John's Gospel is beautiful and is definitely the axis of orthodoxy, but anybody who has read Raymond Brown's "The Churches The Apostles Left Behind" (or any of his other studies on John) will have to admit that the Johannine ecclesiology and soteriology taken in isolation is a tad bit - dare I say it - unorthodox.
I voted for Luke because I've read it the most times as it makes a great narrative, I think, but I could have voted for Matthew since most of my favorite verses come from it.
For me, it's a toss up between John & Luke. As much as I love John, if I had to choose just one, I'd have to go with Luke. In the end, Luke's Nativity story, with all it's rich Marian implications, tips the balance.
Luke-Acts combined is probably my favorite, but John is a very, very close second (more like a tie for first), and Matthew is a close second to the tied firsts, as I have noticed, whenever I (or most anyone) attempts to quote Christ, we do it in the phrasing of Matthew, or sometimes a cross between Matthew and Luke. Mark is a distant third, notable mostly for the (questioned) long ending and the first line, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God".
If Luke is taken alone, without Acts, John is likely my favorite: but, I believe, one must of necessity have two favorite gospels: a synoptic favorite, and John. For, as Thomas Aquinas and many of the Holy Fathers said, the synoptic gospels start with the humanity of our Lord; John begins unlike the others with the divinity of our Lord. Together, as the four witnesses, they are insurance of orthodoxy: one alone could never be, Matthew or Luke, being the only gospel, leading to Adoptionism, and John, being the only gospel, leading to Docetism.
Each has strength and weakness; Matthew deals with converting the Jews and prophecy, and the great parables; Luke-Acts deals with the Mother of God and the early Church in the tradition of the great Greco-Roman historians such as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Livy; John deals with the Incarnate Son and the teaching of doctrine; even Mark deals with miracles to a greater degree than the other Gospels: "There are four gospels, as there are four winds, and four corners of the earth".
If it matches the one used for the Mass currently, the NAB NT will be better, although even currently it's not horrible. I mainly dislike two things, one of significance, one less so: Lk 1:28 and the removal of many excellent verses, sometimes without even a footnote. However, the greater - the removal of verses and passages - is common to all modern critical translations, except for the NASB. I imagine the first will be rectified: I am uncertain at best about the second.
The OT is what remains in need of drastic revision. The NT is not that bad even as-is in the 1986 version.
Luke for me is the best Gospel for me. It right blend of Christ's Semitic origin, its rich Marian attribution, and a right blend of Jesus's ministry from the Tradition of the synoptic Gospels. But John is not to be belittled, because it gives us another dimension of Jesus's life that we cannot see in the Synoptic Gospels [it's like the analogy I find with 1-2 Samuel and Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles narrating at a different dimension]. Then you'll see how Bible was significantly made.
7 comments:
John's Gospel is beautiful and is definitely the axis of orthodoxy, but anybody who has read Raymond Brown's "The Churches The Apostles Left Behind" (or any of his other studies on John) will have to admit that the Johannine ecclesiology and soteriology taken in isolation is a tad bit - dare I say it - unorthodox.
I voted for Luke because I've read it the most times as it makes a great narrative, I think, but I could have voted for Matthew since most of my favorite verses come from it.
For me, it's a toss up between John & Luke. As much as I love John, if I had to choose just one, I'd have to go with Luke. In the end, Luke's Nativity story, with all it's rich Marian implications, tips the balance.
Pax,
John
Tim, in an unrelated development to this post, you may find this very interesting news:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-american-bible-to-be-revised-into-single-translation/
Thanks David, that is big news.
My comment as left on the poll:
Luke-Acts combined is probably my favorite, but John is a very, very close second (more like a tie for first), and Matthew is a close second to the tied firsts, as I have noticed, whenever I (or most anyone) attempts to quote Christ, we do it in the phrasing of Matthew, or sometimes a cross between Matthew and Luke. Mark is a distant third, notable mostly for the (questioned) long ending and the first line, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God".
If Luke is taken alone, without Acts, John is likely my favorite: but, I believe, one must of necessity have two favorite gospels: a synoptic favorite, and John. For, as Thomas Aquinas and many of the Holy Fathers said, the synoptic gospels start with the humanity of our Lord; John begins unlike the others with the divinity of our Lord. Together, as the four witnesses, they are insurance of orthodoxy: one alone could never be, Matthew or Luke, being the only gospel, leading to Adoptionism, and John, being the only gospel, leading to Docetism.
Each has strength and weakness; Matthew deals with converting the Jews and prophecy, and the great parables; Luke-Acts deals with the Mother of God and the early Church in the tradition of the great Greco-Roman historians such as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Livy; John deals with the Incarnate Son and the teaching of doctrine; even Mark deals with miracles to a greater degree than the other Gospels: "There are four gospels, as there are four winds, and four corners of the earth".
If it matches the one used for the Mass currently, the NAB NT will be better, although even currently it's not horrible. I mainly dislike two things, one of significance, one less so: Lk 1:28 and the removal of many excellent verses, sometimes without even a footnote. However, the greater - the removal of verses and passages - is common to all modern critical translations, except for the NASB. I imagine the first will be rectified: I am uncertain at best about the second.
The OT is what remains in need of drastic revision. The NT is not that bad even as-is in the 1986 version.
Luke for me is the best Gospel for me. It right blend of Christ's Semitic origin, its rich Marian attribution, and a right blend of Jesus's ministry from the Tradition of the synoptic Gospels. But John is not to be belittled, because it gives us another dimension of Jesus's life that we cannot see in the Synoptic Gospels [it's like the analogy I find with 1-2 Samuel and Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles narrating at a different dimension]. Then you'll see how Bible was significantly made.
Post a Comment