Craig points out that, had the tomb been occupied, it would have been an easy matter for those authorities to indicate Jesus' dead body as a means of disproving the notion that he resurrected. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they did so.
In his second rebuttal, Ludemann reiterates his disbelief that a supernatural resurrection could have occurred. Then, he goes on to say that he will offer an alternative explanation for the events. He believes that Paul's experience with Jesus, which Ludemann has previously explained away as a vision, does capture the nature of all of the disciples' experience with a post-mortem Jesus. He also reiterates the point that the Gospels are not reliable as a historical source given how far removed they were from the events in question. What he fails to do is provide a hypothesis that would explain the four facts outlined by Craig without relying on a supernatural explanation.
In the second part of the book, various scholars offer support for the two debaters'...
Basically, they reiterate the same arguments that the debaters make, expanding upon the ideas involved. The commentators take time to address Ludemann's claim that the anti-Semitism in the Bible makes Christ's resurrection unlikely, mainly by suggesting that Ludemann has overstated any anti-Semitism in the Bible. However, they mainly offer support for the theories. In the end, the commentary by Robert Gundy is the most persuasive. He points out that once one has pruned the arguments on either side; there is little substance in Ludemann's arguments, while Craig's arguments retain substance and logical appeal. Gundy's argument may be the most compelling and logical one in the book, and leaves the reader with the sense that there is historical support for the idea that Jesus resurrected.
Works Cited
Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Tacelli (eds). Jesus Resurrection Fact or Figment: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000.
