The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and Luke by Norman Perrin

by Norman Perrin

The New Testament resurrection narratives must be understood in both their similarities and their differences. Norman Perrin was a leading interpreter of the Gospels. In this book he relates each Synoptic account of the resurrection of Jesus to the theology of its Evangelist resulting in a new understanding of the importance of the Easter celebration. This book will illumine lay readers, clergy, and all students of the New Testament.

Genres: Religion

Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

Reviews

[Elissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting perspective. Succinct. I'd like to read more from him. Has a perspective that regards the idea of myth that I haven't seen much of. I probably should have read all of the verses he referenced and read the books for each chapter, but I didn't. Probably would read again.

[Steve Irby · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished "The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke," by Norman Perrin; 1977.

So you thought I was in the middle of Thomas Odens ST? Well I am. But the evening before vacation someone packed Odens ST V1 so I vould have it on the trip. So I began this one and am finishing it now that we are back.

As a synoptologist (yeah, I made the word up) Perrin admits that covering John and Acts are beyond his scope and ability because his professional focus has only been the synoptics.

In Mark Perrin says that everything past 16:8 is later addition. In that case Mark ends without much more than "he ain't here yall, he's risen." But Perrin believes that the resurrection is predicted in the transfiguration and that Markan theology would have us living daily with a "He is risen," which would be sans appearances but with the transfiguration (Parousia) ever in front of us.

In Matthew Perrin sees Mark's figurative statement about meeting the disciples in Galilee as literal from whence we get the great commission. Matthew isn't interested in an appearance story like Luke but in the climax of the great commission. The great commission speaks to the church working until the end of the age, the Parousia. A major difference here between Mark and Matthew is that Mark saw the Parousia as happening any moment but very soon. Matthew rather has the creation of the Church--living groups of disciples--which awaits the coming of the Lord.

In Luke we find an even more mature account of the young churches theology as relayed by Luke. In the account of the road to Emmaus the two disciples who meet the risen Jesus know it is him by how he blessed and broke the bread. This eucharistic insertion has an early church all over it (He is risen and you can know Him through the bread and wine). Luke has an eschatological outlook though it is far retreated from the immediacy of Marks..

Good fast read at 85 pp.

#NormanPerrin #TheResurrection #Resurrection #Synoptic #SynopticGosples

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was an interesting, albeit brief, look into the resurrection of Jesus Christ as told by the synoptic Gospels. As with so many things in the Bible, the story of the resurrection that many, and I'd even dare to say most, Christians "know" is actually a conglomeration of what all of the Gospels have written, quite a disservice to the original writers, their texts, and also to modern readers.

Perrin's entire purpose for the book seems to be that each Gospel needs to be read in such a way that the author's intent/purpose can come to light. Mark certainly was not trying to say the same thing as either Matthew or Luke, and in turn, Matthew and Luke had similar but not identical purposes in writing their texts and as such, their stories are different. To treat them as one distorts each of the messages. He also makes the point that the Gospels should not be looked upon for the history of the events that occur, pointing out that history has been 'changed' by time and by motive. He further submits that looking to them for theology and not history makes them in no way less valid.

Perrin's logic seems to break down a bit here and there, but not in such a way or to such a degree that it undermines his overall presentation. I would absolutely love to get my hands on the "Q source," or, more accurately, for scholars to one day get their hands on it and then disseminate the information to those of us who don't read ancient languages. It's frustrating to know that such a document once existed but is no longer available. While I'm sure it would probably create an entirely new set of questions, certainly it would answer a few already posed!

[Serge Boyadjain · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book is interesting because it gives a new perspective of the resurrection. I will say one thing which is quite interesting. This will be a spoiler but the author from what he appears doesn’t believe that the physical body of Jesus actually got resurrected but instead the resurrection is Jesus represented differently in the three gospels of mark,Matthew, and Luke. Instead of an actual body being resurrected the resurrection is instead something where he is always with the people like in mark or in Matthew the resurrection is in the church. In Luke the resurrection is the life we imitate Jesus when he was resurrected. This is a massive mind blown since usually modern Christian’s think that Jesus’s physical body has been resurrected but with this new insight what the resurrection means to the gospel writers it makes me think differently of the risen Jesus. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn about Bible scholarship. Although there is one problem I had with this book but it’s because of my skill level in Bible scholarship. If you want to read this book I would suggest first reading the resurrection narratives then reading the chapters in this book. I didn’t follow by this and kinda got lost but then after doing this it all made sense. Good book I give it a 10/10.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

An very scholarly and reasonably accessible look at the presentation of the Resurrection of Jesus as portrayed in the Synoptic gospels. Perrin masterfully demonstrates how the theology of each evangelist shaped his telling of and understanding of the "Easter Event." Perrin also gives some usefull information on the historicity of the event. We are mistaken, Perrin, asserts if we read the Easter narratives for history. Angelic messengers, empty tombs, and Jesus eating broiled Fish, are theological narratives expressing in how each evangelists understands the experience of Jesus as living and as Lord; they are not reporting plain facts. I wish he would have said more about this. But all in all, a great read for those intersted in theology and New Testament exigesis

[Suzy G · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had no idea that the history behind each account of the resurrection in Mark, Matthew, and Luke was so different! Nor did I realize that the authors had specific goals in mind as they wrote their gospel. Very enjoyable read; Perrin does a great job at explaining concepts. He also reexplains concepts in different ways in case you didn't understand the first time.