Resurrection: Texts and Interpretation, Experience and Theology by Karl Olav Sandnes and Jan-Olav Henriksen (review)

Reviewed by: Resurrection: Texts and Interpretation, Experience and Theology by Karl Olav Sandnes and Jan-Olav Henriksen Glenn B Siniscalchi karl olav sandnes and jan-olav henriksen, Resurrection: Texts and Interpretation, Experience and Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020). Pp. xi + 309. 41. A major incentive of the earliest church communities was the belief that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. But what did the term "resurrection" mean? Unlike many other studies on the rise of earliest Christianity, Karl Olav Sandnes and Jan-Olav Henriksen combine their expertise in historiography, hermeneutics, and systematic theology to answer this question. Their approach recognizes that history is insufficient for discovering the veracity and nature of the initial claims that were made about the risen Jesus. Correlatively, the book employs an interdisciplinary methodology that analyzes the various traditions leading back to the resurrection of Jesus. In the first part, S. and H. outline and discuss the presuppositions on which their study builds. This section breaks new ground in the study of preconditions for historiography and theology. To be precise, it presents an understanding of abductive inferences that is based in the semiotics of C. S. Peirce, and this is combined with new studies about religious experience that concentrate on practices of orientation and transformation. Given the biblical reports and depictions concerning the empty tomb along with visual encounters of the postmortem Jesus, S. and H. rightly emphasize that the category of resurrection was inferred (not deduced) by the first percipients and church communities: "The flipside of this position is that nobody experiences the resurrection as such and that it, from a semiotic perspective, can be characterized as an interpretive category based on abduction from other experiences" (pp. 3–4; italics original). The second part of the book is dedicated to the NT texts that speak about Jesus's resurrection and the visual experiences that served as a major catalyst in the formation of the original churches. Special attention is given to Paul's creedal list in 1 Cor 15: 3–7 and the tradition histories behind the resurrection narratives in the canonical Gospels. One noteworthy conclusion in this section is that the visual experiences of the first percipients should be distinguished from the nature of the resurrection egress from the tomb. It is not necessarily the case that the postmortem visions were identical manifestations of the raised Jesus from the "other side. " With this in mind, it should be emphasized that the NT writers never once described the nature of Jesus's resurrection body. As S. and H. remind us, "This implies an elusiveness which impacts on how it is possible to understand this phenomenon at all" (p. 4). Next, S. and H. draw attention to Jean Luc Marion's celebrated notion of the saturated phenomenon. His phenomenological perspective allows S. and H. to develop an enhanced End Page 395 hermeneutical approach to miracles and the resurrection. This new contribution is subsequently put in dialogue with previous scholarship that was guided primarily by the historical-critical method of interpretation. The following historians are consulted and engaged: Dale Allison, Rudolf Bultmann, Peter Carnley, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and N. T. Wright. As with the conclusions of the previous sections of Resurrection, the disciples' belief in the resurrection should be understood as an interpretation of selected experiences rather than an obvious explanation of commonplace facts. Theology informed the use of the disciples' resurrection language: "In this regard, the theological tropes of God as creator, and the understanding of Jesus' pre-Easter ministry becomes significant for understanding the content of the resurrection faith" (p. 5). Toward the end of Resurrection, the authors suggest several ways in which NT history and theologies should be distinguished and integrated. This is a common reframe throughout the book. Though theology is frequently overlooked by scholars seeking to use philosophical arguments and historical methods to justify the fundamental claims of the church, I completely agree with S. and H. that theology plays a necessary role in the justification of Easter faith. This book serves as a welcome addition to the scholarly literature on the resurrection. It will complement other recent studies that put a restraint on apologetic endeavors that masquerade as strictly historical. . .