As you may know, I've been 'reading' the Bible -well, the N.T. - first by listenming to it on cassette tapes in the car, and then pouring over it after with my own eyes. So, the Gospels - I've read them all, and multiple times now. However, the four gospels are where I've stopped for now - I want to go over them again and again so that I have a real good grasp of them.
The first three, as I've written before (and is common knowledge), are very similar. The last - the Gospel of John -is deeply different than the other three. Very fascinating. I've read that the way the gospel actually got into the canon is the the Gnostics really liked this gospel best, and to try and keep them in the early church, they included it as one of the official four. And - I gotta say -it's really really hard to understand. I will 'read' Joh 3-4 more times before I go on - I must get a better grip.
The first three, as I've written before (and is common knowledge), are very similar. The last - the Gospel of John -is deeply different than the other three. Very fascinating. I've read that the way the gospel actually got into the canon is the the Gnostics really liked this gospel best, and to try and keep them in the early church, they included it as one of the official four. And - I gotta say -it's really really hard to understand. I will 'read' Joh 3-4 more times before I go on - I must get a better grip.
However -the other three similar (synoptic, it's so termed) are very very very familiar. Growing up Catholic, with all the readings in church and all the religion classes and generally being interested in Christ - we got lots of this stuff all,the time dolled up. But what I remark on is this = There is not a single line in the three sonoptic gospels that I actually don't know. I'm familier with every fucking story or whatever. Again to defend some parts of the church -well, it gave those of us who listened a solid background in the Gospels. In John there is some hazy stuff, but even that Gospel is 95% familier.
But that picture? And the title, Juliet Stephenson?
Lots of people have their favourite Gospel. Mark, the first and the simplest. Matthew, the best organized. Luke, for the overriding theme of forgeviness (my favourite line when I was both two and two score and two is in this Gospel--"Forgive them Lord: They know not what they do"). John, for the freakiness.
But so far - and their is a MAJOR QUALIFICATION- is Mark. The earliest. Simple. It was written for a community under persecutuion, so in this Gospel lots of brothers turning against brothers, etc... Just lots of good stuff.
However, it is my favourite because Juliet Stephenson gives such a wonderous rendering of the Gospel ((in the cassette version of the New Testement I'm listening to.)) that I've fallen head over heels w/ her reading of it. There are like ten other people reading the differing books of the bible - some real famous English names. But he quality of these others? They seem dead compared with the wonderous Juiliet. I have listened to it purely for her masterful reading than to hear the gospel, @ this point.
I wish she had done the whole Catholic Bible on cassette. She's lovely.
I love her.
I wish she had done the whole Catholic Bible on cassette. She's lovely.
I love her.
No comments:
Post a Comment