Clark Books

Seurat's,'La Grande Jatte' spelled the limits of petti-borgeoise modernity. For the previous 20 years, the Impressionists, led by the incomparably gifted, Manet, had attempted to make images describing this class, their appearance & behaviour. However,the Impressionists were bourgeoise & inevitably more aligned to their own class, and with the simultaneous rise of the dealer-critic system. Thus the steady sequence of shows, interviews & promotional literature issuing from managed,'creative' artists became the commonplace we experience in the arts today. The new class disappeared from Impressionist art when it was absorbed into the bourgeoise.Witness Monet's shrewd disavowal of the figure as he opted for his less offensive, touristy canon of landscapes. The detatchment of Manet's barmaid at the Follies, 1882,and the inanimate, even catatonic people in Degas's pictures of this period exemplify the new class. Clark argues that the emergence of this class was a product of the rebuilding of Paris by Baron von Haussmann. The old work centre of the city was guttered during the rejig, the trades & graves moved to new peripheries, and commercial entertainments, leisure & pleasure grew in their place to cater for this new white-collar mass public. The questionable role of prostitution is crucial to Clark's claims for this class and it is on this question that Manet is pre-eminent. This era announced the rise of capitalism and the spectacle society of which Clark is a major critical voice. Prodigious scholarship, marvellous insights, with fascinating, rarely reproduced 'secondary' art works to flesh out the theme; I can't think of a better way of teasing back the past to view the present.

As a student of nineteenth century French painting, I think this may in fact be the finest book ever written on Parisian painting in the time of Haussmanization. Clark manages to offer an intelligent Marxist-based claim about class and the emerging Parisian landscape in the 60's without losing sight of the paintings themselves. While most scholars feel the genius of this book lies in his wonderful discussion of "what couldn't be seen in Olympia", I find the first chapter "Environs of Paris" equally fascinating in its discussion of Manet's Exposition Universelle of 1867. A MUST read for any lover of Parisian history or Manet.

I like to think of myself as a person who is curious about a wide range of things, especially in the realm of culture and the arts. Most art history books, however, put me right to sleep, with their endless catalogs of curatorial details about brushstrokes and paint textures and influences and provenance. These detailed analyses almost never situate the paintings in any sort of context and almost never explain WHY we should be interested in these details, other than to prove ourselves worthy connoiseurs to others in the know. Clark's book is a refreshing change from such mandarin drivel. Clark begins with a lengthy discussion of the social context of the paintings he is about to discuss and only then proceeds to extended analyses of particular paintings. Clark is interested in the larger ideas and trends of the period and, most important of all, actually USES the details of the paintings as evidence in the course of making an ARGUMENT about what the paintings mean (hint to other art historians: having an argument contributes significantly to the interest of a book or article). In addition, Clark's argument about the nature of the social changes occuring in France in the 1860's and 70's is compelling and thought-provoking (be forewarned: some Marxism is involved). I found myself actually learning things about the paintings Clark discusses, and looking at them over and over again, trying to find more in them, in much the same way as I would go back to a book or a poem after reading a good piece of literary criticism. I think this book will appeal to anyone who wants to learn more about either 19th-century French painting or 19th-century France. Clark is a stimulating and perceptive guide to this crucial period in the history of painting. Bravo!

A book of supreme importance. It grapples with the simplistic state of New Testament scholarship and shows with a clear method and a profound grasp of the sources that we can reconstruct only with care the social background of the Pauline writings. It is a "must read" for anyone involved in Biblical studies today.

An audacious book that takes to task much of New Testament scholarship. It is outrageous in its bold assertion of the correct and proper way to do social research on the NT - but it is deliciously right in so doing. One can only marvel at the author's skill in dismantling the Aunt Sallys of many a Biblical scholar.

This book, though concerned primarily with the economic life of the earliest churches, is of greater significance than might at first appear. It argues persuasively that New Testament scholarship has failed to take account of the popular culture of the first century and has, as a consequence, badly misrepresented the experiences and practices of the first Christians. The author then provides a model of how an "appropriate context" can be constructed from the diverse array of non-elite sourcs we possess from this period (epitaphs, curse tablets, dream interpretations etc) and reexamines the economic behaviour of the earliest churches in the light of it. The book also contains a concerted criticism of the "new consensus" in Pauline scholarship (the belief that the earliest Christians contained amongst their number members of the elite of their day) and, it has to be said, the plethora of new empirical data provided by the author and his rigorous critique of the consensus' method, leaves it in tatters. A rare book in NT scholarship: one that has something genuinely fresh to say.

Donfried presents a fascinating collection of essays, now revised and compiled in a tight sequence, dealing with questions about the first letter of Paul, 1 Thessalonians, and its followup, which might have been his second letter. I was excited as Donfried filled in the background picture of the religion and culture of Thessalonians and the Roman Empire in general, providing a well-knit backdrop from which to interpret fine details of Paul's theme of consolation to the Thessalonians, as a persecuted church. This is the best study of Thessalonians I have read in years.

Information about the cult of the Emperor, which was rising at the time the Christian Good News was moving into the Roman Empire, was at its height, apparently, in Thessalonica. The term "lord" came to be applied to the Emperors as a part of the growing Emperor cult of Civil Religion. This made it hard for new believers to consistently confess Jesus Christ as the only lord, and to maintain their faith in the One Universal Invisible, but Living Creator God.

Thessalonica was a city that retained certain privileges like a City-State, such as minting of its own coins. The extensive coinage of this commercial and religious centre provides insights which Donfried unravels into the nature and extent of the Cult of the Emperor. This includes insights into terms like Divine Emperor and Son of God, assigned to the Emperor and his family, apparently growing from the time of Augustus, but reaching its peak in Nero.

Donfried also provides a detailed comparison of the thought of Paul in this context to the wandering Stoic preachers, the ecstatic Christian prophets, and the themes and terminology of the Essenes from the Qumran documents. He identifies certain vocabulary, and possible themes, in Paul with the Essene terminology which is not found in the Old Testament.

He looks at vocabulary or phrases Paul uses in the first Thessalonian letter which he does not use in his later writings. (Donfried thinks 2 Thessalonians is not an autograph of Paul himself, but definitely written faithfully by someone within his working circle of early missionary work, perhaps Silas/Silvanus.)

Donfried is competent in the Greek and Hebrew of Old Testament as well as the details of the Hebrew and Aramaic documents of Qumran. Donfried notes, as does Thiede in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity (which I also review on Amazon.com), that evidence seems to point in the direction of connections between the new sect of the Nazarenes and the Qumran teachers and document collectors.

His commentary critically looks at various authors who have addressed some of these cultural and religious questions related to the Thessalonian letters, in German, as well as English. He quotes from the original, then translates where helpful. Further citing footnotes some sources in French, he expects his readers to be conversant with the biblical and contemporary languages of scholarship.

Donfried provides a thoughtful and serious analysis of the doctrines of Justification and Salvation in Paul, focusing on the passages in Thessalonians, supplemented by other references to Corinthians and Romans. He emphasizes here the broader context of Paul's concept of the Word of God (initially proclaimed in the Gospel) and the prophetic words of comfort, in a "word of the Lord" to the Thessalonians through this letter in their persecution by the pagan populace.

He points out that Paul's emphasis uses the term Justification where I have observed that it is popularly common today to use the term "saved" for conversion. It seems Paul uses the term "saved" only in the continuous and future tenses. Paul does not commonly use the term "saved" for the event of initial conversion, but for the concept of living and enduring in Christ, and culminating in the "final hope" in the return of Christ.

This is also a basis for understanding the strong statements and warnings Paul repeatedly makes, not only in 1 Thessalonians, about the importance of personal vigilance and endurance in faith. This endurance is not based on one's good works, but on the remaining in faith, in Christ, in the hope that will be finally realized only in the apocalyptic deliverance and judgement. A future deliverance into the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

I was struck by how novel this is in light of the classical analytical view of Paul's theology as a systematic scheme on the late medieval model of philosophical reflection. Donfried brings to life the apostolic prophetic sense of urgency of the preacher and pastor, Paul, in his real-world working context in the pagan Roman Empire. The author probes the depths of Paul's doctrine of election, which is rarely mentioned in comments of Thessalonians. He relates this to faith, hope, endurance and faithfulness of confession under persecution, which was the situation for the Thessalonian church.

Oh, and another theme and usage Donfried reviews is the usage of the common word "ekklesia" for the assembly of Christians in Jerusalem and the similar assemblies of Christian in Achaia. He finds here another fascinating similarity with the Qumran usages. This is a worthwhile read for students of the New Testament, classical culture and religions, history or early Middle Eastern thought.

This book is a rich collection of a number of Karl P. Donfried's most important and most influential essays. It includes his inaugural lecture as Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor of Religion and Biblical Literature at Smith College, Northampton, Mass., where Donfried has taught since earning his Dr.theol. degree at the University of Heidelberg, where he studied with Günther Bornkamm.

This collection traces much of the shape of Donfried's scholarship over past years and brings his New Testament colleagues and other readers up to date with what he is doing now. Particularly informative is not only the landmark article, "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul," but also another article tracing its reception both in Lutheran and other circles over twenty-five years. Those who are eager to delve into contemporary scholarship on 1 and 2 Thessalonians will be greatly informed by Donfried's highly influential article, "The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence." (See also Donfried and Johannes Beutler, editors, THE THESSALONIANS DEBATE [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000].)

This book represents the best of Donfried's scholarship as an independent thinker and scholar, a distinguished Lutheran theologian, and an ecumenical leader.

I am very pleased to recommend this book highly. My students are reading parts of it this semester in my class on the Pauline Epistles.

This is an outstanding volume, rich in first-class scholarship and ecumenical sensitivity of the highest order. Donfried is at the cutting edge of New Testament scholarship and has a profound understanding of the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on early Christianity. His knowledge of Lutheran-Roman Catholic relationships is impeccable having served on the New Testament panel of the USA National Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue that produced the best selling volumes PETER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT and MARY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT as well as having been an official delegate of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) to the signing of the Joint Declaration on Justification with the Roman Catholic Church in Augsburg, Germany, on October 31, 1999. This book is a MUST buy both for scholars, ecumenists and lay persons interested in learning from an outstanding scholar with an impeccable international standing.

I have enjoyed reading Marybeth Hicks articles in my Sunday paper the past few years and was thrilled to learn she had published a book. Her essays are right on the money. She is funny, insightful and strong. She has a great blend of topical concerns, spirituality and humor. I can't imagine too many moms that won't relate!

Imagine being a teenage kid and having your stories spread across the front page and indeed around the world via internet by your mom. Then imagine that the stories become so popular and sought after that they're put into book form and forever memorialized.

Most kids probably might balk at the prospect, but not the Hicks kids! In fact, their mom has to be careful to include them in columns on an equal basis or they get miffed.

Spend some time reading The Perfect World Inside My Minivan -- One Mom's Journey Through the Streets of Suburbia (Faith Publishing Service, November 2006, paperback, 153 pages) by Marybeth Hicks and you'll come to see pretty quickly why these particular teens think their mom is so cool. Since 2004, Marybeth Hicks has been looking to her family for motivation and inspiration, and her children have delivered. Now, to the delight of fans of her weekly internet and Washington Times work, Hicks has gathered her words into book format.

As a long term fan of the work of this talented writer, I'm thrilled to recommend this book to families of any size or age. Marybeth Hicks writes with a freshness and universality that will make you think she's been spying on you in your minivan or SUV! Marybeth's columns have always been on my must-read list. This book should be a primer for any mom or dad looking to savor the parenting journey and enhance their relationship with their own children.

My wife and I have been enjoying this book since we got it - it's perfect
because it's something that we can pick up for a few minutes, read a story
or two & put down for later.

Just about every story hits home for us - they're either about something
we've experienced, are experiencing or something we relate to. Plus I
love the writing style - it's sophisticated but still easy to read. I'm
recommending it to all my friends & business partners!

I found this book to be really informative about the ways of the brown bear on Kodiak Island. These two men are truly great men of conservation ecology. The book is easy reading and keeps you interested throughout the book, craving more information about the bears and the lives of these men. I would recomend this book to anyone interested in bears or Kodiak Island.

I worked for Bill and Morris on Kodiak around the same time as the author. I went to visit Morris a few years ago and he gave me a copy of this book. He said it was close to the real thing. Since Bill told most of the stories and Bill was a real story teller, some things may have been a little em-BILL-ished so to speak. If you have ever sat in a hunting camp telling stories around a wood stove at night then you know what I mean. The parts of the book that were told to the author by Morris are dead on the mark. Morris didn't talk much and when he did he told it like it was. The book describes pretty well what it was like to hunt with Bill and Morris on Kodiak Island. It was hard, cold, wet, tireing work most of the time. I loved it. I would do it again if I had the chance. I read the book as I know most of the guys that worked for P&T do, just to bring back memories of how it was.

I was so enthralled with this book that I could imagine setting out on a hunt with the brown bear men. I was transported back to a time that can never again be. A time when fair chase and hard work were what a hunt was about. The character of these men is such that today it is hard to imagine finding anyone like that. I only wish I could have experienced the era these men lived in. A GREAT book.

Indeed, this is a book not to be missed by those who love poetry. Owen's verses are mostly gut-wrenching lines that will burn images in your brain, but that is good, particularly next to other poems that we may have been familiar with, where the idea of war is an "ideal" and soldiers are knights who know no fear, who are immune to death and pain. Owen's war is different: the men die like rats in the trenches, in their own vomit, and glory and honor are not enough to protect agaist mustard gas. That the poet perished in that war is only a final irony in the short life of a sensitive man who saw too much in too short a time. Excellent.

I have loved Wilfred Owen's poetry since school days.His exquisite use of language vividly conjures up the horrors of war where young men had no choice in their fate and highlighted the social context in which WWW1 took place. Very moving.

This touching collection of poetry stems from the horrors of Owen's own experiences at the front. From his grim, visual and detailed description of a man dying of poison gas, to his conspiracy theories of the real reasons behind the war, Owen uncovers the old lie and disproves it right before our eyes: Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mori...

I loved all the great photos and personal stories that accompanied wonderful traditional Southern recipes. Its much more than just a cookbook. The stories about Elvis were touching, and as a huge Elvis fan, and lover of food and eating, this will keep me in the kitchen for months to come. Elvis' favorite cornbread recipe is now one of my favorites. I highly recommend this book for Elvis lovers around the world.

If you want to eat some food that Elvis Presley enjoyed in his 42 years of life, then I'm sute this is the cookbook you would want to have in your kitchen or wherever you keep your cookbooks. If you want to try the famous Peanut Butter & Bannana sandwitch, I'm sure you will find it in here. I don't have the book in front of me. A restaurnt has a recipe for Elvis Presley's favorite pizza. Which I'm not 100% sure if Elvis Presley was a big pizza fan. I think I'm am about 50% sure of Elvis liking pizza. But I am 100% that Elvis Presley loved Peanut butter & Bannanana Sandwitches.

Great book with some super recipes for all families to share! Love the pictures and the little tidbits of family stories. Keep up the great work Donna.

I loved this book! Great action. I read it in one weekend. Great character developement. Vampires, undread, giant talking rats! What more could you want from a book? The best news... the second one is even better.

This book was exciting the whole way through. There were no dull moments. I can't wait for the next in the saga!

Loved this book. First one of this genre that I have read....and I can not wait for the second one. Fast moving. Kept my attention...all the way to the end.

Let's see more books Ian!

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.

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.

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.

If you like the systematic way that Paul writes Romans, then you will appreciate Cranfield's treatment here. It's not too technical so as to eliminate the understanding of the average layperson (but you can get the longer commentary if you so choose). I appreciate its referring to other passages and its to-the-point commentary. Truly a pleasure to have in hand as you read through Romans. I highly recommend it!

When Professor Charles Cranfield published his ICC commentary on Romans in 1975 (vol. II, 1979), it was met with universal high praise, and until today it is considered one of the very best on this epistle. The abridged version has a brief Introduction, dispenses with analysis of the Greek text, and contains few notes. Yet even those who own the full two-volume commentary may find it useful to obtain the shorter work for quick reference, because it contains the gist of Cranfield's thought--by Cranfield himself. The marvel of it is the way he combines brevity with depth and thoroughness. I will give just one example. On verse 6:2, in the space of little more than one page, he lucidly explains four different senses of how dying to sin and being raised to life may be understood: juridical, baptismal, moral, and eschatological; then writes, "In the course of the following verses Paul moves freely between these different senses, implying all the time both the distinctness of these different dyings and risings with Christ and also their real and essential relatedness." One page? Imagine what wealth of exposition may be gleaned from 384 pages of commentary!

Cranfield excels at clearly articulating various possible interpretations of difficult passages. He does so in a very logical and orderly manner. He then explains his reasons for favoring one view over the others. The reader is benefitted by having new possibilities brought to view, as well as aided in selecting the proper understanding of the passage in question. This book was required reading for a course on Romans at Fuller Seminary. It may serve as a useful reference, or engage a reader with an appetite for high class theology. Makes an excellent gift!