What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus
Informally presents and evaluates complex--sometimes troubling--issues in scholarly discussion of Jesus Christ. "Whatever one makes of these pages, they are the stammerings neither of an apologist nor of a skeptic but instead of an oft- confused Protestant who has come to his conclusions, modest as they are, quite gradually, and who may alter his uncertain mind about much tomorrow. Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging things do not grow -- rocks remain rocks -- informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is the unexamined Christ is not worth having." -- from the introduction In this book, which he describes as "my personal testimony to doubt seeking understanding," Dale Allison thoughtfully addresses ongoing historical-theological questions concerning Jesus. What should one think of the modern quest for the historical Jesus when there is such enduring discord among the experts, and when personal agendas play such a large role in the reconstructions? How much history is in the Gospels, and how much history does Christian theology require that there be? How does the quest impinge upon conventional Christian beliefs, and what might it contribute to contemporary theological reflection? The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus is the personal statement of lessons that a respected participant in the quest has learned throughout the course of his academic career.
136 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2009
37 people are currently reading
566 people want to read
About the author
Dale C. Allison Jr.
33 books72 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 - 27 of 27 reviews
March 15, 2015
This is the book that literally set the course for my entire educational path. I read this book shortly after I finished my bachelors degree from a conservative evangelical school, and I was trying to decide on my next steps. This very short book showed me a side to scholarship, a manner of honesty, that I hadn't seen in my own tradition. I don't agree with many of Allison's conclusions, but through this book I saw a side not just of Jesus, but of Allison, that helped me to put historical Jesus and historical critical conversations into a new perspective. I've since pursued my education in more mainline environments, while maintaining my faith and belief in the historical/theological Jesus as one and the same, to great benefit.
I also emailed Allison about this book, and he was very charitable. I am grateful for this wonderful little book.
I also emailed Allison about this book, and he was very charitable. I am grateful for this wonderful little book.
April 19, 2024
Courageous. Humble. Insightful. Allison’s ability to be brutally honest regarding truths with which he is personally/theological invested is remarkable. The confession that he’d often prefer the data to say otherwise is admirable. His attempt to think out loud and remain open minded is worth emulating. His willingness to turn his critical eye not just on ancient texts and other scholars but on himself (in print btw) sets him apart from any other biblical scholar I’ve read. The relationship between the Historical Jesus and the Theological/Religous Jesus presents major complexities for anyone that claims to follow him. And unfortunately (maybe fortunately in some sense?) most Christian’s are ignorant of such complexities. Modern scholarship (by which I mean the last 200yrs!) has problematized much that previous generations took for granted. And at the same time does not come to the rescue to help us out of the conundrum. Allison’s conclusions offered here are, by his own admission provisional and yet not prescriptive, simply “doubt seeking understanding”. He gives no easy answers (partly because there aren’t any) but models for us how to wrestle hopefully with extremely difficult questions, in our own quest to understand the relationship between the Historical Christ and Theological Jesus.
My favorite quotes:
“…there are no obvious or easy answers to the complex issues that historical criticism raises for Christians, that there is nothing for us but lots of hard thinking, One should be conscientious and open-minded, willing to be disturbed by arguments, and ready, when necessary, to sweep some things into the dustbin of one's personal past.”
"Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging things do not grow - rocks remain rocks - informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is this: the unexamined Christ is not worth having”.
My favorite quotes:
“…there are no obvious or easy answers to the complex issues that historical criticism raises for Christians, that there is nothing for us but lots of hard thinking, One should be conscientious and open-minded, willing to be disturbed by arguments, and ready, when necessary, to sweep some things into the dustbin of one's personal past.”
"Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging things do not grow - rocks remain rocks - informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is this: the unexamined Christ is not worth having”.
July 25, 2025
This religious stuff has been of great interest to me lately - not because I believe or don't believe any of it, but because I find it fascinating to read what the Bible actually says about Jesus and then how it is leveraged by different denominations. To that end I have made a point of reading the Bible itself and then several books about the Bible by respected scholars. I read a book by Bart Ehrman and then one by John Barton, both decidedly of an academic nature. Barton is an Anglican priest, but his book was about the history of the Bible, not the theology.
I thought I might take the trouble to read something by a believer in the Bible and Allison is that, being a heavy duty Christian and a noted New Testament scholar. I was hoping he would give insight to how a believer thinks about some of the conflicts in the Bible itself. He does to some extent, expounding on the historical vs the theological Jesus. But I was a little disappointed in how he rendered his conclusions. He mostly just said he tries to focus on the overall message and trusts Jesus despite the conflicts he sees. For example, he believes Jesus to have understood his message as apocalyptical, and despite it being 2000 years after the fact, Allison doesn't see a problem with that.
He says in the concluding chapter "If what we see on this earth is all that we will ever see, if there is no further repairing of wrongs beyond what we have already witnessed, then divine love and justice do not really count for much." And yet, he gives no defense of any of the conflicts in the Bible.
I am a skeptic on the claims of Christianity, perhaps an agnostic in general. I thought this book would have been helpful to me and it just was not. It is a little overwritten, not completely academic language, but somewhat windy. I had heard someone talk about his newest book, but the St Louis Public and County Libraries did not have it, so I got this one. For a believer in Christianity it might be helpful, but for someone interested in Bible history and not theology, I would recommend something by the two authors I mentioned earlier, Barton or Ehrman. Those guys write books used to teach at most seminaries in the US.
I thought I might take the trouble to read something by a believer in the Bible and Allison is that, being a heavy duty Christian and a noted New Testament scholar. I was hoping he would give insight to how a believer thinks about some of the conflicts in the Bible itself. He does to some extent, expounding on the historical vs the theological Jesus. But I was a little disappointed in how he rendered his conclusions. He mostly just said he tries to focus on the overall message and trusts Jesus despite the conflicts he sees. For example, he believes Jesus to have understood his message as apocalyptical, and despite it being 2000 years after the fact, Allison doesn't see a problem with that.
He says in the concluding chapter "If what we see on this earth is all that we will ever see, if there is no further repairing of wrongs beyond what we have already witnessed, then divine love and justice do not really count for much." And yet, he gives no defense of any of the conflicts in the Bible.
I am a skeptic on the claims of Christianity, perhaps an agnostic in general. I thought this book would have been helpful to me and it just was not. It is a little overwritten, not completely academic language, but somewhat windy. I had heard someone talk about his newest book, but the St Louis Public and County Libraries did not have it, so I got this one. For a believer in Christianity it might be helpful, but for someone interested in Bible history and not theology, I would recommend something by the two authors I mentioned earlier, Barton or Ehrman. Those guys write books used to teach at most seminaries in the US.
July 8, 2013
A great read for those looking for a brief, honest - even skeptical - assessment of historical Jesus research. His thesis is that, while the sum of that, while the theological sum of historical Jesus research is not zero, "the quest has been, in many respects, profoundly ambiguous, and I imagine that it may always be so; and how one can or whether one should build theologically upon an ever-changing body of diverse opinion is far from manifest" (8).
I've always enjoyed Allison's active and winsome prose, and his somewhat cynical read of just how much we can really know about Jesus behind and beyond the gospels struck a chord with me. I would label our inability to reason unbiasedly (as he points out, our subjective predilections nearly almost overcome our research methods) as part of sin. The fall has not only affected our ability to do rightly, but even to think rightly. Post-enlightenment, and viewed next to the myth of never ending scientific progress, this is scandalous. But, in Jesus research just as in molecular biology, we have an infected ability to reason correctly - we need salvation here too.
Notable quotes:
Thesis: “In parts of this book, I attempt to show that the pursuit of the historiacal Jesus has taught us some important theological lessons. So I cannot dismiss the quest as nothing but a contemporary nuisance, a passing inconvenience. When we add up all the books and articles, the theological sum is not zero, nor is modern historical criticism necessarily a finishing school for apostates. At the same time...some trepidation is warranted. The quest has been, in many repsects, profoundly ambiguous, and I imagine that it may always be so; and how one can or whether one should build theologically upon an ever-changing body of diverse opinion is far from manifest.” 8
“A predilection need not always blind us. Sometimes it may instead help us to see more clearly.” (This would be what the church calls a Regula Fidei) 20
“At the end of the day, however, I cannot exorcise all of my concerns about our biased subjectivity. It remains the case that much Jesus research appears captive to ideological predilections in worrisome ways. If we could but peer beneath all the sophisticated arguments, we would find that much of the disparity in our field is not unrelated to intractable differences of philosophical outlook and religious commitments. Professional historians are not bloodless templates passively registering the facts; we actively and imaginatively project. our rationality cannot be extricated from our sentiments and feelings, our hopes and fears, our hunches and ambitions.” 20
“After years of being in the quest business, I have reluctantly concluded that most of the Gospel materials are not subject to historical proof or disproof, or even to accurate estimates of their probability. That Jesus said something is no cause for supposing that we can demonstrate that he said it, and that Jesus did not say something is no cause for supposing that we can show that he did not say it...There is a gaping chasm between what happened and what we can discover or deem likely to have happened.” 55
“Because our criteria are not strong enough to resist our wills, we almost inevitably make them do what we want them to do: we, with our expectations and preconceptions, bend them more than they bend us...It is not that we are consciously being dishonest, just that the generalization of TC Chamberlin concerning scientists holds too for NT scholars. Once we adopt a theory,
'there is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail to coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory...There springs up, also, and unconscious pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and the facts to make them fit the theory...The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to...its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it'” 58
I've always enjoyed Allison's active and winsome prose, and his somewhat cynical read of just how much we can really know about Jesus behind and beyond the gospels struck a chord with me. I would label our inability to reason unbiasedly (as he points out, our subjective predilections nearly almost overcome our research methods) as part of sin. The fall has not only affected our ability to do rightly, but even to think rightly. Post-enlightenment, and viewed next to the myth of never ending scientific progress, this is scandalous. But, in Jesus research just as in molecular biology, we have an infected ability to reason correctly - we need salvation here too.
Notable quotes:
Thesis: “In parts of this book, I attempt to show that the pursuit of the historiacal Jesus has taught us some important theological lessons. So I cannot dismiss the quest as nothing but a contemporary nuisance, a passing inconvenience. When we add up all the books and articles, the theological sum is not zero, nor is modern historical criticism necessarily a finishing school for apostates. At the same time...some trepidation is warranted. The quest has been, in many repsects, profoundly ambiguous, and I imagine that it may always be so; and how one can or whether one should build theologically upon an ever-changing body of diverse opinion is far from manifest.” 8
“A predilection need not always blind us. Sometimes it may instead help us to see more clearly.” (This would be what the church calls a Regula Fidei) 20
“At the end of the day, however, I cannot exorcise all of my concerns about our biased subjectivity. It remains the case that much Jesus research appears captive to ideological predilections in worrisome ways. If we could but peer beneath all the sophisticated arguments, we would find that much of the disparity in our field is not unrelated to intractable differences of philosophical outlook and religious commitments. Professional historians are not bloodless templates passively registering the facts; we actively and imaginatively project. our rationality cannot be extricated from our sentiments and feelings, our hopes and fears, our hunches and ambitions.” 20
“After years of being in the quest business, I have reluctantly concluded that most of the Gospel materials are not subject to historical proof or disproof, or even to accurate estimates of their probability. That Jesus said something is no cause for supposing that we can demonstrate that he said it, and that Jesus did not say something is no cause for supposing that we can show that he did not say it...There is a gaping chasm between what happened and what we can discover or deem likely to have happened.” 55
“Because our criteria are not strong enough to resist our wills, we almost inevitably make them do what we want them to do: we, with our expectations and preconceptions, bend them more than they bend us...It is not that we are consciously being dishonest, just that the generalization of TC Chamberlin concerning scientists holds too for NT scholars. Once we adopt a theory,
'there is an unconscious selection and magnifying of the phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail to coincidence. The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory...There springs up, also, and unconscious pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and the facts to make them fit the theory...The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to...its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it'” 58
September 18, 2016
Dale C. Allison's 'The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus' is a brief but invaluable addition to the ever-growing body of literature on the historical Jesus.
What sets this apart from the likes of Sanders, Crossan and Wright is not that Allison is able to tell us anything that would move historical Jesus studies forward. It is instead that contemporary historical Jesus scholarship as a whole cannot move forward because each 'quester' finds only themselves in their own historical Jesus and because they are not really in a position to know anything with certainty.
Allison makes some startling concessions here and does not even begin to defend what his concessions reveal. Take for example his concession that Jesus did not know the time of his return. This was something CS Lewis admitted to be an embarrassment to Christianity, and Allison states clearly that Jesus likely did not know because it there was to be no return that would happen, at least not at a fixed time. This is quite a concession and a brave one to make, and I respect Allison for his honesty. He instead defines the return as more of an eschatological hope that the injustice of this world would be counterbalanced in some way. He in fact defines all of Jesus' teachings, at least those we can attribute to Jesus, as being based on hope.
I really want to read everything Allison has written because of this brief but incredibly intellectually honest book, and I am very glad that I have moved away from evangelical scholarship towards scholarship like this. Knowing that others struggle with the same doubts that I do and work within historical-critical scholarship, and yet still remain devout Christians, is something that I am relieved to hear. Not that my faith was lessening, but I did think that there was a slippery slope that gave me good reason to believe that I should read the likes of Allison with caution. I need not have worried.
What sets this apart from the likes of Sanders, Crossan and Wright is not that Allison is able to tell us anything that would move historical Jesus studies forward. It is instead that contemporary historical Jesus scholarship as a whole cannot move forward because each 'quester' finds only themselves in their own historical Jesus and because they are not really in a position to know anything with certainty.
Allison makes some startling concessions here and does not even begin to defend what his concessions reveal. Take for example his concession that Jesus did not know the time of his return. This was something CS Lewis admitted to be an embarrassment to Christianity, and Allison states clearly that Jesus likely did not know because it there was to be no return that would happen, at least not at a fixed time. This is quite a concession and a brave one to make, and I respect Allison for his honesty. He instead defines the return as more of an eschatological hope that the injustice of this world would be counterbalanced in some way. He in fact defines all of Jesus' teachings, at least those we can attribute to Jesus, as being based on hope.
I really want to read everything Allison has written because of this brief but incredibly intellectually honest book, and I am very glad that I have moved away from evangelical scholarship towards scholarship like this. Knowing that others struggle with the same doubts that I do and work within historical-critical scholarship, and yet still remain devout Christians, is something that I am relieved to hear. Not that my faith was lessening, but I did think that there was a slippery slope that gave me good reason to believe that I should read the likes of Allison with caution. I need not have worried.
May 23, 2012
The odd thing about this book is that it really doesn't actually say anything at all. It's well written, approachable without being obscure, and serves as a very good introduction to the field of historical scholarship and the debate between historians and theologians. It has several explanations of the author to open new avenues and new questions. But nothing is ever really laid out except the concept that, in this field, nothing can really be laid out. There are no absolutes here, because we are so limited by the lack of sources and so steered by our desires to "know" who Jesus was.
I kind of appreciate this, in the sense of appreciating someone's willingness to look at this debate and admit that we don't and never will "know" anything at all, really. But it does leave one sort of feeling...unfulfilled, perhaps, after finishing the book. It's kind of like eating meringue. It's delicious, and very interesting to eat, but afterwards, you're not really sure you had anything at all save for the slight sugar headache that lingers.
I kind of appreciate this, in the sense of appreciating someone's willingness to look at this debate and admit that we don't and never will "know" anything at all, really. But it does leave one sort of feeling...unfulfilled, perhaps, after finishing the book. It's kind of like eating meringue. It's delicious, and very interesting to eat, but afterwards, you're not really sure you had anything at all save for the slight sugar headache that lingers.
August 13, 2021
"Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging changing things do not grow - rocks remain rocks - informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is this: the unexaminedined Christ is not worth having".
Whenever I read or listen to Dale Allison, I find a refreshing honesty and a model of how to struggle as a Christian who has not been spared by doubt. I think this pain over the “loss of innocence” even reflects in his prose; the book is worth reading alone for how it is written.
In addition to his fine scholarship, I think I find him appealing for these very reasons. He holds the Christian faith in a way that I find attractive and life-giving. Certainly would like to see more evangelical pastors and theologians (not just biblical scholars) engage him on this level.
Whenever I read or listen to Dale Allison, I find a refreshing honesty and a model of how to struggle as a Christian who has not been spared by doubt. I think this pain over the “loss of innocence” even reflects in his prose; the book is worth reading alone for how it is written.
In addition to his fine scholarship, I think I find him appealing for these very reasons. He holds the Christian faith in a way that I find attractive and life-giving. Certainly would like to see more evangelical pastors and theologians (not just biblical scholars) engage him on this level.
June 20, 2023
I found this to be a wonderful and helpful book. Especially the final chapter dealing with eschatology seem to be right on the money. Allison makes so much sense. This might raise the eyes of some but others, I think, will find it most helpful.
April 8, 2010
Excellent. Probably should be required reading for everyone which is probably why they are reading it for classes over at the seminary.
In short, this book is about why the search for the historical Jesus will never be finished, why it can't be totally ignored, and why, in the end, Jesus is bigger than the historical person. Perhaps it is also a book about why we should not fear the search for the historical Jesus.
In the words of Dr. Allison, "Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging things to not grow - rocks remain rocks - informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is this: the unexamined Christ is not worth having."
In short, this book is about why the search for the historical Jesus will never be finished, why it can't be totally ignored, and why, in the end, Jesus is bigger than the historical person. Perhaps it is also a book about why we should not fear the search for the historical Jesus.
In the words of Dr. Allison, "Of two things only do I feel assured. The first is that, as unchanging things to not grow - rocks remain rocks - informed changes of mind should be welcomed, not feared. The second is this: the unexamined Christ is not worth having."
April 5, 2025
A hugely challenging and brutally honest book on the search for the historical Jesus and what this means theologically. Not for the feint hearted nor for those new to the world of biblical studies. Yet what makes this book stand out is its personally dimension. Much of the book reflects on the dilemma between faith on the one hand and biblical analysis and critique on the other. In the end what are we to make on the quest for the historical Christ? This is where the final chapter - a personal reflection - brings everything together. So, a tough read but at the same time an exciting one with much to learn for those with open minds and soft hearts. Hence, highly recommended.
☘️
☘️
September 24, 2023
Allison raises so many questions which are important to process. I found myself often disagreeing with his conclusions and often not fully understanding his thought process.
November 18, 2019
As always, I’m fascinated with the depth of Dale Allison’s knowledge. Though he specializes in the NT and historical Jesus research, even if he has left the topic entirely, he seems just at home in other fields ranging from Shakespeare to modern psychology. This book is not his magnum opus but one of clarification and application-how does the historical Jesus affect a Christian’s faith. Though it takes until the very end to answer that question, it is we’ll worth the wait.
A few notes:
-Though he did something similar on his first book on the historical Jesus, he almost destroys any level of knowledge about Jesus. He takes a strident, skeptic stroll through our sources of Jesus and shows the problems that they have. When I began to question if we can learn anything, he then built his argument. This book could be dangerous in the hands of a Fundamentalist Christian. Allison clearly didn’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and often chides those who do; however, he is honest about how one’s presuppositions can impact their findings. At the same time, he shows that our presuppositions aren’t static; we can change our presuppositions if they don’t adequately mesh with facts.
-He does offer various ways that historians can improve the or criteria of authenticity. Instead of looking at passages piece-meal, he wants us to establish patterns. I still think he would have to elaborate more in order for me to be persuaded but he does have some salient points.
-I think he clearly shows that the historical Jesus is best seen within an apocalyptic framework. He even snarks that if Jesus wasn’t a historical prophet, we need to find a new pastime because our sources would be completely corrupted because Jesus is so clearly seen in this light.
-As someone who has asked similar questions without his credentials, I found his answers existentially comforting. As he noted, Jesus himself didn’t attempt to provide a theodicy. His last two pages resonated with me deeply (especially his last paragraph). We have a responsibility as Christians to accept evidence, and not twist it as many apologists do, while being dedicated to a vibrant, living faith in the love of God.
A few notes:
-Though he did something similar on his first book on the historical Jesus, he almost destroys any level of knowledge about Jesus. He takes a strident, skeptic stroll through our sources of Jesus and shows the problems that they have. When I began to question if we can learn anything, he then built his argument. This book could be dangerous in the hands of a Fundamentalist Christian. Allison clearly didn’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and often chides those who do; however, he is honest about how one’s presuppositions can impact their findings. At the same time, he shows that our presuppositions aren’t static; we can change our presuppositions if they don’t adequately mesh with facts.
-He does offer various ways that historians can improve the or criteria of authenticity. Instead of looking at passages piece-meal, he wants us to establish patterns. I still think he would have to elaborate more in order for me to be persuaded but he does have some salient points.
-I think he clearly shows that the historical Jesus is best seen within an apocalyptic framework. He even snarks that if Jesus wasn’t a historical prophet, we need to find a new pastime because our sources would be completely corrupted because Jesus is so clearly seen in this light.
-As someone who has asked similar questions without his credentials, I found his answers existentially comforting. As he noted, Jesus himself didn’t attempt to provide a theodicy. His last two pages resonated with me deeply (especially his last paragraph). We have a responsibility as Christians to accept evidence, and not twist it as many apologists do, while being dedicated to a vibrant, living faith in the love of God.
May 27, 2020
By page 35 or so I thought that the real value of this book had already been laid out. A seasoned, if not renowned, biblical scholar of the New Testament has finally confirmed our worst fears: the project of the historical Jesus is lost, and there is no sign of ever getting from the Quest what most modern christians assume has been or will be granted. There is no way to recover the historical Jesus, and the lot of biblical scholarship promising to do so may continue to thrust themselves against a barred gate (that is, they are not fraudulently pursuing historical Jesus, just hopelessly pursuing him). I may be reading my own views into Allison’s but it seems that in the midst of being honest about the exhausting variety of theologies and the stilts of biblical studies on which they sit, he seems to offer a minimalist and mystical Christianity. This would be a Christianity that can confidently say very little about Jesus (maybe some biographic facts and that he resurrected from the dead), and one that in no small way has to rely on the possibility of direct supernatural experiences of him (or the actual experiences of individuals). The best the Bible can do for us is provide us with theology that certainly echoes, but only echoes, the actions and words of the man Jesus.
But I think Allison’s constructive view in the wake of this dismal picture that the Quest has failed is more powerful than just leaving space for a minimalist mysticism. In the second half of the book Allison defends his long-held belief (one he has often defend, check out his CV, wow) that we can know some things about the real Jesus. We can know that Jesus had strong eschatological views, and that, despite the seemingly hopeless implications of the view that the world must and will end, he nevertheless engaged deeply and directly with the suffering of the world.
But I think Allison’s constructive view in the wake of this dismal picture that the Quest has failed is more powerful than just leaving space for a minimalist mysticism. In the second half of the book Allison defends his long-held belief (one he has often defend, check out his CV, wow) that we can know some things about the real Jesus. We can know that Jesus had strong eschatological views, and that, despite the seemingly hopeless implications of the view that the world must and will end, he nevertheless engaged deeply and directly with the suffering of the world.
February 16, 2025
I'm deeply grateful for this book, and a quick scan of other Goodreads reviews indicates that other reviewers feel the same way.
There is no shortage of books about the search for the "historical Jesus" and the Gospels more generally, but I haven't come across many that take a more meta approach, reflecting on the stakes of this quest and the assumptions that are made with various approaches.
Allison's book is unique because it takes this self-aware approach (which is rare) and does so in a highly engaging, readable way (which is even more rare).
Allison reminds me that any intellectual pursuit has real limits and we should be wary of any scholars and/or faith leaders who claim to have easy answers. That doesn't mean it's impossible to believe something is true--it's just that we aren't guaranteed that the truth is always attainable/knowable in every possible case.
Years ago, I heard a lecture by John Stackhouse where he made this claim: "God will provide what you need to do His will in the world." This struck me because the scope of the claim was far more limited than what I hoped for or expected. If I had enough faith, wouldn't God move intellectual mountains? Wouldn't the mysteries of the universe be revealed to me if I just prayed harder or read more books? Stackhouse's answer was a resolute "No."
Will we ever make enough progress to discover the "real" Jesus of history? Will scholars one day be able to parse the Gospels, separating the original words of Jesus from the additions of later writers? Allison also says "No." But maybe this isn't as problematic as it seems.
There is no shortage of books about the search for the "historical Jesus" and the Gospels more generally, but I haven't come across many that take a more meta approach, reflecting on the stakes of this quest and the assumptions that are made with various approaches.
Allison's book is unique because it takes this self-aware approach (which is rare) and does so in a highly engaging, readable way (which is even more rare).
Allison reminds me that any intellectual pursuit has real limits and we should be wary of any scholars and/or faith leaders who claim to have easy answers. That doesn't mean it's impossible to believe something is true--it's just that we aren't guaranteed that the truth is always attainable/knowable in every possible case.
Years ago, I heard a lecture by John Stackhouse where he made this claim: "God will provide what you need to do His will in the world." This struck me because the scope of the claim was far more limited than what I hoped for or expected. If I had enough faith, wouldn't God move intellectual mountains? Wouldn't the mysteries of the universe be revealed to me if I just prayed harder or read more books? Stackhouse's answer was a resolute "No."
Will we ever make enough progress to discover the "real" Jesus of history? Will scholars one day be able to parse the Gospels, separating the original words of Jesus from the additions of later writers? Allison also says "No." But maybe this isn't as problematic as it seems.
May 11, 2018
"We may want to know, what was Jesus like before his pious followers painted over his portrait with their distortions and legends. Can we scrape off the overlay?"
This in a nutshell has been the "quest for the historical Jesus" over the past couple of centuries in the academy.
In this slim book, Allison, a historian himself, concludes that the "quest" has not, cannot succeed. But neither has it been useless. Even if we can see Jesus of the texts only through the overlay, still the texts tell us who he is. Reducing the theological Jesus to the historical Jesus is no more plausible than reducing the mental world to the physical world, he says.
For Allison the exegete, Jesus emerges as an apocalyptic prophet. "For Jesus, meaning resides principally in the Father and in the world to come, and in that light he perceives everything else.
Jesus proclaims the new bec the old is not enough. For him, dualism (good/evil) is relative, not absolute. The opposites are not complementary, but antagonistic, not equal but sequential: in the end, the good undoes the bad. And in this, as in so much else, Jesus' life substantiates his teaching. For the resurrection does not balance crucifixion and the grave. It defeats them."
This book is useful in that it clarifies questions, methods, and criteria that Scripture scholars have been debating for a very long time.
Allison reaches conclusions and also sets out his personal impressions as a result of his study.
An interesting and helpful read.
This in a nutshell has been the "quest for the historical Jesus" over the past couple of centuries in the academy.
In this slim book, Allison, a historian himself, concludes that the "quest" has not, cannot succeed. But neither has it been useless. Even if we can see Jesus of the texts only through the overlay, still the texts tell us who he is. Reducing the theological Jesus to the historical Jesus is no more plausible than reducing the mental world to the physical world, he says.
For Allison the exegete, Jesus emerges as an apocalyptic prophet. "For Jesus, meaning resides principally in the Father and in the world to come, and in that light he perceives everything else.
Jesus proclaims the new bec the old is not enough. For him, dualism (good/evil) is relative, not absolute. The opposites are not complementary, but antagonistic, not equal but sequential: in the end, the good undoes the bad. And in this, as in so much else, Jesus' life substantiates his teaching. For the resurrection does not balance crucifixion and the grave. It defeats them."
This book is useful in that it clarifies questions, methods, and criteria that Scripture scholars have been debating for a very long time.
Allison reaches conclusions and also sets out his personal impressions as a result of his study.
An interesting and helpful read.
July 14, 2020
I am not a theologian, but I love to study. Dale Allison is the foremost theologian of our day. I have read his Night Comes three times, and have given it to many friends (the chapters on hell and judgment, in particular). I have yet to read a modern scholar who is as erudite and yet humble as Allison. I read The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus in the past week, and I am going to have to read it again, as it's so dense (in a good way) that I have missed so much, I am sure. It's not poorly constructed or obtuse-- it's just rich, like a beautiful alfredo sauce, or better yet, a complex dessert crafted by a master chef.
I am going to make my way through all his books, and hopefully listen to lectures/podcasts of Allison. He has read so copiously and sagaciously that the reader benefits from a microcosmic view of the wisdom since antiquity. Allison does not shy away from the rough edges of the Christian faith, but names them, admits his own bafflement, and then attempts to draw whatever conclusion(s) he can. After three decades of traditional Bible study, Allison is precisely who I need to be reading. His books have already enlarged my Christian faith.
I am going to make my way through all his books, and hopefully listen to lectures/podcasts of Allison. He has read so copiously and sagaciously that the reader benefits from a microcosmic view of the wisdom since antiquity. Allison does not shy away from the rough edges of the Christian faith, but names them, admits his own bafflement, and then attempts to draw whatever conclusion(s) he can. After three decades of traditional Bible study, Allison is precisely who I need to be reading. His books have already enlarged my Christian faith.
April 24, 2023
I think I enjoyed this book so much, despite disagreeing on so many points, because of Allison’s honesty and seeking attitude, wearing his heart on his sleeve in searching for the historical and theological Jesus. While Allison and I do not share the conclusion that we cannot know much in the way of details about what the historical Jesus did and said, I value his candor and learned much from his approach. The fact that Allison draws fairly conservative conclusions about the historical Jesus (as an eschatological prophet), while using modern critical tools was comforting in a strange way to me. It was also like stepping into a strange world to imagine doing theology Allison’s way, being a Christian who accepts the Jesus of the Bible differs from the historical Jesus in substantial ways. In many ways, I relate much more to the skeptic than to Allison, but I appreciate his viewpoint all the more for its unfamiliarity.
July 15, 2025
Dale Allison at his max Dale Allison. Meta-level reflections on the state of Historical Jesus studies, plus a discussion of how his own approach and conclusions inform his (admittedly unorthodox) Christian convictions.
In many places, I found myself agreeing with Allison; in other places, I found myself scratching my head. Either way, I always appreciate Allison's candor and refreshing perspective (even if, at times, his comical open-mindedness gets a little repetitive).
In many places, I found myself agreeing with Allison; in other places, I found myself scratching my head. Either way, I always appreciate Allison's candor and refreshing perspective (even if, at times, his comical open-mindedness gets a little repetitive).
April 3, 2019
This was an interesting read. Even though it was short, the author packed lots of material in while keeping it very readable (non-textbook). There were parts that were eye-opening and parts that I disagreed with, but I enjoyed the read and appreciated his conclusion.
January 14, 2018
Interesting take on the historical jesus project.
November 8, 2020
Fantastic. Insightful.
September 19, 2025
Dense. OK but not a particularly satisfying read.
April 3, 2011
This is truly a book about doubt seeking understanding. It is a great read for those suffering from the questions that the historical Jesus debate has raised regarding the place of the gospels in understanding what Jesus was really saying (and doing) and how that should impact us theologically today. Not all the questions get answered, but it's pretty clear that Allison does not think he has all the answers either.
Pros:
I liked his honesty and how forthright he was about his beliefs and doubts.
I appreciated the writing style. It was accommodating but not dumbed down.
He has an openness to a lot of things that many scholars/historians tend to dismiss off hand - and he argues for them fairly.
The last chapter is really the best.
Cons:
I would have liked more discussion on how to move from the historical to the theological at a practical level as well as at a church level.
Pros:
I liked his honesty and how forthright he was about his beliefs and doubts.
I appreciated the writing style. It was accommodating but not dumbed down.
He has an openness to a lot of things that many scholars/historians tend to dismiss off hand - and he argues for them fairly.
The last chapter is really the best.
Cons:
I would have liked more discussion on how to move from the historical to the theological at a practical level as well as at a church level.
March 23, 2015
This book written as a reflection of decades of historical Jesus research is fantastic! In my opinion, Dale Allison stands alone in humility and passion (two attributes often pitted against eachother). No other scholar I have read so forcefully undertakes the historical tasks at hand and yet points out that history is only a player in the game of Christian understanding: "History is not theology."
August 1, 2016
A fascinating introductory exploration of historical and critical issues in Jesus scholarship, written by a seasoned scholar. While I do not agree with everything, Allison is passionate, erudite and worthwhile.
September 11, 2025
4.5 stars if I could. Wouldn’t recommend for most people but it is probably a must read for anyone getting into historical Jesus studies. Dale is funny and careful and uncomfortably honest, which makes his insights very valuable even if you don’t share most of his conclusions
February 25, 2014
An essential Book to understand the search of the historical Jesus
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews