date of Paul’s tradition as well as the apostle’s personal acquaintance with many of the people listed that the disciples did experience postmortem appearances of Christ. Among the witnesses of the resurrection appearances were Peter, the immediate circle of the disciples known as “the Twelve,” a gathering of 500 Christian believers (many of whom Paul evidently knew, since he was aware that some had died by the time of his writing), Jesus’s younger brother James, and a wider group of apostles. “Finally,” says Paul, “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (I Cor. 15.8).

The second supporting line of evidence appeals again to the criterion of multiple attestation. The Gospels independently attest to postmortem appearances of Jesus, even to some of the same appearances found in Paul’s list. Wolfgang Trilling explains,

From the list in I Cor. 15 the particular reports of the Gospels are now to be interpreted. Here may be of help what we said about Jesus’s miracles. It is impossible to ‘prove’ historically a particular miracle. But the totality of the miracle reports permits no reasonable doubt that Jesus in fact performed ‘miracles.’ That holds analogously for the appearance reports. It is not possible to secure historically the particular event. But the totality of the appearance reports permits no reasonable doubt that Jesus in fact bore witness to himself in such a way.38

The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24.34), the appearance to the Twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (I Cor. 15.5; Lk. 24:36-43; Jn. 20.19-20), the appearance to the women disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28.9-10; Jn. 20.11-17), and appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk. 16.7; Mt. 28. 16-17; Jn. 21). Taken sequentially, the appearances follow the pattern of Jerusalem-Galilee-Jerusalem, matching the festival pilgrimages of the disciples as they returned to Galilee following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread and traveled again to Jerusalem two months later for Pentecost.

Lüdemann himself concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”39 Thus, we are in basic agreement that following Jesus’s crucifixion various individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Christ alive from the dead. The real bone of contention will be how these experiences are best to be explained.

Triablogue notes that most historians accept these post-mortem experiences of the risen Jesus:

In their 2004 book, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona mention five facts accepted by the large majority of scholars:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.
4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.
5. The tomb was empty.

Habermas and Licona write:

“On the state of Resurrection studies today, I (Habermas) recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something….roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact.” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004], pp. 60, 70)

Habermas and Licona explain that even “the majority of nonbelieving scholars” (p. 149) accept such facts, not just Christian scholars. And even many professing Christian scholars are Christian in name, but reject much of what Christians have traditionally believed. Skeptics sometimes suggest that a scholarly consensus on facts related to Jesus’ resurrection isn’t of much significance, because so many of the scholars are Christians, but traditional Christians make up only a small percentage of scholarship.

When talking about the appearances, the challenge is always to make the move from “through they saw” to “they actually saw”. In chapter 6 of their introductory book on the resurrection of Jesus, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus“, Mike Licona and Gary Habermas give some reasons why the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were not hallucinations. First, they argue that hallucinations are had by individuals, not groups. Second, they argue that the hallucination hypothesis leaves the empty tomb unexplained. It also doesn’t explain the appearances to skeptical James and antagonistic Paul. Finally, the appearance narratives are too varied to be hallucinations, i.e. – individuals, groups, friends, enemies, different times and different places.

If you want to read a scholarly response to the hallucination hypothesis, it’s right in the article by Dr. Craig that I was quoting from above. He assesses the hallucination hypothesis as put forward by atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann against the standard criteria for judging multiple competing historical explanations. It’s too much to quote here, but click through and read it when you can. If you want to see a good summary of the arguments for the empty tomb, go right here.

See it used in a debate

You can see the arguments made and defended from criticism in this debate with the atheist scholar James Crossley.

This my favorite resurrection debate.

7 thoughts on “Why does atheist historian Gerd Ludemann accept the post-mortem experiences of the risen Jesus?”

  1. This is an excellent post! I plan to read through the links provided later today.
    Since Gerd Ludemann is described as an “atheist historian”, I’m guessing that his acceptance of the post-mortem experiences of the risen Jesus did not change his mind on the matter.
    People who ask for “proof,” are not always inclined to believe after researching and reading such accounts as these experienced by so many individuals and groups after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, we can view this as a perfect example of those who refuse to see the truth because they don’t want to believe the truth. It is also an example of why the importance of faith is significantly imperative for those who actually become believers.
    Heb 11:6
    But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

  2. Oh…I see now. Going to the first link provided showed me that Mr. Ludemann attributed these sightings of the risen Jesus Christ as “hallucinatory experiences.” That view breaks down immediately when you cited:

    Mike Licona and Gary Habermas give some reasons why the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were not hallucinations. First, they argue that hallucinations are had by individuals, not groups. Second, they argue that the hallucination hypothesis leaves the empty tomb unexplained. It also doesn’t explain the appearances to skeptical James and antagonistic Paul. Finally, the appearance narratives are too varied to be hallucinations, i.e. – individuals, groups, friends, enemies, different times and different places.

    I’m not a psychiatrist/psychologist, but I think that Licona and Habermas’ reasons destroys Ludemann’s “hallucinatory experiences” quite well!

  3. I was just reading Ludemann’s contribution in his debate with Bill Craig in “Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?” and in Ludemann’s book, “What Really Happened to Jesus.” Although there is some overlap, I don’t think Ludemann believes in the appearances for all the same reasons Craig does. For example, Craig points to multiple attestation in the gospels, but Ludemann dismisses those appearances as unhistorical. Also, Craig uses the appearances to women in his case, but Ludemann thinks those appearances are unhistorical.
    Where they agree is that Paul is an eye-witness, and the appearance to Peter is early and well-attested.
    But the primary reason Ludemann accepts the appearances is because these kinds of visions are very common, and it’s a powerful explanation for the origin of belief in the resurrection. The problem I see with citing Ludemann as an unbelieving scholar who “admits” that the appearances happened is that we can’t affirm that Jesus really appeared physically while, at the same time, being on board with Ludemann’s primary reason. If we say the appearances were not actually visionary, as Ludemann thinks, then it’s irrelevant how common visionary experiences are. If we cite Ludemann in an argument from authority for the resurrection, but we disagree with his reasons for coming to that conclusion, then aren’t we undermining our argument from authority?
    If someone were to convince Ludemann that hallucinations do NOT explain appearances, then that would probably lead Ludemann to believe the appearances were not historical since that would undermine his primary reason for thinking they are historical.

  4. What annoys me to no end is that whenever I bring up what atheists like Ludemann and their views on the resurrection, the popular level atheists immediately discount them. The only “scholar” that seems to matter to popular level atheists these days is Richard Carrier.

  5. I will never understand how skeptics can squall “visions, visions, visions!” when trying to account for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, when the disciples themselves claimed that they TOUCHED Him, TALKED to Him, were TAUGHT by Him, ATE with Him, HANDLED Him with their own hands, HEARD Him with their own eyes, over a period of six weeks, and sealed their testimony with their lives. Some vision, hmm?

  6. Sorry, should have said ears, not eyes, but you get the point, right? We are talking hard EMPIRICAL evidence here, the kind you’d have to be hallucinating NOT to believe. How do you have a Galilee fish fry with a vision? Yet that was only one of what the disciples called many INFALLIBLE proofs. As far as I can tell, this kind of evidence is the only thing that overnight could turn these gutless cowards who were hiding behind locked doors into fearless lions whom no opposition could muzzle. NO other explanation fits all the facts. “He is risen, He is risen indeed.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s