Introduction
This essay paper details the gospel of Luke and John, in terms of their literary distinctions and similarities. The task herein is to choose either the gospel of John or the gospel of Luke, and summarize its importance, assigning a thematic approach to the gospel. The discourse shall exhibit and expand upon the differences and similarities, from the gospel not chosen as primary base of text. In this examination, the gospel of John serves as the foremost model upon which to build a comparative analysis – in contrast to the secondary gospel of Luke. The attempted goal is to produce a cogent critical analysis of the gospel of John, without forming a value assessment. Its importance and significance do require notation, however. Thus, the task enlists you to simply recognize the distinction and similarities of one of the two. The gospel of John delivers an unprecedented powerful impact upon the world, over a multitude of generations, because of its historical reliability of the text, sustenance over time, and profoundly unifying implications.
Body
The similarities of the two texts shall be addressed first, after laying the groundwork for a perusal of the primary focus. The gospel of John has, for the purposes of this literary research essay, a dual significance which speaks to its authentic textual historicity and unique sense of encountering a direct, ‘eye-witness’ account of experiences with the Divine God. According to historical Biblical scholar and lecturer Gary Matlack, the gospel of John is not based upon myth. As a matter of fact, Matlack presents a wealth of well-founded historical claims to support the notion. For example, Matlack explains “The Gospels are trustworthy, historical and factual accounts of the events surrounding the life of Jesus Nazareth” (The Gospels: Are they Myth or History?). Matlack states that the “New Testament documents as a whole are the best attested documents of antiquity” (The Gospels: Are they Myth or History?). The text of the gospel of John supports the claim, and repeatedly emphasizes the accounts he has recorded are true and accurate from an eye-witness point of view.
The gospel of John presents the book as a literary document, based upon fact. John (the gospel writer and Apostle) states “And this is the record of John [the Baptist], when the Jews sent priest and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?”(Authorized King James Bible, John 1.19). To passionately drive the point home in the text, as to the reliability of the textual account of events, the gospel of John author strongly implores readers with unwavering audacity, earlier in verse 19. He writes “John bare witness of him and cried saying, this was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me” (Authorized King James Bible, John 1.15). A stunning section of the text in chapter one, seems to indicate that John wishes to convey his soundness of mind. In other words, he does not want the readers to think he is hallucinating, or trying to convince others that he has had a sort of mystical ‘illusion’ and claiming to have ‘physically seen’ with his own eyes, the Creator God of the universe. It is an extraordinary piece of the gospel of John text. It reads: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Authorized King James Bible, John 1.18). This aspect covers the major core of similarities.
Similarities of both gospels communicates in a direct literary claim to testimonial authenticity. The entire first chapter in the gospel of Luke is clear evidence of such. Obviously, it is insufficient to report that the gospel writer John was a fisherman by trade, and the Luke was a physician, which is common knowledge. The primary source material of the gospel of Luke speaks for itself. His entire first chapter, of the gospel of Luke, begins his treatise with “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word” (Authorized King James Bible, Luke1.1-2). The similarities in both the gospel of John, and Luke’s gospel text offer continual reference to the factor of eyewitness accounts.
Similarities of the two gospels agree, about the things they saw. The historical evidence bears out to an astonishing degree of historical reliability. The account of the gospel of John illustrates further collaboration with theologians and qualified commentators. Clark, in his commentary on the gospel of John, notes a comprehensive view of the fleshly lineages, and heritage of John. For example, Clark attests to the occupation of John the writer of the gospel, being a fisherman “John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of a fisherman named Zebedee, and his mother’s name was Salome” (“Adam Clark Commentary – John overview”). Both gospel accounts agree. The gospel of John indicates the scene of fishing events.
In chapter 21 of the gospel of John, he writes “After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias;” and later in verses two through nine, proceeds to describe a scene when they were on the shore (Authorized King James Bible, John 21.1-9). John writes “Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing” (Authorized King James Bible, John 21.3). Consistencies such as these clearly prove similarities in the content and occurrences.
The distinctions between the gospel of John, and that of the gospel of Luke are equally fascinating. The introductory passage of the first chapter in John’s gospel uniquely begins “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him” and the passages following connect by stating Jesus was the “Word” which became flesh (Authorized King James Bible, John 1.1-17). The contrasting distinction between John’s literary gospel account introduction, and Luke’s is as follows. Luke begins the first chapter of his gospel as meticulously as any scientist would. Luke repeatedly speaks of the recorded accounts as based upon “eyewitnesses” and proceeds to detail a historical, expository-style narration of King Herod’s days, in the weeks preceding Jesus’s birth.
A distinction between the two gospels, is John’s handling of a constant phrase about the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (Authorized King James Bible, John 13.23). Altogether at least five passages in reference to the famed beloved disciple appeared in the gospel of John text. The reference appeared nowhere in the gospel of Luke. Might John have been referring to himself, but trying to do so in a humble way? Logic supports the notion. Also, a difference in Luke is an account is given of John’s call to apostleship chapter five, verses one through ten. There is no such account in John’s gospel. John’s gospel speaks about the eternity of the Divine ‘Logos’ or Eternal Word, connecting Jesus’s stature of Godhood to his identity. These kind of references are rife throughout the gospel of John. For example, one famous passage states “I and my Father are one” (Authorized King James Bible, John 10.30). If John really was a personal ‘familial intimate’ with John, in the context of an uncle-nephew relationship, the premise would certainly make sense. This possible situation of kinship between John the gospel writer and Lord Jesus explains that upon his death, Jesus gave Mary over to John’s care – as John’s mother.
Conclusion
In summation, both Biblical accounts of the gospel have their uniquely distinctive and similar textual qualities. Common similarities, also included the ‘John-the-Baptist’ scenes. These views may be prone to instigate arguments, but at the end of the day, the Biblical gospels are considered the finest ancient literature the world has ever known.
Bibliography
Adam, Clark. “John overview.” Adam Clark Commentary on John overview. 2014.
6 Oct. 2014. <http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=0>.
Adam, Clark. “John 1 – John Introduction.” Adam Clark Commentary on John 1 – John
Introduction. 2014. 6 Oct. 2014. <http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=1>.
Guyotjeannin, Oliver. Reviews - Episcopus et comes. Affirmation et déclin de la seigneurie
épiscopale au Nord du royaume de France. Journal of Ecclesiastical History.
Cambridge Journals Online. 2 Apr. 1989. 6 Oct. 2014.
<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7796419>.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Chapter 2. The New Testament – Extract.” Blackwell Reference
Online. 2007. Edited by: James J. Buckley, Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt and Trent
Pomplun.
The Holy Bible. Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated out of the Original
Tongues. With the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised by
His Majesty’s Special Command – as ‘The Authorized King James Bible.’
Lansing: Local Church Bible Publishers, 2009.
Matlack, Gary. “The Gospels: Are they Myth or History?” General Outline of The
Heidelberg Catechism Lecture Series. Ed. Christ Reformed Church. Christ Reformed
Church of Anaheim. Anaheim: 1999.
Siecienski, A. Edward. “Theophylact of Ohrid (ca 1050-1108).” Encyclopedia of Eastern
Orthodox Christianity. 2011.
“St. Theophylact of Nicomedia.” Catholic Online – Saints. 2014. 6 Oct. 2014.
< http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2272>.
