Seeing Light: A Critical Enquiry into the Origins of Resurrection Faith by Peter Gant

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Reviewed by: Seeing Light: A Critical Enquiry into the Origins of Resurrection Faith by Peter Gant Glenn B. Siniscalchi peter gant, Seeing Light: A Critical Enquiry into the Origins of Resurrection Faith (Durham, UK: Sacristy Press, 2019). Pp. xii + 302. Paper $31.80. Peter Gant’s thought-provoking book will be of interest to biblical scholars and fundamental theologians whose area of specialization is dedicated to historical-critical exegesis and the earliest Christian claim that “God raised Jesus from the dead.” The first half of the book comprehensively covers the relevant aspects of the ancient Jewish matrix leading up to the emergence of Christianity, including the multiple understandings of immortality (which is consistent with and reinforced by the hellenization of Palestine), Sheol, angelo-morphic visions, rewards and punishments for the dead, the notion of resurrection itself, exaltation, and heavenly redeemer figures and titles. One should agree with G. in affirming that “Jesus’ followers were able to draw on a wide variety of existing Second Temple afterlife beliefs” (p. 19). Gant’s lucid coverage of the wisdom traditions and cultic practices of Judaism sets the stage for the possibility of many nuanced interpretations of the NT evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He exposits the embedded testimonies and cultural factors that are behind and underneath Paul’s writings and the canonical Gospels. These testimonies include [End Page 158] “a short, powerful and multiply attested formulaic assertion to the effect that God has raised Jesus from the dead” (p. 20). Other considerations include “pre-Pauline christological hymns . . . that speak powerfully of the heavenly exaltation of Jesus. . . . There is also an early Aramaic prayer for the coming or return of Jesus from heaven. And, most especially, there is a very early tradition concerning appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples, a tradition differing significantly from the much later appearance stories in the Gospels” (p. 20). G.’s text is especially helpful in distinguishing the earliest evidence (i.e., the after-death appearances of Jesus) from later understandings that developed in the first twenty years of the Christian movement. Gant’s assessment of the understandings of the religious background and the NT evidence is fairly presented and consistently informative. Although G. does not completely discount interpretations of the resurrection that resonate with most of the agreed-upon evidence in contemporary studies (see, e.g., the proposals set forth by senior scholars such as Gerald O’Collins and N. T. Wright), he settles for a reconstruction that many critics will want to dispute. Introducing his willingness to push forward a newer depiction of Easter faith, G. believes that “key texts such as Daniel 12:2–3 are capable of more than one interpretation. Even if it is true that ‘resurrection’ without an empty grave would have been unthinkable, allowance must still be made for the possibility of innovation on the part of Jesus’ earliest followers” (p. 197). Consequently, G. maintains that the earliest evidence points in favor of the earliest Christian belief in the exaltation of Jesus (see Phil 2:5–11). However, other believers said that Jesus was raised from the dead. More importantly, these distinct beliefs were not necessarily complementary to one another (p. 262). According to G., the latter point highlights the uncertainty and pluriform ways in which evidence can be assessed. A second controversial point is the irrelevance of the empty tomb of Jesus for resurrection faith. The final controversial contention is that modern scientific worldviews will preclude the possibility and defensibility of miracles. It is unfortunate that G. repeatedly takes this assumption for granted and never explains to the reader why anyone should accept it. Part of the problem is that miracles are defined as divine interference with the laws of nature, but this outdated definition indicates that G. is unaware of the scholarship that discusses miracles in ways that are congruent with science and its relationship to philosophy. Since the nature of the evidence is uncertain, allowing for many interpretations in light of a modern scientific worldview, one should merely resort to theological language for understanding the origins of Easter faith: “resurrection faith emerged as a theological interpretation of the totality of the history of Israel, the life...