What does one of the world's top experts on historical Jesus have to say about Jesus' resurrection? Here's why his thoughts are not only provocative but worth knowing about.
As much as I respect Allison for his accomplishments and willingness to hold his ground when Christians and academics look to him for clearer answers, I often worry that he's making an argument to moderation because it allows him to somewhat exist in two worlds simultaneously, even if he's partially rejected by both. Having read quite a bit of Allison's work, I am frustrated by what feels like a miscounting of the totality of evidence on both sides. On one side, we have (1) our understanding of the absolute determinism of the everything existing, precluding the possibility of bodily resurrection of the dead, (2) an analysis of the gospels and NT epistles as literature, including how their authors make use of genre, tropes, motifs, etc. to paint a picture of a deified martyr. On the other hand, we have ... tradition? I get that the methods of historical analysis have no way of confirming or denying reported miracles in the past. But that does not mean that no method is capable of assessing the probability of a particular miracle.
The question for me is how viable Allison’s take would be for the apostles themselves. They don’t seem to countenance the middle position in their NT writings. I mean they certainly affirm his idea that one needs something beyond the data to produce belief (Lk 24:45), but what they don’t affirm is the idea of insisting upon retaining the right to skepticism, to remain “provisionally” Christian, so to speak.
Allison claims we have only 5 sources for the resurrection (the gospels and Paul), but we have more than that. We have the empirical facts of the rise of Christianity in Roman occupied Palestine out of these events. We know many of the disciples and witnesses willingly went to their deaths for what they witnessed and believed to be true. People don't willingly die for something that they know to be a lie!
Allison fails to provide some alternate scenario for what happened to the body. Certainly, we cannot prove the resurrection by historical means, however Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation to fit the set of historical facts which Allison himself attests to. Other explanations, (such as his disciples stole the body), have all been rejected by most scholars today based upon the historical information we possess.
Of course, the other way we can be certain of the resurrection is to know it in our hearts based upon a personal relationship and experience with Christ. Apparently, Dr. Allison's faith as a "liberal sort of Christian" doesn't afford him that kind of knowledge available to all.
A really wonderful post, Andrej! I am a massive fan of Allison's judicious approach to the resurrection. You summarise it really well here.
Thanks for your kind comment, John & I'm glad that you liked the post!
As much as I respect Allison for his accomplishments and willingness to hold his ground when Christians and academics look to him for clearer answers, I often worry that he's making an argument to moderation because it allows him to somewhat exist in two worlds simultaneously, even if he's partially rejected by both. Having read quite a bit of Allison's work, I am frustrated by what feels like a miscounting of the totality of evidence on both sides. On one side, we have (1) our understanding of the absolute determinism of the everything existing, precluding the possibility of bodily resurrection of the dead, (2) an analysis of the gospels and NT epistles as literature, including how their authors make use of genre, tropes, motifs, etc. to paint a picture of a deified martyr. On the other hand, we have ... tradition? I get that the methods of historical analysis have no way of confirming or denying reported miracles in the past. But that does not mean that no method is capable of assessing the probability of a particular miracle.
The question for me is how viable Allison’s take would be for the apostles themselves. They don’t seem to countenance the middle position in their NT writings. I mean they certainly affirm his idea that one needs something beyond the data to produce belief (Lk 24:45), but what they don’t affirm is the idea of insisting upon retaining the right to skepticism, to remain “provisionally” Christian, so to speak.
Allison claims we have only 5 sources for the resurrection (the gospels and Paul), but we have more than that. We have the empirical facts of the rise of Christianity in Roman occupied Palestine out of these events. We know many of the disciples and witnesses willingly went to their deaths for what they witnessed and believed to be true. People don't willingly die for something that they know to be a lie!
Allison fails to provide some alternate scenario for what happened to the body. Certainly, we cannot prove the resurrection by historical means, however Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation to fit the set of historical facts which Allison himself attests to. Other explanations, (such as his disciples stole the body), have all been rejected by most scholars today based upon the historical information we possess.
Of course, the other way we can be certain of the resurrection is to know it in our hearts based upon a personal relationship and experience with Christ. Apparently, Dr. Allison's faith as a "liberal sort of Christian" doesn't afford him that kind of knowledge available to all.