Originally published in
Philosophia Christi v10.n2 (2008): pp.
303 - 313.
Published by the
This is an electronic copy of the entire
303 | Alternative
306 | Apparitions of the Dead
| The Uniqueness of Jesus's Resurrection Appearances
312 | Conclusion
Part 6 of Dale Allison's volume, Resurrecting Jesus: The
Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters,1 is a rare,
balanced mixture of mature
skepticism with a healthy respect for the relevant historical
and theological data. Perhaps not since Peter Carnley's The
Structure of Resurrection Belief
has there been another work on the resurrection that weaves
together these contrasting elements.2 Yet, not only do these two
texts present very different
perspectives, but Allison's exhibits a far greater command of
the germane historical issues, both skeptical alternative
responses as well as what can be
concluded from the relevant New Testament texts. Along the way,
he weaves an intriguing as well as challenging discussion of the
phenomenon of apparitions
of the dead.3
In this paper, I wish to respond specifically to Allison's
suggested alternative scenarios to the traditional approach to Jesus's resurrection. Are there
viable options for explaining the supernatural elements claimed
by the New Testament accounts?
Throughout his lengthy chapter, Allison discusses the relevant
issues, interspersed with portions where he suggests that other
explanations are at
ABSTRACT: The chief purpose of this essay is to address the
scenarios that Dale Allison
suggests regarding the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. Do
other options explain viably
the New Testament accounts? Special attention is paid to
Allison's treatment of apparitions of
the dead, as well as listing several unique qualities of Jesus's
appearances. Throughout, attention
is drawn to Allison's own conclusions that support the disciples
really having seen Jesus
again after his death.
1. Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian
Tradition and its Interpreters
(New York: T & T Clark, 2005). Subsequent parenthetical
references are to this text.
2. Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford:
3. I might also add a personal angle here. In preparing this
response, a few lengthy discussions
with Dale uncovered some common interests in our research
regarding both apparitions of
the dead as well as near death experiences. A budding friendship
also began to grow, for which
I am grateful.
least possible.4 These suggestions perhaps could be said to fall into three categories.
(1) Allison mentions briefly the traditional hypotheses like apparent
death, deliberate deception by either the disciples or others, hallucinations, as
well as veridical apparitions.
(2) Allison also intriguingly poses seldom-suggested alternatives that are
nonetheless found in the relevant literature. These include the possibilities
of a sorcerer/necromancer stealing Jesus's dead body, the power of the pre-
Easter faith of Jesus's disciples, mass hysteria, Marian apparitions, Paul's
epilepsy, or his succumbing to his intense remorse for persecuting Christians,
and apparitions of the dead.
(3) But not to be overlooked is another category, which Allison himself
quite reservedly terms the "truly idiosyncratic hypotheses that have failed
to garner respect or support" (212). These might instead have been termed
the rather shocking, sometimes mind-numbing category-busters, such as my
three personal favorites: the rapid though quite natural disintegration of Jesus's
dead body; an aftershock from the crucifixion earthquake that ingested
Jesus's dead body into a crack in the rock, which then returned to its normal
position as if nothing had happened; and the Christian's time-honored nemesis
of aliens taking Jesus's corpse and inserting a new brain along with a
It is definitely a credit to Allison that these skeptical alternatives are put
forth with such fairness and understanding that, even if he does not in the end
find much merit in them, it is often difficult to tell that, at least initially. In
fact, because of Allison's evenhandedness, it is easy to conclude that he actually
thinks that one or more of these theses could be probable. To be sure, he
does think that some approaches are better than others.
But it is also easy to miss Allison's usually brief but oft-repeated criticisms
of these natural suppositions. He issues many well-placed warnings,
caveats, and select criticisms aimed at almost every alternate hypothesis, as
well as other critical interaction. Actually, his list of brief critiques is quite
lengthy.6 For example, after stating a number of potential natural explanations,
including that a necromancer may have taken Jesus's dead body, Allison
concludes that, "We have no reason to endorse any of these speculations,
for which there is not a shred of evidence. They must all be deemed unlikely.
Yet they are not impossible" (334).
4. E.g., 20114, 266 9, 2967; 31819, 334, 33942.
5. These are found, in order, on 212, 204, 339340. I wish to be clear that Allison also rejects
these theses, as I have said, so my tongue-in-cheek comments are not aimed at him or his
6. For some examples, see 201n6 and n9; 2034; 2078; 211n50 and n53; 212; 213n60; 218;
219n81; 234; 237; 2424; 266 n280; 2678; 270n293; 2834; 285; 288; 301; 302; 303; 3045;
308; 317; 324n497; 32832; 334; 336; 340; 3523; 3578; 3623.
In keeping with this last thought, Allison thinks that the resurrection
cannot be proved because alternatives can always be suggested (334, 340,
see also 347n583). Often these are favored due to one's presuppositions and
worldviews (298; 304; 340343, 347). But Allison realizes that such skepticism
"runs both ways," since we can disprove Jesus's resurrection "only if
one's mind is so saturated by a materialistic naturalism that it cannot allow
either divine intervention or paranormal phenomena" (298).
Still, Allison pokes a little fun at those who defend the resurrection overly
much, though he is more than able to defend his own evidential case. Tom
Wright and I seem clearly to be the two researchers whom Allison targets
most frequently as "apologists," even as the "gung-ho" variety.7 Yet, there
are also a number of passages where Allison himself waxes eloquent, and
minus some caveats, acquits himself very well as a skeptical apologist for the
positions that he espouses.8 So to some extent, it appears that what counts as
an overly-exuberant defense varies according to the eye of the beholder! My
point should be noted carefully: the more crucial matter here is not whether
someone is an apologist, but whether their conclusions are supported by the
Before continuing, it should be noted that there appears to be some occasional
confusion or ambiguity in Allison's treatment of alternate hypotheses.
For example, it is rather perplexing when clear distinctions are not made
between hallucinations, illusions, and delusions. On more than one occasion,
Allison moves between these phenomena as if they confirm each other. But
subjective hallucinations should not be evidenced by referring to hypnotic
states, and certainly not by general comparisons to Elvis sightings (296
297). Likewise, it is unhelpful to lump side-by-side mass hysteria, imagination,
Bigfoot sightings, and Marian apparitions (205206). In cases where a
real person or object is taken to be a different person or object, these experiences
ought to be characterized as illusions or simply as misidentifications,
but not as hallucinations.9
Similarly, Allison twice scolds me because my critique of the hallucination
theory does not apply to apparitions of the dead (271n296; 279n319).
But why should it apply at all? The sorts of apparition cases that he outlines
in the immediate context (especially pages 278282) are far different from
hallucinations! We agree on this (see below). But as I just said in the previous
paragraph, these sorts of phenomena need to be distinguished more carefully.
7. As one of several examples, this comment appears on 339, immediately after discussing
my first resurrection debate with Antony Flew, whereas he seems to think that Wright's
moves" fail to produce "the evidence that demands the verdict" (347)! This is followed
(3489) by an outline of Wright's "apologetical proof" which "claims too much."
8. See 23944 ; 32634, 35263 and especially one of the key sections of the book, 269
9. I also address this confusion in recent critical studies. See
Habermas, "The Late Twentieth- Century Resurgence of
Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection," Trinity Journal
22 (2001): 1945.
Responses to hallucinations clearly will not work with veridical apparitions,
but neither were they supposed to.10
Allison's chief point on the historicity of Jesus's resurrection, in a nutshell,
seems to be that there are some good historical reasons for believing
that Jesus's burial tomb was later found empty and that Jesus's resurrection
appearances occurred, but that the possibility of alternative explanations
keeps the issue in some amount of tension (334, 340). After all, Allison
clearly concludes, "I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death"
(346). If this is correct, then the required response is not so much for me to
refute his views, but rather to clarify my position and then dialogue over our
major points of difference. I have also said many times that the historical
evidence for the resurrection is probabilistic and corrigible; it is not apodictically
certain, or some such thing.
Therefore, it appears that differences between our positions pertain in
large part to the degrees of our persuasion. For example, I think that the alternative
approaches to both the empty tomb as well as Jesus's appearances
are much less likely than Allison apparently thinks. But we agree that none
of these hypotheses viably explain all the empty tomb or appearance data.
And we agree, most crucially, that, after his death, the disciples saw Jesus in
Apparitions of the Dead
Due to Allison's lengthy treatment of apparitions of the dead, I would
like to add a few additional comments about this research. As a longtime
observer of this same data, along with the related subject of Near Death Experiences
(266), for over thirty years,11 I will state initially that I agree with
him on the veridicality of at least a number of both apparitions as well as
NDEs. Further, I also agree that these subjects are highly relevant to studies
of Jesus's resurrection.
This conclusion of veridicality is built on certain cases that evince exceptionally
strong data. Many of the relevant studies, especially of NDEs,
were done in recent years, by highly qualified researchers from relevant disciplines,
and many have been published in peer-reviewed and other well-acclaimed
sources. Moreover, Allison is certainly correct to concentrate on the
evidential reports, rather than on the mere numbers of stories or any generally
common tendencies shared by the claimed experiencers. I would also
suggest that the two sorts of data augment each other.
10. Somewhat similarly, Allison could emphasize more strongly that some popular alternative
ideas are anything but naturalistic, with the adherents holding to actual resurrection appearances,
with the chief difference being the form in which Jesus appeared (such as 2089, 212).
11. E.g., Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for
Immortality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), chapters 79.
Having said this, we must be very careful about how far we use the apparition
data in comparison to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. To be
sure, many apparition cases do meet important evidential standards (294
But there is also a large body of material that does not qualify as the
sorts of reports that I would like to use. A volume could be written on this
evaluation alone. For example, the anecdotal nature of even most of the apparition
reports, the possibility of faulty recall, the often lengthy time between
the event and its recording, the popular character of many accounts,
the sometimes sensationalistic, credulous, or almost tabloid appearance of
other cases, the nonspecialized background of many of the authors or researchers,
the lack of evidence beyond simply reporting a story, and that a
large body of the material dates from approximately one hundred or more
years ago, as well as a number of potential medical and psychological issues,
and so on, are all serious concerns.12 Allison mentions briefly a few similar
In my own study of apparition cases, in spite of my very positive mindset,
I hardly ever saw a case for which there were not several potential alternative
theses. In fact, when even the best cases are studied, something
regularly seems to be lacking. Further, in order to compare these cases to
the resurrection narratives, one needs to weave a patchwork quilt by "mixing
and matching" a combination of these otherwise diverse and sometimes
One advantage of the earliest Christian accounts is that the leaders, particularly
those who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, repeatedly placed
themselves in harm's way, were apparently willing to die for the proclamation
of the resurrection, and early data report the martyrdoms of at least Peter,
James the brother of Jesus, and Paul.13 Few scholars doubt this. This aspect
alone provides some crucial checks and balances, helping us to rule out
some of the more obvious sorts of fabrication or even the nonmanufactured
development of fantastic tales that might otherwise nullify the resurrection
claims, as Allison notes (201, 207208). But it is more difficult to argue the
provenance of some key apparition of the dead accounts at this point, to
guard against these concerns.
Thus, when studying the resurrection appearances, one may respond
that, "The apparition of the dead data are similar." A chief strength of these
12. Of course, critics may say many of the same things about the resurrection accounts,
although the latter have some evidential advantages, too. But as Allison notes as well, the case
for the resurrection still seems to survive such criticisms, and I agree. After all, these and many
other worse charges have been aimed at the resurrection accounts and it is fair to say that most
scholars think that these charges fail, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, it is not that these concerns
invalidate the apparition cases, either. They stand on their own. My only point is that we
have to be very careful with the data itself, as well as with comparisons.
13. I have provided details in The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2003), 24, plus the endnotes.
data is certainly the large numbers of evidenced cases from which to draw.
But due to the issues like those I have mentioned above, it is difficult to be
sure of many crucial examples. This might be part of the reason why Allison
seems to concur that these comparisons to the resurrection appearances
ought not be pressed too far (284).
The Uniqueness of Jesus's Resurrection Appearances
So I am by no means charging that Allison thinks Jesus's appearances
can be completely explained as "typical" apparitions. He is clear that he
does not think so (283285). I just made the preliminary point that straightforward
comparisons might be more difficult than they appear, but there is
still another avenue to pursue. Perhaps there are also major elements of the
resurrection appearance traditions that not only resist easy comparison to the
apparitions, but appear to be rather unique. Here I will list several possibilities,
each of which can be mentioned only very briefly.14 I want to be very
clear that I am not arguing why these details ought to be accepted, only that
there are significant differences that emerge in a comparison of both sorts of
reports. Thus I am emphasizing the distinctiveness of these details, not their
(1) Although it is difficult to tell for sure, Allison seems to take seriously
the Gospel accounts (such as Mark 8:31; 9:910, 31; 10:3334; 14:28) of
Jesus predicting his death and resurrection (230232, 244245). In recent
decades, scholars have regularly taken a positive view of Jesus being aware
of his impending death, and many are also at least open to the resurrection
predictions. This is probably due to several factors such as the embarrassment
on the part of the disciples and especially Peter, who disbelieved and
even resisted Jesus's comments, the multiple attestation as found in Mark,
M, John, and possibly Q, the absence of clear Old Testament parallels, that
most of these statements are imbedded in Son of Man texts, and that these
comments played no serious or extended function in a New Testament apologetic.
If established, these predictions would most likely indicate that Jesus
was aware of both his death and resurrection, as well as something of the
role they played. This foresight would differentiate them from the apparition
cases, since not only would Jesus have appeared to his followers, but
he would have known of it ahead of time, which most likely indicates a plan
known in advance.
(2) For the sizeable majority of contemporary critical scholars who recognize
the historicity of the empty tomb, this is a major consideration that
14. While Allison warns against overemphasizing these differences (284), he still recognizes
that several are worth mentioning (2835).
sets off Jesus's resurrection appearances from the apparitions. Allison allows
the "tentative" conclusion that the empty tomb is a probable event that is "historically likely" (331334, 344, 346347). While this of course does not
necessitate a supernatural occurrence, the alternatives appear to be "speculations,
for which there is not a shred of evidence" (334). For a variety of reasons,
I think that the case is far stronger than Allison allows, but this cannot
be resolved here. Suffice it to say that the extent to which the empty tomb
is acknowledged indicates that what happened to Jesus's body constitutes
something quite distinct from that of the apparitional cases. Therefore, the
majority of scholars who grant more weight to the probability of the empty
tomb will presumably find less overall similarity in the apparition cases.
(3) In interacting with one of Tom Wright's arguments, Allison acknowledges
that there were probably qualities in the disciple's resurrection belief
that cannot be explained by any sort of disembodied sightings alone (321
326). Such apparitions were well-known in the ancient world, but were not
expressed as resurrections, and generally convinced no one in this direction.
To the contrary, although these apparitions may have comforted the mourners,
we must not lose sight of the fact that these persons were definitely
known to have remained dead!
Allison considers this to be one of the strongest arguments for the empty
tomb, but perhaps even more is transpiring here. As Theodor Keim pointed
out over a century ago in his diatribe against David Strauss's subjective vision
theory, the New Testament writers consistently distinguished between
the resurrection appearances of Jesus and later visions.15 Something set these
appearances apart, and it seems to be more than the empty tomb alone,16 or
else the later visions also might have qualified as resurrection appearances.17
Allison makes a similar observation, wondering about the nature of these
differences in the New Testament accounts (260261). But whatever the best
answer, the resurrection appearances seem to have been of a different quality,
distinguishing them from other visionary phenomena.18 Perhaps most to the
point here, the difference between the apparitions of those who remain de-
15. Theodor Keim, The History of Jesus of Nazara, 6 vols. (London: William & Norgate,
16. Especially since Keim, interestingly for his theory, actually rejected the historicity of
the empty tomb.
17. The physical nature of Jesus's resurrection appearances is another chief reason for this
New Testament differentiation from visions, but ancient apparition reports include both the
visionary sorts as well as bodily examples (for an instance of the latter, see the account of Rabbi
Judah I in the Babylonian Talmud [Seder Nashim, Kethuboth, 3:12:103a]). So again we are left
with the question of differentiation. If the chief difference is the empty tomb, and apparitions of
the dead are reportedly both bodily and nonbodily, why are not the later New Testament visions
counted as resurrection appearances or emphasized in the same way?
18. E.g., after one of Paul's appearance accounts in Acts, we are told that he saw the Lord
speaking to him again (Acts 22:1718), but we never hear any special emphasis placed on this
ceased and the strong conviction that Jesus was raised from the dead bodily
needs to be emphasized.19
(4) According to the New Testament accounts, Jesus appeared many
times, to individuals as well as to groups of up to five hundred persons at
once, was touched, ate food, and had normal, sometimes rather lengthy,
conversations with his followers.20 As Allison points out, similar details are
sometimes observed in the apparitional literature. But for this response to
suffice, we must avoid initially all of the difficulties with the apparitional
accounts that I mentioned above. As a result, we must be astute in avoiding
a common mistake: allowing the apparition or other alternative accounts to
stand in a straightforward manner, while picking continuously at the resurrection
reports. This definitely does not nullify the apparitional testimony,
some of which is very strong. But at the very least, as we said, many of the
apparitional accounts must be patched together into a rather incredible train
in order to come close to a parallel case, indicating that the resurrection narratives
present quite a distinctive, perhaps even a unique combination. This
is the crux of this point.
(5) Allison thinks that there "is every reason" to think that Luke properly
reports Paul's resurrection appearance (236). We "can be fairly certain"
of the tradition behind Luke's three Acts accounts and that his ultimate
source is Paul himself. Accordingly, several details may be gleaned from
these reports, including the "supernatural light" that caused Paul to fall to
the ground, to which Allison sees a parallel in 2 Corinthians 4:6 (263264).
Acts describes this light as being even brighter than the sun (26:13), causing
Paul's friends to fall down, as well (26:14), and that, because of it, Paul was
blinded (9:89; 22:11).21
Details like these clearly separate Paul's appearance from the typical
apparitions, but they also do more than that. The incredibly bright, blinding
light is traditionally seen as an indication that Jesus had been glorified
19. A very intriguing question is, if there had been no resurrection appearances, would the
other New Testament visions of Jesus have been taken as apparitions of the dead, providing
comfort that Jesus was alive, but without indicating his resurrection? If so, now we may be able
to see some of the distinctions between these two.
20. Some of these details, especially those in the last half of this sentence, are questioned
in the critical literature. But again, as I have said, we are only comparing the various sorts of
reported phenomena here, not debating the data on their behalf. After discussion, if certain
scholars think that particular items here should be bracketed, that could of course affect their
reaction to the conclusions here. But I still maintain that there would be enough remaining that
most scholars would still allow various levels of differences between the appearances and the
21. Allison reports his personal experience that the apparition of a friend was
(275), and notes that the presence of light is found in some apparition accounts (285).
However, the case of Luke's exceptional luminosity, described as brighter than the sun, Paul's
resulting blindness, plus all the men falling to the ground, besides Paul's own perception of
Lordship (below), seem to render his appearance rather distinctive in our context.
in heaven. This is often given as one reason for Paul's emphasis on a
sōma pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15.
Paul's extraordinary experience must be explained. If the view is taken
that Paul most likely saw Jesus's glorified body, this could point in the direction
beyond the initial resurrection itself, to God's glorification that endorsed Jesus's teachings and ministry. Along these same lines, Paul perceived the
risen Jesus as the Lord (see 1 Cor. 9:1). At a minimum, for those like Allison
who accept the Lukan accounts as fairly reliable renditions of what occurred,
including that Paul thought that Jesus appeared bodily (317), this appears to
be a major differentiation from the apparitions of the dead.
Thus, whatever we think of the apparitions of the dead, the resurrection
appearances appear at the very least to extend into another category. I think
it is very crucial to note that while there is clearly some overlap between
Jesus's appearances and apparitions, so are there similarities with other afterlife
phenomena like the apotheosis stories of Enoch and Elijah, the Transfiguration
account, Paul's (NDE?) visit to the third heaven, or even modern
NDEs. In a sense, they are all members of a general class.
So it seems that Jesus's appearances do what the New Testament writers
attestthey break all the categories. They were indeed unique. The resurrection
predictions, the empty tomb, the New Testament differentiation of
Jesus's appearances from visions when apparitions only convince the recipients
that the individual is still dead, the number of Jesus's appearances, even
to groups of observers, including the specific messages and other details
that require a patchwork comparison of apparitions, along with the glorified
appearance to Paul, are each at least fairly well evidenced. Most critical
scholars recognize enough of these phenomena to build a distinctive case on
behalf of these appearances.22
22. For those like Allison's hypothetical questioner who postulates that the resurrection appearances
are "instances of a wider phenomenon" (347), I have suggested that there definitely
would be some important overlap, as with various other afterlife data. But it does not follow that
the resurrection appearances are simply apparitions. There are too many crucial differences. To
start with, apparitions produce the conviction that though the person may be doing well, they
are nonetheless dead. The empty tomb argues a substantial difference. The variety and form
of Jesus's appearances even to groups and the differentiation from visions are also significant.
Jesus's predictions and the glorified appearance to Paul indicate that Jesus's resurrection is part
of a larger plan, including affirmation by God (cf. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 21419). Of
course the critic could question the data itself, and that could well be pursued profitably, as I
have done often in other contexts. But as I have said from the outset, here we are discussing the
distinctiveness of the appearance reports, not their factual provenance. Further, in the overall
picture, this paper is addressed to Allison's treatment, and he seems to think that at least the
majority of these distinctives are well-attested.
As I said above, perhaps the chief difference between Allison and me is
the degree to which we think that the empty tomb and resurrection appearances
are best explained by the hypothesis of Jesus's bodily resurrection.
What specific weight do we give the particular details? After all, he gives
a slight nod to the empty tomb and clearly affirms Jesus's resurrection appearances.
I am far more convinced of the data for the empty tomb. Still, Allison
concludes: "I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death" (346 ;
see also 343) and thinks that at least the New Testament report (including
Paul's) is of bodily appearances (317, 324325). I agree. He also concludes
that the apparitions of the dead do not explain completely these appearances
(283284). Again, I also agree.
While we share in general many of the positive conclusions regarding
the empty tomb and appearances, I rate the evidence more positively than
does Allison. Perhaps due to this, my perspective is from the angle of the
affirmative case, even though, like Allison, I am well aware of the inability
to close the door completely against alternative suggestions. Allison, on the
other hand, repeatedly highlights his more skeptical concerns, due to the
fact that the alternative options "are not impossible" (334; also 340). Yet, as
he also states frequently, natural options are unlikely. But given the agreed
likelihood of the major highlights of the positive case, why continually emphasize
the alternative views if they are admittedly improbable?
Further, since Allison tends to think that one's worldview is the determining
factor in one's conclusions here (341344), he questions whether
factual debates result in conversion (339, 343). Actually, my experience has
been that few religious subjects are accompanied by the compelling degree
of evidence that is available for NDEs. While I consider conversion to be a
different matter from that of the data, I could list a number of well-published
scholars who have changed their worldviews, even from naturalism, precisely
because of this evidence for NDEs. I know other scholars who have
been converted to Christianity by studying the resurrection data.
At the very least, I would suggest a different angle here in closing. Allison
confesses his personal desire that Jesus's resurrection would provide
some sort of "postmortem endorsement" of Jesus's teachings, and especially
the afterlife (214219). I often approach the matter23 by beginning with the
evidence for NDEs (and I have cited apparitional cases here, as well), indicating
the likelihood of some notion of an afterlife (343, 225). This is even
more likely when God is already postulated (215). Then, as a more distinctive
example of the specific species of afterlife, the evidence for the resurrection
of Jesus can be introduced (see Allison's similar move on 299). I
23. For one example, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, esp. 6077.
have argued here that at least a few of these distinctive elements point in the
direction of God's endorsement of Jesus's ministry and teachings.24
I have found that using NDEs in this manner is a very helpful move,
particularly when addressing those who are reticent to recognize the supernatural,
even with naturalists. Indeed, in Allison's case, it seems that this sort
of data had precisely that affect on him, as well, indicating the probability of
the afterlife (225, 34344). It often succeeds in breaking barriers. At the very
least, it provides a different perspective on the issue of Jesus's resurrection.
In sum, I am quite pleased that Dale Allison, in spite of his skepticism,
clearly allows the historicity of the empty tomb and the postresurrection appearances
of Jesus, even if his position on the former is qualified. Even for
Allison, the overall case is well-vindicated to that degree.25
24. For additional considerations, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chapters
25. I wish to thank Steve Davis, Bill Craig, and Mike Licona for comments on an earlier
draft of this essay.
Gary R. Habermas, "Dale Allison's Resurrection Skepticism: A
Critique," Philosophia Christi 10 (2008): [page range
Habermas, Gary R. "Dale Allison's Resurrection Skepticism: A
Critique." Philosophia Christi 10 (2008): 303-313.