The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History by Dale C. Allison Jr.

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History by Dale C. Allison Jr. Glenn B. Siniscalchi dale c. allison jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (New York: T&T Clark, 2021). Pp. xi + 403. Paper $47.95. Dale Allison's published works on the historical Jesus have always been rigorous, thought-provoking, and accessible. In his latest installment, A. clarifies, expands, and strengthens most of his earlier thoughts on the historical approach to the resurrection of Jesus in much greater detail. NT critics and other inquirers who are dedicated to understanding the academic study of Christian origins and the rise of resurrection faith must engage the intricacies of A.'s latest book in order to push forward any meaningful developments in this controversial area of NT studies. The book covers a dizzying array of arguments and reflections related to the standard discussion points that are dedicated to the credibility of Jesus's resurrection (i.e., the burial of the crucified Jesus, the discovery of his empty grave, the series of after-death communications, and the disciples' willingness to die for their newfound faith). A.'s expansive pedagogy is on full display throughout the book, showing a variety of creative and defensible ways to think about the origins of the Jesus movement. For instance, he accepts most aspects of the traditional evidence but also includes the historicity of Jesus's prophetic predictions of his own resurrection from the dead. There is also great emphasis placed on the apocalyptic expectations that characterized Jesus's ministry and how they affected the original meanings that were assigned to the after-death experiences. "Resurrection," then, was the best category that was used by the first percipients to explain and describe the metanormal experiences of the Easter Jesus. These provocative contentions and conclusions notwithstanding, a major theme in A.'s book is that historical investigations into earliest Christianity cannot be of service to the ambitions of Christian apologists and their primary interlocutors, the secular skeptics. In A.'s consistently held view, both camps unjustifiably stretch the shape of historical reason in support of their predetermined convictions. Instead, historical methods and conclusions are very limited in what they can accomplish. According to A., the first strata of evidence for the resurrection may include, for instance, the sequence of postmortem appearances to the disciples and other unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–8), but one can easily invoke certain controversial studies in religious studies, historiography, the philosophy of religion, biblical studies, and parapsychology, in order to understand or even modify common understandings of what the first percipients saw and experienced. In effect, believing in the bodily resurrection does not necessarily entail the supernatural reanimation of Jesus's cadaver (the latter view has been endorsed by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and N. T. Wright, among a host of other well-known supporters). I can decipher at least two important reasons why A. is hesitant to accept the common verdicts that are upheld by Christian apologists. The first reason is presented toward the beginning of the book and is candidly discussed in lucid detail: his background beliefs are multifaceted, fluid, and even inconsistent in a critical approach to the biblical texts. Worldviews are indeed difficult to pinpoint within a person's mind and psychological outlooks, but we should agree with A. in acknowledging that people frequently observe and interpret texts and other artifacts from the past in radically different ways. Worldviews simply cannot be reduced to belief in an omnipotent, personal God who will probably act in human history within a religiously charged context. We hold to many unrecognized beliefs about psychology [End Page 349] and philosophy that often shade our interpretations and intuitions related to historical investigations. The second reason is due to the information overload, hyper-pluralism, and fragmented nature of contemporary biblical studies as it relates to the historical quests for Jesus. A. is thoroughly immersed in this world, and he emphasizes the difficulty of arriving at certain conclusions in the attempt to decide whether the evidence points decidedly in favor of Jesus's physical resurrection. Because I found myself agreeing with most of A.'s newest book, I can no...