While for Christians each of the four gospel accounts are, of course, Sacred Scripture and at the very heart of our faith identity, there is no getting by the fact that we tend to feel a greater affinity for certain texts over others.
The Bible is a library, after all; a library of books spanning a range of genres, literary styles and degrees of rhetorical prowess and aesthetic merit. This is no less the case for the canonical gospels. One scholar has described the different tones of the four gospels succinctly as, "the elegant style of Luke, the elevated style of John, the forceful style of Matthew, and the plain style of Mark ." Take your pick! Which one do you connect with the most?
The synoptics share broad intertextual themes and dependence (i.e. Mark primacy, potentially a shared Q source etc.), whereas the Gospel of John is quite distinct in its more mystical, realized eschatology.
I am willing to stick my neck out and declare my preference for the Gospel of Luke, or rather Luke-Acts given that they really constitute a double-volume epic.
Already in chapter 1, near the end of Mary’s hymn of praise to God (The Magnificat), she mentions how God subverts conventional hierarchies of power and privilege (Luke 1:52-53):
When a book begins like that, with that sort of awesomely subversive and egalitarian principle, I know - just know - its a book I'm going to like.
In the original Koine Greek, Luke is unanimously regarded by scholars as the most literary and syntactically perfect of the gospels (with poor Mark being the least grammatically correct or aesthetically pleasing), evidencing a rich vocabulary and sophisticated command of the Greek tongue, which approaches the heights of classical literature (i.e. Homer, Herodotus, Plato).
At a length of 19,482 words and with 59% of its material being wholly unique to Luke, it is by far the lengthiest gospel. Together with its second volume The Book of Acts, the combined Luke-Acts accounts for 27.5% of the New Testament, making it the largest contribution by a single sacred author.
All of these factors make Luke stand out in the midst of NT literature, and yet its distinguishing content, theology and missionary focus are even more striking, when viewed comparatively. Beyond doubt, this is the gospel 'of the margins' and of 'social justice'. For all its urbane linguistic character, Luke is the strongest advocate - with the honourable exception of the Epistle of James, a work of similarly erudite prose - for the poor, dispossessed and marginalized members of society.
When we think about Jesus, in an everyday sense, I feel that we naturally gravitate towards images of the Lukan Jesus: the Jesus of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the preacher decrying the evil of rich oppressors and valorising the poor, the Jesus who reaches out to the outcasts and welcomes them. His gospel pays far more attention to women and feminine role models than do the other evangelists. Luke emphasizes, more than any other evangelist, the 'radical' nature of Christian discipleship.
The only rival to Luke, in this respect, is the justly celebrated Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew (widely regarded as the greatest summation of Jesus's moral message) and the Judgement of the Nations, where the Matthean Jesus announces that we will be judged by how well we looked out for the least among all people and fulfilled the corporal works of mercy, as well as Matthew's special recognition of Jesus's outreach to prostitutes.
I love all four of the canonical gospels, albeit for different reasons. Mark, for his fast-paced, terse and emotive ride through Jesus's life and mission. Matthew for the reasons I mentioned above. John for his lofty spiritual emphases and powerful symbolic language. But Luke still resonates the most with me.
What about you?
The Bible is a library, after all; a library of books spanning a range of genres, literary styles and degrees of rhetorical prowess and aesthetic merit. This is no less the case for the canonical gospels. One scholar has described the different tones of the four gospels succinctly as, "the elegant style of Luke, the elevated style of John, the forceful style of Matthew, and the plain style of Mark ." Take your pick! Which one do you connect with the most?
The synoptics share broad intertextual themes and dependence (i.e. Mark primacy, potentially a shared Q source etc.), whereas the Gospel of John is quite distinct in its more mystical, realized eschatology.
I am willing to stick my neck out and declare my preference for the Gospel of Luke, or rather Luke-Acts given that they really constitute a double-volume epic.
Already in chapter 1, near the end of Mary’s hymn of praise to God (The Magnificat), she mentions how God subverts conventional hierarchies of power and privilege (Luke 1:52-53):
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
When a book begins like that, with that sort of awesomely subversive and egalitarian principle, I know - just know - its a book I'm going to like.
In the original Koine Greek, Luke is unanimously regarded by scholars as the most literary and syntactically perfect of the gospels (with poor Mark being the least grammatically correct or aesthetically pleasing), evidencing a rich vocabulary and sophisticated command of the Greek tongue, which approaches the heights of classical literature (i.e. Homer, Herodotus, Plato).
At a length of 19,482 words and with 59% of its material being wholly unique to Luke, it is by far the lengthiest gospel. Together with its second volume The Book of Acts, the combined Luke-Acts accounts for 27.5% of the New Testament, making it the largest contribution by a single sacred author.
All of these factors make Luke stand out in the midst of NT literature, and yet its distinguishing content, theology and missionary focus are even more striking, when viewed comparatively. Beyond doubt, this is the gospel 'of the margins' and of 'social justice'. For all its urbane linguistic character, Luke is the strongest advocate - with the honourable exception of the Epistle of James, a work of similarly erudite prose - for the poor, dispossessed and marginalized members of society.
When we think about Jesus, in an everyday sense, I feel that we naturally gravitate towards images of the Lukan Jesus: the Jesus of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the preacher decrying the evil of rich oppressors and valorising the poor, the Jesus who reaches out to the outcasts and welcomes them. His gospel pays far more attention to women and feminine role models than do the other evangelists. Luke emphasizes, more than any other evangelist, the 'radical' nature of Christian discipleship.
The only rival to Luke, in this respect, is the justly celebrated Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew (widely regarded as the greatest summation of Jesus's moral message) and the Judgement of the Nations, where the Matthean Jesus announces that we will be judged by how well we looked out for the least among all people and fulfilled the corporal works of mercy, as well as Matthew's special recognition of Jesus's outreach to prostitutes.
I love all four of the canonical gospels, albeit for different reasons. Mark, for his fast-paced, terse and emotive ride through Jesus's life and mission. Matthew for the reasons I mentioned above. John for his lofty spiritual emphases and powerful symbolic language. But Luke still resonates the most with me.
What about you?
Last edited:
