What do you think?
Rate this book
The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History
The earliest traditions around the narrative of Jesus' resurrection are considered in this landmark work by Dale C. Allison, Jr, drawing together the fruits of his decades of research into this issue at the very core of Christian identity. Allison returns to the ancient sources and earliest traditions, charting them alongside the development of faith in the resurrection in the early church and throughout Christian history. Beginning with historical-critical methodology that examines the empty tomb narratives and early confessions, Allison moves on to consider the resurrection in parallel with other traditions and stories, including Tibetan accounts of saintly figures being assumed into the light, in the chapter “Rainbow Body”. Finally, Allison considers what might be said by way of results or conclusions on the topic of resurrection, offering perspectives from both apologetic and sceptical viewpoints. In his final section of “modest results” he considers scholarly approaches to the resurrection in light of human experience, adding fresh nuance to a debate that has often been characterised in overly simplistic terms of “it happened” or “it didn't”.
864 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 11, 2021
53 people are currently reading
1045 people want to read
About the author
Dale C. Allison Jr.
33 books69 followersDr. Dale C. Allison Jr., an Errett M. Grable professor of New Testament exegesis and early Christianity, has been on the faculty of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary since 1997. Before then he served on the faculties of Texas Christian University (Fort Worth, Texas) and Friends University (Wichita, Kan.).
His areas of expertise include Second Temple Judaism, and he is the author of books on early Christian eschatology, the Gospel of Matthew, the so-called Sayings Source or Q, and the historical Jesus.
He has also written The Luminous Dusk, a book on religious experience in the modern world, and a full-length commentary on the Testament of Abraham. His most recently published works are The Love There That’s Sleeping: The Art and Spirituality of George Harrison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination. He is currently at work on a full-length commentary on the Epistle of James. He is married to Kristine Allison and they have three children.
His areas of expertise include Second Temple Judaism, and he is the author of books on early Christian eschatology, the Gospel of Matthew, the so-called Sayings Source or Q, and the historical Jesus.
He has also written The Luminous Dusk, a book on religious experience in the modern world, and a full-length commentary on the Testament of Abraham. His most recently published works are The Love There That’s Sleeping: The Art and Spirituality of George Harrison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination. He is currently at work on a full-length commentary on the Epistle of James. He is married to Kristine Allison and they have three children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
June 22, 2025
I have very little background in historical-critical studies generally and no background in historical Jesus studies, so my ability to assess the strength of Allison's arguments and conclusions is severely limited. This book is outside my wheelhouse.
However, what I do know is that Allison embodies a great degree of intellectual virtue in his ability to honestly articulate the perceived strengths and weaknesses of his and others positions. He also possesses enough skepticism to keep himself humble and an openness to the possibilities to keep him from being an ideologue. I really enjoyed this book.
However, what I do know is that Allison embodies a great degree of intellectual virtue in his ability to honestly articulate the perceived strengths and weaknesses of his and others positions. He also possesses enough skepticism to keep himself humble and an openness to the possibilities to keep him from being an ideologue. I really enjoyed this book.
August 21, 2022
Brilliant. Even though Dale Allison is a Christian believer and I would be what he calls a skeptic, I find his work unimpeachable. He wears his bias on his sleeve, and by doing so both engenders trust and caused me to examine my own bias when looking at the data. Dealing with various historical claims in the resurrection narratives, he cautiously weighs arguments on either side, calling out weakness and strength as he sees it. As a critical scholar he is dealing with what is likely and unlikely, not presuppositional commitments and self-serving certainties. "The more I have learned, the less I am sure I know." - "What we really long for, if we are candid, is justification of what we already believe." Both apologists and polemicists could learn a lot from his approach to uncover truth. "There is no safe place where theology can go about its business while ignoring historical criticism."
He reaches rather conservative conclusions (historicity of the empty tomb, Joseph of Arimathea, initial resurrection experiences by women) while sifting through the narrative embellishments and legendary elements (such as the holy ones coming out of the graves in Matthew 28) with incredible care and deep knowledge of early Christian development, his area of expertise. Never does his case seem overstated and he openly acknowledges multiple possibilities, as "a dearth of evidence frustrates" coming to any detailed conclusions. It was refreshing to see him frequently cite non-canonical texts and identify intertextuality with other sources in order to excavate the historical memory that lies beneath the traditions. I can say that he moved my level of confidence on several points scholars are divided on further from fiction and closer to historical memory, such as Joseph of Arimathea being a historical figure. It's a fairly academic read, I noted several topics of NT scholarship that he dove right into dissecting without much introduction, and often he concedes no clear conclusion. This is not an apologetic book meant to reassure a particular position, and that's why I love it.
If I can try to summarize what I got out of many of his arguments, it's that the text reveals a motif of doubt and confusion ("some doubted", Thomas, the women are doubted, etc) on certain points that implies a historical memory passed down with ambiguity (and perhaps some embarrassment) that needed to be dealt with, leading to the embellishments and theological expansions seen across the gospels. For example Dale believes the empty tomb is historical (weighed against the other possibilities), but the apologetic narrative embellishments (guards, angels, physical body interactions, clothes left behind) that are added in the gospels following after Mark, which itself has an enigmatic ending, implies a memory surrounded by confusing events and the need for rebuttals against claims the body was stolen or Jesus was a mere ghost. Likewise, the change from "after 3 days" in Mark to "on the third day" in Matthew is a correction that supports a historical memory which must be accounted for, rather than wholesale invention. If there was no memory to defend, these stories would be less likely to have developed in those ways.
As a skeptic it was impressive to see a Christian believing scholar directly critique flimsy apologetic claims like what one can make of the report of 500 witnesses in 1 cor 15, Gary Habermas' minimal facts apologetic, and acknowledging the gospel parallels to other Jewish and Greco Roman legends, especially around a "missing body" motif. Most interesting of all to me were the parallels he draws from data on post bereavement hallucinations, group visions, and other examples of post mortem apparitions, like the Marion apparition of Zeitoun and Tibetan disappearing "Rainbow bodies" -- weighed with the same critical standards he uses with Jesus, chastising the epistemic double standard of many apologists along the way. "The literature of visions of the dead is full of parallels to what we see in the gospels. This must mean something." It's almost disorienting to see such epistemic humility from someone who ultimately believes in the resurrection of Jesus, not claiming it with certainty; it certainly gives me something to think about. I also appreciated him calling out apologists who claim similar non-Christian post mortem visions are "caused by demons", noting this is especially desperate seeing as the same claim was laid against Jesus doing miracles "by the power of Beelzebub".
He acknowledges his own perspective is influenced by experiences he's had which he considers supernatural, which he is not sure what to make of, but can see how such experiences could fuel a creed like 1 cor 15. "All perception is projection, is active construction, not passive reception... What people see depends fundamentally on what their minds are interested in seeing and what their brains are capable of representing. In this regard cognitive neuroscience finds and unexpected harmony with postmodern philosophy."
The final chapters deal with some specific arguments apologists and polemicists use which he considers outdated and should be abandoned:
• Tenuous apologetic arguments: Christianity could not have started from mere hallucinations, psychological argument from despondency, apostles died for their beliefs, Christians worshipped on Sunday from the beginning, lack of collusion, shroud of Turin
• Tenuous polemic arguments: miracles don't happen (Spinoza, Hume, uniformitarianism), too many inconsistencies, no appearances to outsiders, Jesus tomb and bones found in Talpiot
Finally, a remarkable point that I myself could have said: even if the resurrection of Jesus could be proved uniquely among the many divine resurrection religious claims, it would not immediately entail Christianity, much less any specific sect in the wide range of Christian traditions. In this way he seems free to critically examine the claims of the resurrection without needing to hastily arrive at an overly biased answer.
This book's primary audience is to Christians, but I think both believers and skeptics really should read this book, it's a rare example of intellectual honesty in my opinion, and a thrilling look into modern NT scholarship around the resurrection and early Christian belief, untainted by apologetic or polemic slant.
He reaches rather conservative conclusions (historicity of the empty tomb, Joseph of Arimathea, initial resurrection experiences by women) while sifting through the narrative embellishments and legendary elements (such as the holy ones coming out of the graves in Matthew 28) with incredible care and deep knowledge of early Christian development, his area of expertise. Never does his case seem overstated and he openly acknowledges multiple possibilities, as "a dearth of evidence frustrates" coming to any detailed conclusions. It was refreshing to see him frequently cite non-canonical texts and identify intertextuality with other sources in order to excavate the historical memory that lies beneath the traditions. I can say that he moved my level of confidence on several points scholars are divided on further from fiction and closer to historical memory, such as Joseph of Arimathea being a historical figure. It's a fairly academic read, I noted several topics of NT scholarship that he dove right into dissecting without much introduction, and often he concedes no clear conclusion. This is not an apologetic book meant to reassure a particular position, and that's why I love it.
If I can try to summarize what I got out of many of his arguments, it's that the text reveals a motif of doubt and confusion ("some doubted", Thomas, the women are doubted, etc) on certain points that implies a historical memory passed down with ambiguity (and perhaps some embarrassment) that needed to be dealt with, leading to the embellishments and theological expansions seen across the gospels. For example Dale believes the empty tomb is historical (weighed against the other possibilities), but the apologetic narrative embellishments (guards, angels, physical body interactions, clothes left behind) that are added in the gospels following after Mark, which itself has an enigmatic ending, implies a memory surrounded by confusing events and the need for rebuttals against claims the body was stolen or Jesus was a mere ghost. Likewise, the change from "after 3 days" in Mark to "on the third day" in Matthew is a correction that supports a historical memory which must be accounted for, rather than wholesale invention. If there was no memory to defend, these stories would be less likely to have developed in those ways.
As a skeptic it was impressive to see a Christian believing scholar directly critique flimsy apologetic claims like what one can make of the report of 500 witnesses in 1 cor 15, Gary Habermas' minimal facts apologetic, and acknowledging the gospel parallels to other Jewish and Greco Roman legends, especially around a "missing body" motif. Most interesting of all to me were the parallels he draws from data on post bereavement hallucinations, group visions, and other examples of post mortem apparitions, like the Marion apparition of Zeitoun and Tibetan disappearing "Rainbow bodies" -- weighed with the same critical standards he uses with Jesus, chastising the epistemic double standard of many apologists along the way. "The literature of visions of the dead is full of parallels to what we see in the gospels. This must mean something." It's almost disorienting to see such epistemic humility from someone who ultimately believes in the resurrection of Jesus, not claiming it with certainty; it certainly gives me something to think about. I also appreciated him calling out apologists who claim similar non-Christian post mortem visions are "caused by demons", noting this is especially desperate seeing as the same claim was laid against Jesus doing miracles "by the power of Beelzebub".
He acknowledges his own perspective is influenced by experiences he's had which he considers supernatural, which he is not sure what to make of, but can see how such experiences could fuel a creed like 1 cor 15. "All perception is projection, is active construction, not passive reception... What people see depends fundamentally on what their minds are interested in seeing and what their brains are capable of representing. In this regard cognitive neuroscience finds and unexpected harmony with postmodern philosophy."
The final chapters deal with some specific arguments apologists and polemicists use which he considers outdated and should be abandoned:
• Tenuous apologetic arguments: Christianity could not have started from mere hallucinations, psychological argument from despondency, apostles died for their beliefs, Christians worshipped on Sunday from the beginning, lack of collusion, shroud of Turin
• Tenuous polemic arguments: miracles don't happen (Spinoza, Hume, uniformitarianism), too many inconsistencies, no appearances to outsiders, Jesus tomb and bones found in Talpiot
Finally, a remarkable point that I myself could have said: even if the resurrection of Jesus could be proved uniquely among the many divine resurrection religious claims, it would not immediately entail Christianity, much less any specific sect in the wide range of Christian traditions. In this way he seems free to critically examine the claims of the resurrection without needing to hastily arrive at an overly biased answer.
This book's primary audience is to Christians, but I think both believers and skeptics really should read this book, it's a rare example of intellectual honesty in my opinion, and a thrilling look into modern NT scholarship around the resurrection and early Christian belief, untainted by apologetic or polemic slant.
April 27, 2021
Allison’s book The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History is a major revision of his previous chapter “Resurrecting Jesus,” pages 198–375 in his Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London: T&T Clark, 2005). The sections on “Confession” (pp. 213–219) and “Doubt’s” (pp. 219–28) from Resurrecting Jesus have been removed (for his updated views, see pages 19–43 of his: Night Comes: Death, Imagination, and the Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016). Chapters “5. The Story of the Tomb: Friday” and “6. The Story of the Tomb: Sunday” of The Resurrection of Jesus are more than twice their former length, and the following chapters are completely new: “1. Overture,” “7. Resurrected Holy Ones?”, “8. Rudolf Pesch Redivivus?”, “10. Visions: Protests and Proposals,” “12. Rainbow Body”, “13. Cessationism and Seeing Jesus,” “14. Zeitoun and Seeing Mary,” “15. Some Tenuous Arguments: Apologetical,” “16. Some Tenuous Arguments: Skeptical,” and “17: Inferences and Competing Stories.”
In The Resurrection of Jesus, Allison neither seeks to show, with some assurance, that God raised Jesus from the dead, nor that this was not the case; instead, within the limits of historical criticism, Allison humbly seeks to explore Christianity’s holy of holies topic—the resurrection of Jesus. As for Allison’s personal beliefs, he states, “I believe that the disciples saw Jesus and that he saw them” (p. 3), but he is of different minds as to what the historian can demonstrate about what actually happened (he argues it is historically reasonable to either believe or disbelieve, p. 353). In fact, he thinks the subject is so vast like the sand of the seashore and life is brief; consequently, with humility, he admits that “I have not finished this book but abandoned it” (p. 7). The book, nevertheless, is exceedingly well researched and is probably one of the best books on the topic of Jesus’ resurrection.
Allison argues that “although the evidence is woefully imperfect, it nonetheless suffices to establish, with a high degree of probability, that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe in his resurrection quite soon after his death” (p. 44). He continues, “we have here not just a social memory but likely a historical fact. Within a week of the crucifixion, something—or some things—happened which Jesus’ friends took to signal his resurrection” (p. 45).
Allison thinks that it is historically likely that “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” (p. 336). Note that Allison generally concludes that several parts of the canonical accounts are not likely to be historical, such as Matthew’s mention of the guard at the tomb, or Matthew’s resurrection of many saints (27:51b–53, see chp. 7).
Allison thinks that Jesus, as an apocalyptic prophet, expected the imminent end of the age, and as such predicted suffering and vindication (chp. 8)—a belief the disciples held and hence, such pre-Easter expectations would have primed the disciples for accompanying visions, especially upon encountering the empty tomb. Allison argues that apparitions (chp. 9) and visions (chp. 10) are relatively widespread, including apparitions/visions, which are experienced through multiple senses by individuals and groups on occasions. Allison devotes chp. 14 to the sightings of the blessed virgin Mary at Zeitoun in 1968 to thousands, the cause of which Allison remains agnostic.
I can’t remember exactly what Allison concludes about why the tomb was empty, but he points out that theft for various reasons, including necromancy (pp. 341–44) were possible (Allison also explores the Buddhist notion of a “rainbow body” namely that a body can shrink and disappear, see chp. 12).
Allison has many more insights, and his scholarship is first-rate, and anyone wanting to engage the academic discussion of Jesus’ resurrection must interact with this book.
In The Resurrection of Jesus, Allison neither seeks to show, with some assurance, that God raised Jesus from the dead, nor that this was not the case; instead, within the limits of historical criticism, Allison humbly seeks to explore Christianity’s holy of holies topic—the resurrection of Jesus. As for Allison’s personal beliefs, he states, “I believe that the disciples saw Jesus and that he saw them” (p. 3), but he is of different minds as to what the historian can demonstrate about what actually happened (he argues it is historically reasonable to either believe or disbelieve, p. 353). In fact, he thinks the subject is so vast like the sand of the seashore and life is brief; consequently, with humility, he admits that “I have not finished this book but abandoned it” (p. 7). The book, nevertheless, is exceedingly well researched and is probably one of the best books on the topic of Jesus’ resurrection.
Allison argues that “although the evidence is woefully imperfect, it nonetheless suffices to establish, with a high degree of probability, that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe in his resurrection quite soon after his death” (p. 44). He continues, “we have here not just a social memory but likely a historical fact. Within a week of the crucifixion, something—or some things—happened which Jesus’ friends took to signal his resurrection” (p. 45).
Allison thinks that it is historically likely that “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” (p. 336). Note that Allison generally concludes that several parts of the canonical accounts are not likely to be historical, such as Matthew’s mention of the guard at the tomb, or Matthew’s resurrection of many saints (27:51b–53, see chp. 7).
Allison thinks that Jesus, as an apocalyptic prophet, expected the imminent end of the age, and as such predicted suffering and vindication (chp. 8)—a belief the disciples held and hence, such pre-Easter expectations would have primed the disciples for accompanying visions, especially upon encountering the empty tomb. Allison argues that apparitions (chp. 9) and visions (chp. 10) are relatively widespread, including apparitions/visions, which are experienced through multiple senses by individuals and groups on occasions. Allison devotes chp. 14 to the sightings of the blessed virgin Mary at Zeitoun in 1968 to thousands, the cause of which Allison remains agnostic.
I can’t remember exactly what Allison concludes about why the tomb was empty, but he points out that theft for various reasons, including necromancy (pp. 341–44) were possible (Allison also explores the Buddhist notion of a “rainbow body” namely that a body can shrink and disappear, see chp. 12).
Allison has many more insights, and his scholarship is first-rate, and anyone wanting to engage the academic discussion of Jesus’ resurrection must interact with this book.
September 23, 2021
The book steers a course between an apologetic viewpoint that fully affirms the resurrection of Jesus as having historically occurred and a skeptical one that does not. Allison takes what he calls a critical view evaluating the various topics and positions taking each seriously. I like the fact that he doesn't dismiss those who reject the resurrection outright or explain away their claims as most apologists do. I found the book extremely interesting and thought provoking. Allison's command of the issues and knowledge of the primary and secondary literature is extensive. I think I've added probably several dozen books to my wish list and downloaded countless articles taken from his notes alone. His discussions about visions and hallucinations is probably one of the most interesting sections of the book.
In two chapters in his concluding section he evaluates tenuous arguments from both the apologetic and skeptical sides. I concur with his overall assessment. His discussion of the Shroud of Turin is engaging, extensive, and with more references than most will ever bother to follow up with. He argues that there is so much that we do not know about the Shroud and will probably never know especially with the arguments and counterarguments constantly on offer. At the end, like me, he's doubtful of it's authenticity, but not dogmatic or certain. I agree with his discussion about Bayes' theorem that it doesn't really persuade one way or the other especially since it's used to argue by some that Jesus never existed (Carrier) and by others that it substantiates the resurrection of Jesus (Swinburne, the McGrews).
Part of my own push back to those arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is that it's used as a short hand for apologists to argue for the truth of Christianity and it's theological perspective including ideas like the Trinity. In essence the claim is that if Jesus resurrected from the dead then Christianity and it's implications and beliefs are all true. Allison also pushes back on these kinds of arguments.
My own thinking is that metaphysical issues and assumptions that one brings to the table are what ultimately determines one's view of the resurrection. In a section on "Worldviews" in the last chapter Allison essentially says the same thing and then quotes approvingly G.F. Woods, "the weighing of historical evidence is affected by the metaphysical presuppositions of those who weigh the evidence. There are no metaphysically neutral scales." Indeed. I found a lot in Allison's work that I could agree with, ultimately I still find myself on the skeptical side of the fence. Allison is a well respected scholar and this book shows why.
In two chapters in his concluding section he evaluates tenuous arguments from both the apologetic and skeptical sides. I concur with his overall assessment. His discussion of the Shroud of Turin is engaging, extensive, and with more references than most will ever bother to follow up with. He argues that there is so much that we do not know about the Shroud and will probably never know especially with the arguments and counterarguments constantly on offer. At the end, like me, he's doubtful of it's authenticity, but not dogmatic or certain. I agree with his discussion about Bayes' theorem that it doesn't really persuade one way or the other especially since it's used to argue by some that Jesus never existed (Carrier) and by others that it substantiates the resurrection of Jesus (Swinburne, the McGrews).
Part of my own push back to those arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is that it's used as a short hand for apologists to argue for the truth of Christianity and it's theological perspective including ideas like the Trinity. In essence the claim is that if Jesus resurrected from the dead then Christianity and it's implications and beliefs are all true. Allison also pushes back on these kinds of arguments.
My own thinking is that metaphysical issues and assumptions that one brings to the table are what ultimately determines one's view of the resurrection. In a section on "Worldviews" in the last chapter Allison essentially says the same thing and then quotes approvingly G.F. Woods, "the weighing of historical evidence is affected by the metaphysical presuppositions of those who weigh the evidence. There are no metaphysically neutral scales." Indeed. I found a lot in Allison's work that I could agree with, ultimately I still find myself on the skeptical side of the fence. Allison is a well respected scholar and this book shows why.
May 29, 2023
Dale Allison is an absolute top shelf New Testament scholar (of a liberal Protestant bent), and to judge from this book in particular he appears to have read and digested everything ever said or written about the resurrection of Jesus from every century since it happened. The result is provocative, as Allison pokes all kinds of holes in many standard apologetic arguments, but also plenty of holes in skeptical counter-arguments, which ought to disturb and humble the believer and skeptic alike. The Bible puts a lot of stock in the *proclamation* of the resurrected Christ, and as Allison seeks to be unflinchingly honest about, historical study can only take us so far. As he says at one point, despite what we can be fairly certain about, our ignorance on the details of Easter morning is "oceanic." And while "ignorance should not be the mother of devotion, religious life and experience are not the products of a rational solution to a whodunit. They rather involve realms of experience and conviction that cannot depend on or be undone by the sorts of historical doubts, probabilities, and conjectures with which the previous pages have concerned themselves."
I'm just going to quote some of the endorsements:
“This book is the product of the deep and wide reflections of a preeminent scholar. Allison is refreshingly transparent and honest. Some will accuse him of being too pessimistic. Others will charge him with not being skeptical enough. If he is guilty of either, he cannot be faulted for accepting easy answers or of neglecting any arguments. Although I remain persuaded that historical inquiry can yield greater confidence pertaining to what happened to Jesus after his death than Allison allows, this volume is a fair-minded assessment of the data and is scholarship at the highest level.”
―Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University, USA
“This is a book of massive erudition around the resurrection, the real events that may well lie behind it, and how to read its popular New Testament residues and cross-cultural parallels. Allison engages the full power and depth of contemporary biblical criticism to show that the scriptural accounts are relatively thin but nevertheless intriguing documents for the responsible historian and can reasonably be read faithfully or skeptically. The originality, even genius, of the book lies in how he then turns to other independent literatures to “think in parallels,” playing, for example, well-documented Marian apparitions and angelic, bereavement, and near-death contacts off the early New Testament accounts or the Buddhist rainbow body off the empty tomb, always with a double refusal to fall into either easy debunking reduction or naïve literalist belief. The result is a shocking book that troubles one's certainty, whatever that certainty happens to be, and advances a profound humility before one of the most important mysteries of the history of religions. It turns out that the questions of “what really happened” or, more basic still, “what a body is” are much more complicated than is normally thought or believed.”
―Jeffrey J. Kripal, Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University, USA
“For anyone who wants to wrestle seriously with what to think about Jesus of Nazareth and with the history of scholarship on this matter, the writings of Dale Allison offer more food for thought, from more angles of vision, than any other recent author I know of. The Resurrection of Jesus, now venturing to bring his expertise to bear on the standard arguments of Christian apologetics and counter-apologetics, will again be an indispensable aid to those who, from within a faith perspective or in search of one, find themselves in pursuit of genuine inquiry.”
―Stephen Wykstra, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Calvin College, USA
I'm just going to quote some of the endorsements:
“This book is the product of the deep and wide reflections of a preeminent scholar. Allison is refreshingly transparent and honest. Some will accuse him of being too pessimistic. Others will charge him with not being skeptical enough. If he is guilty of either, he cannot be faulted for accepting easy answers or of neglecting any arguments. Although I remain persuaded that historical inquiry can yield greater confidence pertaining to what happened to Jesus after his death than Allison allows, this volume is a fair-minded assessment of the data and is scholarship at the highest level.”
―Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University, USA
“This is a book of massive erudition around the resurrection, the real events that may well lie behind it, and how to read its popular New Testament residues and cross-cultural parallels. Allison engages the full power and depth of contemporary biblical criticism to show that the scriptural accounts are relatively thin but nevertheless intriguing documents for the responsible historian and can reasonably be read faithfully or skeptically. The originality, even genius, of the book lies in how he then turns to other independent literatures to “think in parallels,” playing, for example, well-documented Marian apparitions and angelic, bereavement, and near-death contacts off the early New Testament accounts or the Buddhist rainbow body off the empty tomb, always with a double refusal to fall into either easy debunking reduction or naïve literalist belief. The result is a shocking book that troubles one's certainty, whatever that certainty happens to be, and advances a profound humility before one of the most important mysteries of the history of religions. It turns out that the questions of “what really happened” or, more basic still, “what a body is” are much more complicated than is normally thought or believed.”
―Jeffrey J. Kripal, Associate Dean of the School of Humanities and J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University, USA
“For anyone who wants to wrestle seriously with what to think about Jesus of Nazareth and with the history of scholarship on this matter, the writings of Dale Allison offer more food for thought, from more angles of vision, than any other recent author I know of. The Resurrection of Jesus, now venturing to bring his expertise to bear on the standard arguments of Christian apologetics and counter-apologetics, will again be an indispensable aid to those who, from within a faith perspective or in search of one, find themselves in pursuit of genuine inquiry.”
―Stephen Wykstra, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Calvin College, USA
November 28, 2023
Absolutely the industry standard and a must-read for anyone who wants to have an informed stance on the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Allison demonstrates mastery of the scholarship on the topic and his treatment is exhaustive, elucidating, judicious, and above all incredibly fair and sensitive to the actual data at hand. He is humble and genuine when it comes to offering his own take, giving readers the necessary information to come to their own informed conclusions.
November 14, 2024
This is a worthwhile read. Here are my initial and somewhat scattered thoughts:
Allison approaches this book intending to be as neutral as possible. He prides himself on skewering apologists and skeptics alike. No one–whether it be Licona, Wright, Ehrman, or Ludemann–is spared from his fierce criticism. In general, this is refreshing. After a while, though, this tack gets old. Allison seems allergic to picking any side, and this obscures what he is really trying to argue. Indeed, it is easier to tear down than build up, and Allison does substantially more tearing down of other arguments than he does of building up his own.
In the end, Allison ends up affirming something similar to the "veridical visions" view. Allison thinks that the tomb really was empty, and the disciples really saw Jesus, but what he means by "seeing Jesus" is something altogether different than what most evangelical Christians mean. In fact, I'm not even sure if Allison himself knows what he means by this.
The first half of the book is dedicated to a standard New Testament historical-critical reconstruction of Easter. I found this section to be very helpful. Allison is in his element here, and even when I disagree with him, his comments are insightful and valuable. I especially enjoyed his comments on Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb. Minimal Facts enthusiasts will be happy to learn that Allison affirms all of the so-called minimal facts, despite his strong disagreement with the argument's methodology.
The second half of the book gets weird. Allison ventures outside the New Testament and examines all sorts of resurrection parallels: modern paranormal visions, Marian apparitions, rainbow bodies of Tibetan monks, etc. Many of Allison's commitments seem to flow from his own paranormal experiences. It is a glut of information, but to be honest, I have no idea what to make of it. I can weigh the merits of Allison's NT arguments decently well, but I simply have no idea how to evaluate claims of the shrinking bodies of Tibetan monks.
Ironically, I think Allison sums up this problem well in his discussion of the Shroud of Turin. Allison remarks, "How is a historian of early Christianity supposed to evaluate such publications [referring to the scientific literature on the Shroud]? Most of us know nothing–absolutely nothing–about maillard reactions, colorimetric measurements, low-energy radiography, thermal neutron flux, or pyrolysis mass spectrometry" (317). Of course, Allison proceeds to give his opinion on the Shroud anyway. But his underlying point here stands as a general critique of the entire book. The material in the second half is just so weird that I have absolutely no idea how to evaluate it (and neither would most readers). This doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss resurrection parallels, and for the most part, I think Allison's discussion of the parallels is a worthwhile endeavor. However, I am inclined to be skeptical of these sorts of comparisons, mostly because the examples of Allison cites have not been subject to nearly as much scrutiny as the Gospel accounts. Of course, as Allison will be quick to point out, this may be my “Protestant-Enlightenment-Materialist” bias talking.
Here are my biggest takeaways:
(1) Apologists need to be consistent in their analysis of extra-Biblical miracles. Allison rips into Habermas (rightly so, in my judgment) for dismissing the stories of Sabbatai Sevi and Rabbi Judah with arguments eerily similar to those used by skeptics to dismiss the Christian resurrection claims. Allison puts his finger on a pervasive problem, namely, that Christian apologists–the very same people who fiercely criticize Hume’s a priori dismissal of miracles–often dismiss every single non-Biblical miracle claim out of hand. It’s almost as if we’re complete materialists–except for, you know, that one time in AD 33. This seems to be an egregious case of special pleading. If we truly believe that miracles can sometimes happen, we need to honestly analyze the weirder stories from across history. Of course, I still think that most of the stories cited by Allison are completely ludicrous (e.g. the Tibetan rainbow bodies), but I think we should give them more consideration than folks like Habermas and Licona typically have.
(2) The crux of Allison’s argument comes down to this: did the disciples expect Jesus to be resurrected? If they did not expect a resurrection, Wright has far and away the better argument. However, the fact that the gospels portray Jesus foretelling his resurrection must be reckoned with. Here, Allison draws upon his paradigm of the “apocalyptic” Jesus, speculating that Jesus made claims about a future general resurrection, and that after the empty tomb, these claims were then reinterpreted as prophecies of his own resurrection. I’m not so sure about this assessment. Allison’s portrayal of the historical Jesus is sketchy. Contemporary scholarship seems to be putting some of Allison’s major contentions into doubt. Further, I’m much more inclined to follow Wright’s approach, which argues that if Jesus did foretell his own resurrection, the disciples could not have possibly understood what it meant. Either way, this issue merits further thought.
Overall, Allison’s book is a great guide to all issues surrounding the resurrection even when (and especially when) I disagree with his conclusions. However, his comically neutral and open-minded attitude (“ooo spooky–it could be anything–it could be a ghost–I guess we’ll never know!”) does tend to get a little irritating.
Allison approaches this book intending to be as neutral as possible. He prides himself on skewering apologists and skeptics alike. No one–whether it be Licona, Wright, Ehrman, or Ludemann–is spared from his fierce criticism. In general, this is refreshing. After a while, though, this tack gets old. Allison seems allergic to picking any side, and this obscures what he is really trying to argue. Indeed, it is easier to tear down than build up, and Allison does substantially more tearing down of other arguments than he does of building up his own.
In the end, Allison ends up affirming something similar to the "veridical visions" view. Allison thinks that the tomb really was empty, and the disciples really saw Jesus, but what he means by "seeing Jesus" is something altogether different than what most evangelical Christians mean. In fact, I'm not even sure if Allison himself knows what he means by this.
The first half of the book is dedicated to a standard New Testament historical-critical reconstruction of Easter. I found this section to be very helpful. Allison is in his element here, and even when I disagree with him, his comments are insightful and valuable. I especially enjoyed his comments on Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb. Minimal Facts enthusiasts will be happy to learn that Allison affirms all of the so-called minimal facts, despite his strong disagreement with the argument's methodology.
The second half of the book gets weird. Allison ventures outside the New Testament and examines all sorts of resurrection parallels: modern paranormal visions, Marian apparitions, rainbow bodies of Tibetan monks, etc. Many of Allison's commitments seem to flow from his own paranormal experiences. It is a glut of information, but to be honest, I have no idea what to make of it. I can weigh the merits of Allison's NT arguments decently well, but I simply have no idea how to evaluate claims of the shrinking bodies of Tibetan monks.
Ironically, I think Allison sums up this problem well in his discussion of the Shroud of Turin. Allison remarks, "How is a historian of early Christianity supposed to evaluate such publications [referring to the scientific literature on the Shroud]? Most of us know nothing–absolutely nothing–about maillard reactions, colorimetric measurements, low-energy radiography, thermal neutron flux, or pyrolysis mass spectrometry" (317). Of course, Allison proceeds to give his opinion on the Shroud anyway. But his underlying point here stands as a general critique of the entire book. The material in the second half is just so weird that I have absolutely no idea how to evaluate it (and neither would most readers). This doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss resurrection parallels, and for the most part, I think Allison's discussion of the parallels is a worthwhile endeavor. However, I am inclined to be skeptical of these sorts of comparisons, mostly because the examples of Allison cites have not been subject to nearly as much scrutiny as the Gospel accounts. Of course, as Allison will be quick to point out, this may be my “Protestant-Enlightenment-Materialist” bias talking.
Here are my biggest takeaways:
(1) Apologists need to be consistent in their analysis of extra-Biblical miracles. Allison rips into Habermas (rightly so, in my judgment) for dismissing the stories of Sabbatai Sevi and Rabbi Judah with arguments eerily similar to those used by skeptics to dismiss the Christian resurrection claims. Allison puts his finger on a pervasive problem, namely, that Christian apologists–the very same people who fiercely criticize Hume’s a priori dismissal of miracles–often dismiss every single non-Biblical miracle claim out of hand. It’s almost as if we’re complete materialists–except for, you know, that one time in AD 33. This seems to be an egregious case of special pleading. If we truly believe that miracles can sometimes happen, we need to honestly analyze the weirder stories from across history. Of course, I still think that most of the stories cited by Allison are completely ludicrous (e.g. the Tibetan rainbow bodies), but I think we should give them more consideration than folks like Habermas and Licona typically have.
(2) The crux of Allison’s argument comes down to this: did the disciples expect Jesus to be resurrected? If they did not expect a resurrection, Wright has far and away the better argument. However, the fact that the gospels portray Jesus foretelling his resurrection must be reckoned with. Here, Allison draws upon his paradigm of the “apocalyptic” Jesus, speculating that Jesus made claims about a future general resurrection, and that after the empty tomb, these claims were then reinterpreted as prophecies of his own resurrection. I’m not so sure about this assessment. Allison’s portrayal of the historical Jesus is sketchy. Contemporary scholarship seems to be putting some of Allison’s major contentions into doubt. Further, I’m much more inclined to follow Wright’s approach, which argues that if Jesus did foretell his own resurrection, the disciples could not have possibly understood what it meant. Either way, this issue merits further thought.
Overall, Allison’s book is a great guide to all issues surrounding the resurrection even when (and especially when) I disagree with his conclusions. However, his comically neutral and open-minded attitude (“ooo spooky–it could be anything–it could be a ghost–I guess we’ll never know!”) does tend to get a little irritating.
November 5, 2024
[listened as an audiobook]
TLDR: Much ado about nothing...
I don't know why people gas up this book so much. It is... okay. Dale Allison sifts through the gospel narratives and Paul's scant statement in 1 Cor 15. to determine what he sees as likely pre-existing the written narratives. This, for him, means that at the very least these points are not invented wholesale for apologetic purposes by those writing the gospels (and Paul's 1 Cor 15 creed). He argues that we can know:
(1) Jesus before His crucifixion predicted His own death and possibly that He would be vindicated by God
(2) After His crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimathea
(3) Some time after this event, the tomb was discovered to be empty by the women
(4a) In conjunction with this, some amount of people [Paul, Peter, James, John, and Mary Magdalene minimally] experienced visions of Jesus
(4b) It is possible that these visions took on a variety of phenomenological experiences - from a light, a sensed presence, a sighting, or even an interaction that felt physically solid - and could have had group experiences
(5) The early Christian community interpreted these as Jesus having been raised from the dead by God
The thing that makes this book unique but also weird is Allison's willingness to dive into the literature around the experience of grief-induced hallucinations. He argues that such hallucinations are actually extremely common, and that they can feel transcedental and even physical. He goes as far as to say that the stories of the resurrected Jesus eating food among the disciples could preserve a genuine memory. If he stayed there, fine. It is actually an extremely important detail that is too often swept under the carpet and ignored. But a substantial amount of this book is devoted to not only the discussion of first-hand experiences of grief-induced hallucinations, but also a survey of the "meta-normal" and the "pan-psychic". This is where the book begins to enter into the land of fairy tale and pseudo-science. I could do little but grimace at his discussion of evaporating monks, the Shroud of Turin, and projections of psychical energy.
In the end of the day, I am in agreement with Allison that not only did the disciples see Jesus, but that Jesus saw them. He is right to point out that we interpret data according to our worldview, and little does or can dent it. I appreciate his skepticism (although he seems a little too easy to convince) and that he takes grief-induced hallucinations extremely seriously. His discussion additionally of modern messianic groups re-interpreting their framework after the death of their messiah is also important. The only thing I am at a loss for is why he wrote this book at all. It feels to me to be an exercise in futility, because by definition it is impossible to determine with any level of probability from the historical-critical method that (1) God acts in history and (2) that God specifically acted here. As he mentions, just because you accept that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense does not mean that you agree with the Christian interpretation of the event.
TLDR: Much ado about nothing...
I don't know why people gas up this book so much. It is... okay. Dale Allison sifts through the gospel narratives and Paul's scant statement in 1 Cor 15. to determine what he sees as likely pre-existing the written narratives. This, for him, means that at the very least these points are not invented wholesale for apologetic purposes by those writing the gospels (and Paul's 1 Cor 15 creed). He argues that we can know:
(1) Jesus before His crucifixion predicted His own death and possibly that He would be vindicated by God
(2) After His crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimathea
(3) Some time after this event, the tomb was discovered to be empty by the women
(4a) In conjunction with this, some amount of people [Paul, Peter, James, John, and Mary Magdalene minimally] experienced visions of Jesus
(4b) It is possible that these visions took on a variety of phenomenological experiences - from a light, a sensed presence, a sighting, or even an interaction that felt physically solid - and could have had group experiences
(5) The early Christian community interpreted these as Jesus having been raised from the dead by God
The thing that makes this book unique but also weird is Allison's willingness to dive into the literature around the experience of grief-induced hallucinations. He argues that such hallucinations are actually extremely common, and that they can feel transcedental and even physical. He goes as far as to say that the stories of the resurrected Jesus eating food among the disciples could preserve a genuine memory. If he stayed there, fine. It is actually an extremely important detail that is too often swept under the carpet and ignored. But a substantial amount of this book is devoted to not only the discussion of first-hand experiences of grief-induced hallucinations, but also a survey of the "meta-normal" and the "pan-psychic". This is where the book begins to enter into the land of fairy tale and pseudo-science. I could do little but grimace at his discussion of evaporating monks, the Shroud of Turin, and projections of psychical energy.
In the end of the day, I am in agreement with Allison that not only did the disciples see Jesus, but that Jesus saw them. He is right to point out that we interpret data according to our worldview, and little does or can dent it. I appreciate his skepticism (although he seems a little too easy to convince) and that he takes grief-induced hallucinations extremely seriously. His discussion additionally of modern messianic groups re-interpreting their framework after the death of their messiah is also important. The only thing I am at a loss for is why he wrote this book at all. It feels to me to be an exercise in futility, because by definition it is impossible to determine with any level of probability from the historical-critical method that (1) God acts in history and (2) that God specifically acted here. As he mentions, just because you accept that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense does not mean that you agree with the Christian interpretation of the event.
Read
November 28, 2025Dale Allison's landmark work on the resurrection gave me mixed feelings. Any reader will immediately be struck by the breadth of Allison's reading, as well as his balanced and modest evaluation of the evidence on offer. Moreover, his extensive discussion of apparitions of the dead, Marian apparitions and rainbow bodies is equal parts gripping and fascinating.
Weirdly enough, although Allison isn't a sceptic, he's one of the most challenging authors I've read on the topic. This is because Allison eschews the typical (and, in my mind, deeply flawed) polemical strategies of arguing from the apocryphal gospels or counting a miracle so unlikely as to be impossible to prove. Instead, he modestly defends areas where a sceptic might be reasonably doubtful. This cautious approach has already caused me to reconsider some arguments I previously thought were strong.
However, there were parts of the work I found frustrating. Allison seems to have an almost fatalistic attitude towards other scholars; he'll often comment something along the lines of "this might be a good argument, but a sceptical scholar is unlikely to take it seriously". He makes similar comments about Christian scholars. In my mind, a scholar's horizons are not a legitimate reason for them to ignore good arguments!
Allison even neglects to defend some of his own strongest arguments for this reason. When concluding, he remarks that there are good attestations of, for example, one particular Marian apparition. Yet he comments that this will not change our beliefs: so, why would the resurrection need to? My thought is simply that, if Marian apparitions are strongly supported by evidence, we must accept a view that explains them. Likewise with the resurrection. Our unwillingness to follow evidence where it leads is hardly a statement about which position is most reasonable.
Allison also critiques many apologetic strategies, often helpfully. However, he seems to attack some arguments for reasons that I find mystifying. For example, he complains that the argument from the sincerity of the disciples (given the martyrdom of some) is weak because it only indicates they didn't invent the story (Allison opines that most scholars defend this sceptical scenario; my experience is that it's more widespread outside scholarship). I've not come across somebody who argues that this argument proves anything more than this simple point. It seems unreasonable to me to critique an argument for failing to establish something it didn't set out to establish.
Overall, this book left me seriously challenged and with many unresolved questions, which I take as a good thing. So, I would recommend it with the caveats mentioned above.
Weirdly enough, although Allison isn't a sceptic, he's one of the most challenging authors I've read on the topic. This is because Allison eschews the typical (and, in my mind, deeply flawed) polemical strategies of arguing from the apocryphal gospels or counting a miracle so unlikely as to be impossible to prove. Instead, he modestly defends areas where a sceptic might be reasonably doubtful. This cautious approach has already caused me to reconsider some arguments I previously thought were strong.
However, there were parts of the work I found frustrating. Allison seems to have an almost fatalistic attitude towards other scholars; he'll often comment something along the lines of "this might be a good argument, but a sceptical scholar is unlikely to take it seriously". He makes similar comments about Christian scholars. In my mind, a scholar's horizons are not a legitimate reason for them to ignore good arguments!
Allison even neglects to defend some of his own strongest arguments for this reason. When concluding, he remarks that there are good attestations of, for example, one particular Marian apparition. Yet he comments that this will not change our beliefs: so, why would the resurrection need to? My thought is simply that, if Marian apparitions are strongly supported by evidence, we must accept a view that explains them. Likewise with the resurrection. Our unwillingness to follow evidence where it leads is hardly a statement about which position is most reasonable.
Allison also critiques many apologetic strategies, often helpfully. However, he seems to attack some arguments for reasons that I find mystifying. For example, he complains that the argument from the sincerity of the disciples (given the martyrdom of some) is weak because it only indicates they didn't invent the story (Allison opines that most scholars defend this sceptical scenario; my experience is that it's more widespread outside scholarship). I've not come across somebody who argues that this argument proves anything more than this simple point. It seems unreasonable to me to critique an argument for failing to establish something it didn't set out to establish.
Overall, this book left me seriously challenged and with many unresolved questions, which I take as a good thing. So, I would recommend it with the caveats mentioned above.
April 19, 2023
If you read only one book about the resurrection of Jesus, then it has to be this one.
Dale Allison's The Resurrection of Jesus considers Jesus' resurrection from the historical, exegetical, philosophical, paranormal and skeptical claims. In doing so, he is not trying to necessarily persuade anyone as much as to give a status of the study. He acknowledges that those who don't believe are likely to continue not believing and those who do believe will go on believing at the end of reading this book.
Was there an empty tomb? Did the disciples simply imagine Jesus' resurrection? Was there a ground of belief in ancient Judaism? Are there other examples of 'resurrections' happening in world? These are some of the questions that Allison addresses in the book.
He is not a fundamentalist nor an evangelical. He admits that the Biblical accounts have problems and he is willing to address them. He argues against the skeptics as well as the Biblicist.
What is intriguing is his honesty in the book. He admits that he has had what some would call paranormal experiences and is honest that he doesn't understand them. He is honest with his own worldviews and biases for and against the arguments concerning the resurrection. He looks to other religions and cites parallel examples.
Quite simply there is not another book like this. Allison's honesty and intellect are refreshing in an age that is filled with dogmatic arguments in an either/or world. Allison is willing to concede that he may not understand and may be understanding the arguments wrong.
He also suggests that even if we can absolutely prove the Resurrection of Jesus, this then does not mean that we have 'proven' the Christian religion to be true. He realizes the weaknesses in the claims and remarks that every side is problematic.
This is a book that people on both sides are going to have problems with. Evangelicals will dismiss his book because he does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and liberals will argue his appeal to supernatural possibilities. And yet, in the midst of that, we see a very real person struggling to understand his faith and his own confession in the resurrection of Jesus.
I highly recommend this book to everyone who has even the faintest interest in the resurrection or other paranormal events in the world. You may not agree with him, but his book is intriguing.
His writing is clear, even when reporting the technical academic work of others. It is indeed one of the easiest academic reads in the world of Biblical Literature.
Grade: A+
Dale Allison's The Resurrection of Jesus considers Jesus' resurrection from the historical, exegetical, philosophical, paranormal and skeptical claims. In doing so, he is not trying to necessarily persuade anyone as much as to give a status of the study. He acknowledges that those who don't believe are likely to continue not believing and those who do believe will go on believing at the end of reading this book.
Was there an empty tomb? Did the disciples simply imagine Jesus' resurrection? Was there a ground of belief in ancient Judaism? Are there other examples of 'resurrections' happening in world? These are some of the questions that Allison addresses in the book.
He is not a fundamentalist nor an evangelical. He admits that the Biblical accounts have problems and he is willing to address them. He argues against the skeptics as well as the Biblicist.
What is intriguing is his honesty in the book. He admits that he has had what some would call paranormal experiences and is honest that he doesn't understand them. He is honest with his own worldviews and biases for and against the arguments concerning the resurrection. He looks to other religions and cites parallel examples.
Quite simply there is not another book like this. Allison's honesty and intellect are refreshing in an age that is filled with dogmatic arguments in an either/or world. Allison is willing to concede that he may not understand and may be understanding the arguments wrong.
He also suggests that even if we can absolutely prove the Resurrection of Jesus, this then does not mean that we have 'proven' the Christian religion to be true. He realizes the weaknesses in the claims and remarks that every side is problematic.
This is a book that people on both sides are going to have problems with. Evangelicals will dismiss his book because he does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and liberals will argue his appeal to supernatural possibilities. And yet, in the midst of that, we see a very real person struggling to understand his faith and his own confession in the resurrection of Jesus.
I highly recommend this book to everyone who has even the faintest interest in the resurrection or other paranormal events in the world. You may not agree with him, but his book is intriguing.
His writing is clear, even when reporting the technical academic work of others. It is indeed one of the easiest academic reads in the world of Biblical Literature.
Grade: A+
June 2, 2023
This book is such a breath of fresh air. Dale walks a middle line, avoiding what I see as the pitfalls of the dogmatic skeptics on one side and the disingenuous Christian apologists on the other.
Dale demonstrates that while the historical case for a literal resurrection of Jesus by no means compels affirmation, it is by no means irrational to take this vantage, for it is likely that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, that the tomb was found to be empty, that women first believed they saw Jesus and then numerous others did too, and in light of Jesus' message while He was alive understood Jesus to be the first fruits of the general resurrection and become zealous missionaries.
All of this could also be the case if those who saw, heard, and felt Jesus, had what is a fairly common paranormal experience and interpreted it in light of their beliefs; after Jesus' body was stolen from the tomb (grave robbing was a problem in that day). Dale spends a great deal of time detailing the reality that lots of people (including himself) interact with apparitions. They experience the dead visually, physically, and audibly in a way that is quite reminiscent of how the gospels describe Jesus appearing and disappearing; sometimes these apparitions appear to several people during a period of time. There are also cases of masses of people witnessing apparitions at the same time; these possibilities are rather ignored by apologists, or if it is alluded to, the evidence is misrepresented and then dismissed. One of the main ways Apologists make the case for Jesus' resurrection to be so strong, is by only presenting the weakest and most ridiculous arguments by atheists and knocking them down. I have never heard a single evangelical mention or seriously address the most reasonable interpretation presented by skeptics.
Dale shows that there are just not enough historical facts to demand belief in a literal bodily resurrection, though if people believe for other reasons, it is by no means a suicide of reason to affirm God raised Jesus from the dead.
As I think truth and honesty are important, I do not think apologists should go beyond the evidence, make overstatements, suppress evidence, and make false claims. Dale points out a good deal of this, which I’ve heard. We Christians shouldn’t be propagandists. The end of winning souls does not justify the means of misinformation.
Dale demonstrates that while the historical case for a literal resurrection of Jesus by no means compels affirmation, it is by no means irrational to take this vantage, for it is likely that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, that the tomb was found to be empty, that women first believed they saw Jesus and then numerous others did too, and in light of Jesus' message while He was alive understood Jesus to be the first fruits of the general resurrection and become zealous missionaries.
All of this could also be the case if those who saw, heard, and felt Jesus, had what is a fairly common paranormal experience and interpreted it in light of their beliefs; after Jesus' body was stolen from the tomb (grave robbing was a problem in that day). Dale spends a great deal of time detailing the reality that lots of people (including himself) interact with apparitions. They experience the dead visually, physically, and audibly in a way that is quite reminiscent of how the gospels describe Jesus appearing and disappearing; sometimes these apparitions appear to several people during a period of time. There are also cases of masses of people witnessing apparitions at the same time; these possibilities are rather ignored by apologists, or if it is alluded to, the evidence is misrepresented and then dismissed. One of the main ways Apologists make the case for Jesus' resurrection to be so strong, is by only presenting the weakest and most ridiculous arguments by atheists and knocking them down. I have never heard a single evangelical mention or seriously address the most reasonable interpretation presented by skeptics.
Dale shows that there are just not enough historical facts to demand belief in a literal bodily resurrection, though if people believe for other reasons, it is by no means a suicide of reason to affirm God raised Jesus from the dead.
As I think truth and honesty are important, I do not think apologists should go beyond the evidence, make overstatements, suppress evidence, and make false claims. Dale points out a good deal of this, which I’ve heard. We Christians shouldn’t be propagandists. The end of winning souls does not justify the means of misinformation.
May 11, 2025
Absolutely amazing!
It's one of those rare cases that people will cite for decades to come as the authoritative book on the issue. Allison has done such a mindblowing research on the topic, going as deep in the vaults as it can get. He cites sources from previous centuries with regard to small details, like when a certain apologetic argument appeared for the first time. He has masterfully managed to strike a balance between his own theological beliefs and his rigorous historical approach.
He starts the book by opening up, admitting his own biases as a believer, but he then takes an intellectually honest take on every critical juncture of Jesus's alleged resurrection.
Even though I have been studying early Christianity for some years now, the sheer amount of arcane details regarding this particular issue really blew my mind. Can't stress enough how much I enjoyed this book!
It's one of those rare cases that people will cite for decades to come as the authoritative book on the issue. Allison has done such a mindblowing research on the topic, going as deep in the vaults as it can get. He cites sources from previous centuries with regard to small details, like when a certain apologetic argument appeared for the first time. He has masterfully managed to strike a balance between his own theological beliefs and his rigorous historical approach.
He starts the book by opening up, admitting his own biases as a believer, but he then takes an intellectually honest take on every critical juncture of Jesus's alleged resurrection.
Even though I have been studying early Christianity for some years now, the sheer amount of arcane details regarding this particular issue really blew my mind. Can't stress enough how much I enjoyed this book!
June 3, 2023
The most comprehensive review of the Resurrection
Allison makes other scholars like schoolboys! He looks at the resurrection from all angles. My critiques: 1. Poorly cited the earthquake in first century Palestine (was neither from a book or a peer reviewed article: was an apologist’s article /blog 2. Spent too much time on the phenomenon of apparitions (all of which do not have great evidence).
Best part for me was to learn that the earliest resurrection accounts (from the original Mark[v1-8], Mathew, Gospel of Peter and John 21) were in Galilee and Not Jerusalem which Luke puts forth (and later duplicated in John 20). It may have been Marks original ending which was lost (or redacted). This should be shouted on rooftops and needs wider acknowledgement.
Allison makes other scholars like schoolboys! He looks at the resurrection from all angles. My critiques: 1. Poorly cited the earthquake in first century Palestine (was neither from a book or a peer reviewed article: was an apologist’s article /blog 2. Spent too much time on the phenomenon of apparitions (all of which do not have great evidence).
Best part for me was to learn that the earliest resurrection accounts (from the original Mark[v1-8], Mathew, Gospel of Peter and John 21) were in Galilee and Not Jerusalem which Luke puts forth (and later duplicated in John 20). It may have been Marks original ending which was lost (or redacted). This should be shouted on rooftops and needs wider acknowledgement.
December 26, 2021
“Although ignorance should not be the mother of devotion, religious life and experience are not the products of a rational solution to a whodunit. They rather involve realms of human experience and conviction that cannot depend on or be undone by the sorts of historical doubts, probabilities, and conjectures with which the previous pages have concerned themselves. There’s no religion within the limits of history alone, just as there is no religion within the limits of reason alone. For myself, all I have to do is look up at the night sky or look into the face of my neighbor, and then I know that there is more to life and faith than this” (365)
December 20, 2022
I commend this book to anyone interested in the historical and apologetic conversation on the resurrection of Jesus. As Allison notes, it is vanishingly rare that reading books on the resurrection of Jesus have changed anyone’s mind. However, Allison has written a book that is so thorough, perceptive, and fair-minded that it is hard to imagine anyone reading this book without having their mind changed on at least a few matters. In particular, I am thankful for Allison’s insightful criticisms of a number of common, but faulty apologetic arguments. I look forward to taking many of his insights to heart in future conversations.
September 6, 2021
Once again, the research by Allison is both thorough and fascinating. Although highly critical in his approach to biblical studies, the footnotes alone are worth the price of the book. I give this book 4 stars because it’s intellectually honest and comprehensive, given the parameters he works within. It’s a great resource to have in ones library. If I based my rating on whether I agree with many of his presuppositions, I’d only give it three stars.
December 29, 2022
Probably the most comprehensive summary of the various debates regarding the historicity of the resurrection. He cuts through a lot of the hyperbolic rhetoric. Allison also adds more historical data to consider (in seeking historical parallels) and concludes with a theological flourish that is perceptive, humble, and well-earned for a biblical scholar.
April 13, 2021
The best book ever written on the Resurrection. The most unbiased. The most learned. Allison has proven, here, that he is one of the most critical and leading historians on the planet. Nothing compares to this masterpiece.
December 10, 2024
Allison is a strong New Testament scholar for whom I carry a good bit of respect. But in this book, he kind of shrugs his shoulders for 400 pages, and I don't agree with many of his conclusions (and half conclusions). Still, I appreciate his argumentation and clarity of thought and writing.
February 27, 2025
Of the nine resurrection historicity books I've read, this is by far the most balanced investigation. Dale's efforts at steelmanning arguments for, against, and in between (the "excluded middle") the spectrum of hypotheses deserves great praise.
April 7, 2025
Allison is, as others have noted, an elite-level NT scholar. I especially appreciate his ability to "think with parallels." He is one of the few in his field who brings in an intelligent discussion of parapsychological research and its relevance for religious experiences in the NT.
Read
May 16, 2025A balanced, compelling book. I disagree with some of Allison's arguments, but I think he's right in claiming that, ultimately, history can only take us so far; it cannot prove as much as we'd like, one way or the other.
August 18, 2025
A remarkable piece of scholarship that should be the starting point for any inquiry into the resurrection of Jesus.
It is a neutral and sensible look into something extraordinary that allows the reader to understand their own inclination towards or away from the miraculous.
It is a neutral and sensible look into something extraordinary that allows the reader to understand their own inclination towards or away from the miraculous.
Read
March 30, 2022A fine study - which made me think!
a
a
April 27, 2023
Couldnt finish, reads more as a paper than as a book meant for the masses (i.e. me)
January 29, 2024
Alliso provides the most even-handed treat of the resurrection that I’ve seen so far. He is not, by any means, an apologist for the resurrection.
February 11, 2024
A bit dull at times, but overall quite persuasively argued, far less partisan than the vast majority of books on the topic, and evincing Allison's typical brilliance.
April 14, 2024
One of the best books I have ever read.
December 8, 2024
About as straightforward a take on the pro and con arguments for the historical case of Christ's resurrection as one could write.
December 27, 2024
An excellent historical-critical exploration of the titular subject matter.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews