The Resurrection of Jesus by Dale Allison smashes historical arguments made by both defenders and critics of the Christian faith. Using the hammer of historical criticism, Allison shows how much we can know about the central miracle of Christianity. In other words, the key question is this: How far can historical investigation take us in proving or disproving the resurrection?
Summary
After setting the stage in Part I, Part II applies the historical critical method to the New Testament claims of Jesus’ resurrection. This section may be disconcerting for believers, but keep in mind that Allison is working with the tools of historical-critical analysis. This means he will not simply accept all New Testament data as historical truth. If he did, this entire section could be deleted. Allison, however, does argue that many accurate historical memories are preserved in the Gospel accounts. At the beginning of Chapter 17, Allison summarizes his historical conclusions. The following details, he says, are likely what we can know from critical analysis:
Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, buried Jesus, perhaps in a family tomb. Shortly thereafter, some of Jesus’ female followers found the entrance to that tomb open, his body gone. After that, likely quite soon after that, at least one of them, Mary Magdalene, had a vision of Jesus. Sometime later, in Galilee, Peter, probably aware of the story of the empty tomb as well as of Mary’s encounter and presumably her interpretation of it, also believed that he had met Jesus. Not long after that, the apostle and his companions returned to Jerusalem, where they began to proclaim that God had raised Jesus from the dead. By that time, additional members of the twelve had become convinced that they, too, had seen their lord, whether in Galilee and/or Jerusalem. Months or even years after that, something happened to convince members of a large crowd—“more than five hundred,” according to Paul—that they too had beheld Jesus. Subsequently, Jesus’ brother James made the same claim, and eventually also Paul of Tarsus. (336)
Part III, titled “Thinking with Parallels,” is a fascinating section that should be required reading for everyone seeking to understand the resurrection. Allison lays out the evidence for apparitions or after-death communication in the scientific literature. He also engages with Tibetan accounts of rainbow bodies, visions of the blessed virgin Mary, and post-New Testament accounts of visions of Jesus. Allison contends that Christian apologists neglect this literature to their own peril. At the same time, this data presents a challenge to atheistic scholars who reject supernatural events.
In Part IV Allison summarizes his analysis and reflections giving tenuous apologetical arguments and tenuous skeptical arguments. I’m glad the book doesn’t end here. It concludes with a Coda in which Allison admits that “historians are not the mediators of all truth” and historical investigation is a “frustrating failure” at giving us theological conclusions. Human experience and convictions are based on much more than “historical doubts, probabilities, and conjectures.” Allison does not believe the evidence demands a verdict supporting the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. Note the word “demands” meaning if you reject it you are somehow intellectually deficient.
Why not? Evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. And our interpretation is influenced by our worldview or the “web of beliefs” we carry with us. For example, the historical data includes these two items: Jesus’ tomb was empty and his followers claimed to have seen him after he was buried. One interpretation is the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. Another interpretation is that someone stole his body and his disciples were having visions. Note the challenge of agency, which Allison highlights. How do we move from the historical details to who is responsible? An empty tomb, encounters with Jesus, then what? How does historical criticism prove that God did it?
Reflection
This book is groundbreaking for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fit into the typical categories. Some books are written by Christian scholars defending the resurrection. Other books are written by atheist scholars rejecting the resurrection. This book is neither. It is a book written by a Christian scholar showing the frailty of Christian arguments for the resurrection. To be fair, Allison also deploys his criticism toward arguments against the resurrection, but he is especially focused on Christian apologists. Consequently, I believe this book is primarily written for Christian scholars who defend the resurrection with the goal of tempering their triumphalistic arguments.
Second, Part III is unique. Typically, Christian scholars defending the resurrection don’t engage much or at all with parallel data—other miraculous claims. But Allison is a thorough scholar who tries to be as unbiased as possible. How many other academics writing on Jesus’ resurrection engage with Tibetan Buddhist claims of rainbow bodies?
This is definitely an academic book. Allison interacts with scholars on each page and some pages are almost entirely filled with footnotes. With that said, although this may be difficult reading at times for the non-scholar, all will benefit from learning to think like a historian.
Allison’s conclusion that historical analysis cannot get us to the resurrection is not troubling for me because I can absorb it into my own web of beliefs expressed with the help of Kierkegaard. If there is a God, who is love, and who wants a relationship of love with us, this God must be the opposite of pride. The Bible even says, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (Jam 4:6). Hence, we should not expect to be able to reach this kind of God through human intelligence or our own intellectual achievements. A purely intellectual path to God would simply stimulate human pride. In Isaiah, God says, “I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit” (57:15). God comes to live in the humble not the proud.
Moreover, the gospel undermines our arrogance. Paul writes, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him. God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21).
Human wisdom, including historical criticism, does not and cannot give us saving knowledge of God. If we could reach God through our investigations, we would boast in our intellectual Tower of Babel. Since we cannot build a tower high enough to reach God, God had to come down to us. This doesn’t mean that evidence has no place in our spiritual journey. It means the Christian faith is primarily a revelation, a revelation to those who know they don’t have everything figured out.
After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. For a deep dive into church history and the character of God, see my book Surprised by Hell.