Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement) [Paperback]

Dale C., Jr. Allison (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 18, 2005 | Series: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement

Jesus remains a popular figure in contemporary culture and Allison remains one of our best interpreters. He speaks around the country in a variety of venues on matters related to the study of the Historical Jesus. In his new book, he focuses on the historical Jesus and eschatology, concluding that the Jesus was not a Hellenistic wonder worker or teacher of pious morality but an apocalyptic prophet. In an opening chapter that is worth the price of admission, Allison astutely and engagingly captures the history of the search for the historical Jesus. He observes that many contemporary readings of Jesus shift the focus away from traditional theological, Christological, and eschatological concerns. In provocative fashion, He takes on not only the Jesus Seminar but also other Jesus interpreters such as N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"This is the most interesting and illuminating piece of writing on the resurrection of Jesus that I have ever read." -Dr. Joel Marcus, Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins, Duke Divinity School

"Dale Allison is one the very best Jesus scholars of our time. The six essays in this volume show him to be the master of the pertinent Gospel and early Jewish texts, modern biblical scholarship, and everything from patristics to modern psychology and theology. Moreover, they sparkle with his intellectual independence, fresh insights, and good judgment." --Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., Weston Jesuit School of Theology, Cambridge, MA

"Dale Allison is one of the very few scholars today to whom each us must listen. Some think Jesus was bodily raised, some think resurrection is the explanation of encounters with Jesus after his death, and others think it is all balderdash. Resurrecting Jesus is one book that honest people must read. Belief in the resurrection, as Allison argues, is less a product of eschatological dissonance and more likely the cause of that dissonance, and resurrection language among Jews (as others have argued) transcends belief in the afterlife. This debate is not likely to die out soon and it will surely take place with Resurrecting Jesus in hand." Scot McKnight, Ph.D. Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies North Park University

"In these six essays, Dale Allison addresses some of the most important issues in contemporary research on the historical Jesus. The essays consistently raise and explore the theological issues that are related to the historical debates. Allison's breadth of knowledge, independence of judgment, and intellectual candor make these essays as stimulating as they are refreshing. The essays are a worthy companion volume to his earlier Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet."--Gregory E. Sterling, Associate Dean of the Faculty, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, The Univeristy of Notre Dame (Greg Sterling )

"Professor Dale Allison's learned work offers an impressive contribution to the most important questions regarding Jesus and Christian origins. Rich with literary and historical detail, finely nuanced in its assessment of complicted and often very contentious issues, and here and there written from an autobiographical perspective, Resurrecting Jesus is a joy to read. Beginning students and learned scholars alike will gain much from this engaging book." --Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Wolfvillle, Nova Scotia (Craig Evans )

"Dale Allison has given us a fine and penetrating new assessment of some vexatious old problems. With characteristic candour he has blown fresh air into the discussions of Jesus and his audiences, and the themes of judgement, the Torah and apocalyptic, not to mention the fantasy of a ‘third quest’. But above all, by drawing on widespread evidence of reports of post-mortem apparitions and responses to bereavement, he has broken new ground in the study of the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. For its carefulness in respect of what an historian may or may not legitimately claim, as well as for its combination of vigour and rigour, this book is a delight. Very hard to put down!"--David Catchpole, Professor Emeritus of Theological Studies, University of Exeter, UK (David Cathpole )

"Dale Allison has been one of the most stimulating and provocative contributors to the contemporary debate about (the historical) Jesus. You may not agree with all his interpretations of motifs and texts, but you certainly cannot ignore them, since they are invariably backed by extensive knowledge of historical and social, textual and bibliographic data, and they challenge any reader to look afresh at the evidence, and often from a new angle. Here he dispels the myth of a 'no quest for Jesus' between 1907 and 1953, presses the implications of Jesus having said different things to different people, challenges the refusal of the very idea that Jesus could have believed in hell and the polarisation of the debate about Jesus' attitude to the law, and in an almost book length treatment of Jesus' resurrection dispels any easy assumption that the debate on Jesus' resurrection can be reduced to a sequence of simple either-ors. And all this with some fascinating excursions into the byways and cul-de-sacs of the quest and an engagingly fresh and self-critical honesty."--James D.G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England. (James D.G. Dunn )

"In this important collection of six essays, Allison (holding firm to his conception of Jesus as a millennial prophet) deals in a masterful way with several important critical issues and conundrums in the teaching of Jesus, the Gospels and modern Jesus scholarship, producing consistently competent, insightful and convincing results. In dialog with an amazing number of post-enlightenment authors and an unusually large array of patristic works, Allison exhibits a striking degree of critical candor and historical humility in pursuing his historical and exegetical inquiries, providing occasional autobiographical glimpses of his own intellectual struggles and faith commitment. Since excellent books are rare, I would counsel you to go, sell all that thou hast, and buy this one!"--David E. Aune, Professor of New Testament, University of Notre Dame (David E. Aune )

'...a truly amazing tour de force.'

'Allison is a fair and judicious scholar, who is prepared to interact as much with evangelical scholarship as with more liberal-minded critics and will not dismiss anything out of hand without a thorough examination. This is a scholar's book, but will bring great rewards to those who persevere in reading it.'

(Reg Luhman )

"This is the most interesting and illuminating piece of writing on the resurrection of Jesus that I have ever read." -Dr. Joel Marcus, Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins, Duke Divinity School

"In these six essays, Dale Allison addresses some of the most important issues in contemporary research on the historical Jesus. The essays consistently raise and explore the theological issues that are related to the historical debates. Allison's breadth of knowledge, independence of judgment, and intellectual candor make these essays as stimulating as they are refreshing. The essays are a worthy companion volume to his earlier Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet."--Gregory E. Sterling, Associate Dean of the Faculty, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, The Univeristy of Notre Dame (, )

"Professor Dale Allison's learned work offers an impressive contribution to the most important questions regarding Jesus and Christian origins. Rich with literary and historical detail, finely nuanced in its assessment of complicted and often very contentious issues, and here and there written from an autobiographical perspective, Resurrecting Jesus is a joy to read. Beginning students and learned scholars alike will gain much from this engaging book." --Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Wolfvillle, Nova Scotia (, )

"Dale Allison has given us a fine and penetrating new assessment of some vexatious old problems. With characteristic candour he has blown fresh air into the discussions of Jesus and his audiences, and the themes of judgement, the Torah and apocalyptic, not to mention the fantasy of a ‘third quest’. But above all, by drawing on widespread evidence of reports of post-mortem apparitions and responses to bereavement, he has broken new ground in the study of the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. For its carefulness in respect of what an historian may or may not legitimately claim, as well as for its combination of vigour and rigour, this book is a delight. Very hard to put down!"--David Catchpole, Professor Emeritus of Theological Studies, University of Exeter, UK (, )

"Dale Allison has been one of the most stimulating and provocative contributors to the contemporary debate about (the historical) Jesus. You may not agree with all his interpretations of motifs and texts, but you certainly cannot ignore them, since they are invariably backed by extensive knowledge of historical and social, textual and bibliographic data, and they challenge any reader to look afresh at the evidence, and often from a new angle. Here he dispels the myth of a 'no quest for Jesus' between 1907 and 1953, presses the implications of Jesus having said different things to different people, challenges the refusal of the very idea that Jesus could have believed in hell and the polarisation of the debate about Jesus' attitude to the law, and in an almost book length treatment of Jesus' resurrection dispels any easy assumption that the debate on Jesus' resurrection can be reduced to a sequence of simple either-ors. And all this with some fascinating excursions into the byways and cul-de-sacs of the quest and an engagingly fresh and self-critical honesty."--James D.G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England. (, )

"In this important collection of six essays, Allison (holding firm to his conception of Jesus as a millennial prophet) deals in a masterful way with several important critical issues and conundrums in the teaching of Jesus, the Gospels and modern Jesus scholarship, producing consistently competent, insightful and convincing results. In dialog with an amazing number of post-enlightenment authors and an unusually large array of patristic works, Allison exhibits a striking degree of critical candor and historical humility in pursuing his historical and exegetical inquiries, providing occasional autobiographical glimpses of his own intellectual struggles and faith commitment. Since excellent books are rare, I would counsel you to go, sell all that thou hast, and buy this one!"--David E. Aune, Professor of New Testament, University of Notre Dame (, )

'...a truly amazing tour de force.'

'Allison is a fair and judicious scholar, who is prepared to interact as much with evangelical scholarship as with more liberal-minded critics and will not dismiss anything out of hand without a thorough examination. This is a scholar's book, but will bring great rewards to those who persevere in reading it.'

(, )

About the Author

Dale C. Allison Jr. is Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and is the author of The Intertextual Jesus and, with the late W.D. Davies, the ICC volumes on Matthew.

Product Details

• Paperback: 416 pages
• Publisher: T&T Clark Int'l (August 18, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0567029107
• ISBN-13: 978-0567029102
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,079,721 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

39 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Apocalyptic fire, modern needs, resurrection, November 13, 2005

By 

Loren Rosson III (New Hampshire, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement) (Hardcover)

Every so often comes a book that everyone needs to read, and this is one of them. Dale Allison's sequel to "Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet" is as good its predecessor, and in some ways even better. It consists of six independent essays, each of which builds on and clarifies arguments made in the previous book.

The first essay, "Secularizing Jesus", argues that the "third quest" for the historical Jesus is a misnomer, owing to chronological snobbery and the fantasy that we are progressive. Allison scores valid points here: many of today's Jesus-questors are indeed repeating the past, whether for good or bad -- and some of them are secularizing Jesus worse than ever before. But there has been more progress in the field than Allison allows. We have a better understanding of ancient Judaism and Mediterranean culture, and have become increasingly diverse in our methodologies. It's a good essay but rather one-sided.

The other five essays, however, are completely excellent and can hardly be done justice in an amazon review. "The Problem of Audience" argues what may seem to be an obvious point, but one which has been given insufficient heed: that Jesus said different things to different people, and didn't expect the same thing from everyone. (In an interesting anecdote from the preface, Allison says he wrote this particular essay because he had nothing better to do, during two long train rides.)

The third essay, "The Problem of Gehenna", shows that Jesus more than likely believed in hell and judgment, however unattractive that is. We moderns may see little prospect in reconciling a God of compassion with the same deity who throws people into an apocalyptic incinerator, but that's no way to guide our interpretation of Jesus: "All of us are bundles of seeming contradictions," writes Allison, "from which generalization I see no reason to exempt Jesus. It would be unimaginative and foolhardy to subdue him with the straightjacket of consistency." Consigning people to hell was standard fare in Jesus' world, and he shows every sign of having done this, especially to his opponents.

Speaking of what's unattractive provides a segue into the quasi-confessional fourth essay, "Apocalyptic, Polemic, Apologetics", which addresses what people like and dislike about an apocalyptic Jesus who was wrong about the end. It ends by being surprisingly stronger for its own excursions into theology, and is my favorite after the sixth.

The fifth essay, "Torah, Urzeit, Endzeit", tackles the controversial question of Jesus and the law. Allison realizes that however we sift the gospel testimony, it's hard to avoid a Jesus who both observed/intensified the law, while in other cases relaxing it. When doing the latter, Allison believes it was often in the interest of competing moral imperatives. For instance, in sabbath controversies Jesus appealed to the hunger of David and his men, or the value of human need, arguing that one imperative can trump another. The commandment was overridden but remained intact. Today we call this choosing the lesser of two evils. Other Torah-controversies owed to Jesus' eschatology -- "the end in light of the beginning" -- insofar as the law contained concessions to the fall and thus required repair. Thus, in cases like divorce and swearing, Jesus replaced Mosaic imperatives with Edenic ones, Moses not being strict enough in view of the apocalypse.

The last essay, for which the monograph is named, takes up half the book, is satisfying as it is long, and the best treatment of the resurrection to date. Allison steers between the dogmatic poles of Tom Wright and Gerd Ludemann, using the best from both worlds, but with a caution and humility lacking in these treatments. Weighing arguments for the empty tomb as legend and history, Allison comes down on the side of history: Jesus' tomb was found empty, and because of this we today have the doctrine of the resurrection. He also discusses the apparitions of Jesus in terms of grief-induced visions, concluding that in some ways the early church was the reception history of what the disciples' bereavement wrought.

One of his arguments for the empty tomb deserves close attention, since at first blush it resembles that of Tom Wright though is actually worlds apart. Wright has claimed that only the empty tomb could have caused the disciples to make the radical claim Jesus was raised from the dead, for there was no Judaic precedent for the resurrection of an individual (messiah or otherwise) before the apocalypse. This is emphatically not Allison's argument. Allison recognizes that lack of precedent is no obstacle to invention and creativity. The disciples could easily have invented an empty tomb/resurrection legend. Religious people make wild claims all the time; apocalyptic movements find creative ways of coping with dashed hopes in order to survive; rude reality reinterprets expectations. Jesus' original prediction about the destruction of the temple was spiritualized in the gospel of John (Jn 2) for precisely these reasons -- in order to cope with failed hopes and broken dreams.

But here's the problem, says Allison, and why Wright is onto something despite all this: the disciples' dreams hadn't been broken. In their minds, Jesus' death wasn't a mark of failure. The crucifixion would have demoralized them but ultimately been taken as part of the apocalyptic drama. Jesus had braced them for such tragedy: they were living in the end times, on the brink of the tribulation, and suffering/death had to precede the apocalypse. The shame and scandal of the crucifixion would have put them, as Allison says, "emotionally down but not theologically out". They would have gone on hoping for the imminent apocalypse and the resurrection of the dead, at which point they would have been vindicated and resurrected with their savior. Jesus' martyrdom does *not* constitute a failed expectation, and *that* is why Wright, despite himself, is right. It's not that revisionism is itself unlikely (for indeed it is); it's that there was no need for revisionism in this case. As far as the disciples were concerned, things were still going "as expected".

The upshot is that both Allison and Wright think it took the empty tomb (in conjunction with visions) to cause the disciples to conclude that Jesus was resurrected prematurely. But they arrive at this conclusion very differently -- Allison correctly. Allison also happens to be more humble about what we can say actually happened to Jesus' body: any number of things. It may have been raised. It may have been moved or stolen. Whatever happened, the tomb was empty when found, and because of this, we today have Christianity.

Don't wait to buy this book, but be sure to get the paperback edition. The hardcover goes for an extortionate $100.00 and has no cover art to boot. "Resurrecting Jesus" belongs on the shelf of any and all who are interested in the study of the historical Jesus, and the relationship between that study and modern needs.

25 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Truly risen?, January 12, 2007

By 

J. D. Walters "Heyzeus7" (Burlington, NJ) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement) (Hardcover)

The problem with much apologetics, both for and against Christianity, is that it breeds false confidence. Very often such books are selective in their presentation of the facts and question-begging as to the premises of their argument. Nowhere is this more apparent than in debates over whether Jesus rose from the dead, as Christians claim, based as they are on the rather sparse historical record of the New Testament, placed in its appropriate context by social-scientific and historical study. There is no end to books and articles being written defending one side or the other. Given that both sides seem to have able and intelligent proponents, what are we to make of this huge mass of literature, going back to the 2nd Century A.D.? Does the overall balance of argument tip toward traditional Christian belief, or is the skeptical explanation in terms of delusion and wishful thinking more plausible?

Amid such controversy and confusion Dale Allison's "Resurrecting Jesus" is a breath of fresh air (NB: I am only reviewing pp.198-352, which deal with the question of the resurrection), a massive, erudite and responsible assessment of the various explanations put forward over the centuries for the remarkable emergence of Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection by God in the early 1st Century. It is quite remarkable, as Allison argues, however, that despite the great volume of literature devoted to the subject, there are only a few basic types of explanation: 1) Orthodox belief, 2) Misinterpretation, 3) Hallucinations, 4) Deliberate deception, 5) Genuine visions, 6) Belief in God's vindication and 7) Rapid disintegration of the body plus visions (pp.201-213). This is followed by a remarkably candid, passionate yet measured exposition of Allison's own reasons for wanting to believe in a literal resurrection (pp.213-219) as well as reasons for doubting the cogency and coherence of such a belief, due to the difficulties and even absurdities which can arise when even trying to think clearly about what such an event might involve (pp.219-228).

The rest of the long chapter consists of an analysis of the primary literature of the New Testament on the Resurrection accounts and the confessions of faith which either predated them or they gave rise to, followed by a lengthy consideration of the most popular skeptical debunking explanations and assessment of the arguments for and against the empty tomb. All of this makes for dizzying reading, with footnotes that often take up most of any given page. We are treated to exhaustive, meticulous exegesis of every single word, every historical clue which can be gleaned from the New Testament. Allison ultimately concludes that we can be fairly sure that several people did ostensibly see Jesus after his death (p.269), and that (even though he concedes that it is a very tentative judgement) Jesus tomb was probably found empty (p. 332).

As Allison demonstrates, however, in what is surely a tour de force of analytic scholarship, it is harder than most apologists would admit to dismiss skeptical explanations in terms of hallucinations and/or wishful thinking. His own exhaustive overview of the relevant literature on paranormal claims, apparitions, hallucinations due to bereavement, etc. shows that "the truth of the matter, welcome or not, is that the literature on visions of the dead is full of parallels to the stories we find in the Gospels" (p.270; cf pp.269-299). But this does not mean that skeptics have victory handed to them on a silver platter. For all the parallels there are also important differences. As Allison rightly observes, "Typical encounters with the recently deceased do not issue in claims about an empty tomb, nor do they lead to the founding of a new religion" (p.283, but see p.284 for a caution against trying to make too much of these facts). Furthermore, even parallels with other 'visions' should not be taken to imply that we should dismiss all such experiences as non-veridical. Complex epistemological questions arise when trying to distinguish between an experience of something 'real' and something that is merely a construct thrown up by the brain (see, for example, Andrew Newberg, "Why We Believe What We Believe").

After this whirlwind tour of assertions and counter-assertions Allison attempts a general survey and assessment. His balanced conclusion is that "for better or for worse, history does not give some of us what we want or think we need" (p.337) and that "It is our worldview that interprets the textual data, not the textual data that determines our worldview. One who disbelieves in all so-called miracles can, with good conscience, remain disbelieving in the literal resurrection of Jesus after an examination of the evidence, just as a traditional Christian can, without intellectual guilt, retain belief after surveying the relevant particulars" (p.342). This is not, as Chris Halquist claims, an argument from ignorance, that 'since skeptics cannot decisively disprove the resurrection, that we are justified in believing it'. Allison's position is more sublte and in fact more supportive of Christian faith than an initial reading might suggest. He advocates, as I think is right, other ways to know that Jesus was resurrected, in terms of the "spiritual senses" and discernment. Skeptics will reject such a move, but it must be based upon their own faith position, not arguments which show that such discernment is imposssible.

When all the dust has settled, Allison's chapter (which could easily be a book by itself) is probably the best and most comprehensive assessment of arguments for and against the Resurrection that currently exists. No prominent (or even less prominent) defender or detractor of the foundational event of Christianity escapes Allison's critical eye. He engages with N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig as well as Richard Carrier and Jeffrey Lowder, as well as most of the scholars in between. However, it should not be forgotten that, as Allison would be the first to admit, he is only human and these pages, immense critical care and self-honesty notwithstanding, represent the fallible judgment and opinion of one particular person. Skeptics might argue that his reasons for tipping the balance to one side rather than the other stems from his own personal desire to believe in the Resurrection, against the hopelessness of the alternative. Believers might argue that he gives more credence to skeptical arguments than is warranted by the evidence. Whatever the case, whether one agrees with Allison's ultimate assessment or not, "Resurrecting Jesus" is a model of careful scholarship, humility and open-mindedness, a clarion-call for scholars on both sides to avoid facile academic victories and commit to the pursuit of truth, however uncomfortable it may be, which is something which both believers and skeptics should have in common.

27 of 28 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A fine piece of scholarship, May 22, 2006

By 

Christopher Hallquist - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement) (Paperback)

Resurrecting Jesus, by Dale Allison, could almost be viewed as two books: one on miscellaneous issues in New Testament scholarship, and another on the resurrection of Jesus. Each is roughly 200 pages long. I checked out the book for the second one, but the first provides some good reading material as well.

Allison's previous books include Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet and The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, with Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Stephen Patterson. As one might guess from the titles of these books, Allison is the proponent of the view that Jesus believed the world would end within his lifetime or within the lifetime of his followers (he's the only proponent of this view in the debate book, making the thing sound somewhat lopsided). However, he still identifies as a Christian, and says he finds the idea that God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead attractive, since Jesus' message was one of vindication, and a death without vindication would have "invalidated his eschatological optimism" (p.214).

Chapter one provides a good (though not introductory) survey of New Testament scholarship, while chapter two looks at the issue of Jesus saying different things to different people. Allison's status as a good scholar who isn't always comfortable with the results of his research comes across most clearly in chapters three and four, "The Problem of Gehenna" and "Apocalyptic, Polemic, and Apologetics." The first argues that Jesus likely held a view of Hell that Allison does not share, though it does soften the blow a little by showing how Jesus's view of Hell was given to him by his culture, contrary to what Dan Barker has said (that Jesus introduced nothing new "except hell"). The following chapter provides more on his struggles: "a Jesus without eschatological error would certainly make my life easier. I might, for instance, be able to tell some of my relatives, without them shuddering aghast, what I really do for a living." He also quotes Crossan's response to his position on the resurrection: "Having said that Jesus and all other millenarian prophets were wrong (so far), you could hardly claim that God raised Jesus from the dead to prove he alone was transcendentally wrong." Chapter five argues Jesus had a mixed approach to Jewish law, sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. Allison gives this a backdrop of Jewish interpretation of the time, though it may be more a matter of human nature: plenty of pastors today behave in a similar manner.

The first thing I noticed about chapter six--perhaps because I began reading with the index--was that Allison is perfectly happy to interact with the partisans on both sides: he refers to the work of both evangelical apologists such Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig and secular critics such as Richard Carrier and Jeffery Jay Lowder. His approach is to attempt to steer a middle course. The high point of the section, I think, was on the skeptical side: he brings together massive amounts of data on apparitions, hallucinations, and visions, arguing that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus are not terribly unique. He also analyzes seven pro and seven con arguments for the claim that Jesus' tomb really was found empty after his death. He concludes each side has two good arguments, but the pro arguments are somewhat stronger. I think he has perhaps misweighed the arguments, but his attempt to weigh them honestly is a refreshing contrast to William Lane Craig, who has never heard an argument for the empty tomb that he doesn't like.

Ultimately, he concludes on one hand that apologists are wrong to think the resurrection can be proven on evidence (from his lengthy discussion of hallucination and realization that there are other ways to get a body out of a tomb), but on the other hand that skeptics cannot disprove it. He toys with the idea that Jesus came back as a ghost or something like one, a perfectly logical move if one shares Allison's belief (which I do not) that the dead sometimes communicate with the living. I don't think this is quite what he was hoping for, though, when he spoke of God's vindication of Jesus. He had his mind set on a more orthodox miracle, on the idea that Jesus was different that all the other people who have been allegedly seen after there deaths. Though this book has won my respect for Allison, I will be blunt in assessing his argument that the orthodox view cannot be disproved. When he argues it, he is essentially saying, "It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but because we have not captured and dissected it, we may believe by faith that it is not a duck."

In spite of this one flaw, Resurrecting Jesus is an excellent book. It is hardly an introductory text, but I would not hesitate to recommend it to someone familiar with the basics of New Testament scholarship.