The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Analysis, but starts in the wrong place
Review: After reading The Resurrection by Norman Perrin, I can definitely say that he knows a lot. A lot about Greek literature and a lot about these gospels. He especially knows a lot about how the synoptic gospels differ from each other. And that is the focus of his book. Perrin attempts to understand how each views the resurrection of Jesus by focusing on how they differ from each other. Unfortunately, due to the substantive and methodological problems in his analysis, Perrin usually ends up engaging in undue speculation (however well informed) or stating the obvious.

First, by building his case on how much the synoptic gospels differ instead of how each presents the resurrection as a whole, Perrin skews his analysis to highlight the different emphasis. This problem is highlighted by the length of the book--which weighs in at 84 pages of text and only refers to six sources (2 of which are other works by Perrin).

Second, Perrin does not include any discussion of the Gospel of John. To his credit, Perrin is frank about this and explains that it is because he lacks the requisite expertise. Even so, if the focus is on how different Christian authors, and presumably communities, viewed and retold the story of the resurrection, any analysis that simply ignores the Gospel of John is denying itself an important part of the picture.

Third, Perrin does not give much time to discussing the earliest presentation of the resurrection in the letters of Paul, except for a few pages in his conclusion. Even then he does not really work them into the picture of understanding the gospels in light of how the earliest Christian writings and formula understood the resurrection. Again, this seems to be denying the analysis much needed data.

Fourth, because Perrin starts with the Gospel of Mark and focuses on how Matthew and Luke differ from Mark, his analysis can only be as good as his conclusions regarding Mark. And here it appears there are significant flaws. Though Perrin concedes much of the argument that the original version of Mark did not end at 16:8 is strong, he nevertheless concludes that it did indeed end there. Additionally, Perrin argues that Mark envisions no resurrection appearances at all! Even though Perrin concedes that Mark's readers were aware of stories of such appearances. What about Mark's statement that Jesus will meet his followers in Galilee? Perrin does not think this refers to Jesus appearing to the disciples there (as Matthew reports). Rather, to Perrin "Galilee" is code word for the mission to the gentile nations. This all seems rather unlikely, especially if we give any place to Paul's letters in the analysis. These, in my opinion, foundational errors set the entire program off on the wrong foot--no matter how intelligent or informed the rest of Perrin's discussion.

All in all, Perrin's book does a good job of pointing out differences between the synoptic gospels and their treatment of the resurrection. The analysis of the significance of those differences rests on some assumptions/conclusions that prove to be unpersuasive. And much data -- such as Paul's letters and the Gospel of John -- are sacrificed to the further detriment of the enterprise. Still, the price is right and informed speculation can be helpful in trying to sort out the gospels and the resurrection. Just recognize the limitations of this particular analysis.

Rating:
Summary: Good Redaction Criticism
Review: Norman Perrin is a well-respected New Testament critic for good reason. Perrin provides first-rate redaction criticism of the resurrection narratives in the synoptic gospels that sheds light on the purposes of the authors and the meaning of the myths. Perrin stresses that the importance of the resurrection stories does not lie in their literal, historical accuracy. Apart from Perrin's idea that Mark refers to the parousia instead of an appearance in 16:7, I found nothing in it to be disagreeable. Although conservative Christians will not appreciate Perrin's insight, liberal Christians should find that this book enriches an understanding of their faith. Secular students of the New Testament, such as myself, will find Perrin to be a good source for sound observations on the texts.

Rating:
Summary: Good Redaction Criticism
Review: Norman Perrin is a well-respected New Testament critic for good reason. Perrin provides first-rate redaction criticism of the resurrection narratives in the synoptic gospels that sheds light on the purposes of the authors and the meaning of the myths. Perrin stresses that the importance of the resurrection stories does not lie in their literal, historical accuracy. Apart from Perrin's idea that Mark refers to the parousia instead of an appearance in 16:7, I found nothing in it to be disagreeable. Although conservative Christians will not appreciate Perrin's insight, liberal Christians should find that this book enriches an understanding of their faith. Secular students of the New Testament, such as myself, will find Perrin to be a good source for sound observations on the texts.