Fourth Gospel-Four (Now Five) Reasons!

Why is the Gospel of John my favorite?

(1) The Prologue is poetic. I don't doubt that many good books could be written exploring the first eighteen verses of John. On the one hand, it reads like a poem:

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.

Looking over those first few lines, I am tempted to say that it reads like the poem: the first and last poem ever written, because it vehicles the presence of the Word, the source of all meaning poetic and otherwise.

(2) On the other hand, those first few lines are also philosophical: the little argument maker in me sees the potential for much thought over the idea of something that both is God and is with God: "how should we express this paradox?", we say to ourselves. So, while the prologue may be poetic, it is not obscurely so. Or, if it seems obscure, it is because it is being clear in laying out the problems that thinkers will have in approaching the Word. I must admit to having a hard time finding fodder in the rest of the Gospel for my little argument maker, but I don't doubt it can be done.

(3) It, more than the other Gospels, gratifies a love of characters. I don't mean to disparage the other three Gospels, or suggest I have made a thorough study of the various characters in them, but on first glance, the Gospel of John is the one that most effectively presents us with varied personalities. The first character that comes to mind is that of Nathaniel. Jesus calls our attention to his peculiar, paradoxical attribute: "An Isrealite indeed, in whom is no guile". The next one is Nicodemus. He is the first character to have an extended one-on-one dialogue with Christ. He pops up later in the Gospel, still concerning himself over Christ, and a great essay or book could be written on his spiritual struggles. The other striking one-on-one dialogue is the one between Christ and the Samaritan woman. Talk about a character! I think Chaucer owes his portrayal of the Wife Of Bath to John. Of course the character hanging over the whole book is that of the Beloved Disciple. I have nothing profound to say in a short space, but that is not because I lack things to say about him.

(4) Finally, the cosmological aspects of John appeal to me. Wind, Water and Light: Rebirth in the Gospel of John: that was the pretentious title to my final paper at St. John's. In his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Jesus is using the word 'water' in a way that just teases me. I want to know what he is getting at. I get the feeling that if someone were to understand this, then every word Jesus used would take on a new significance. Of course, the point is not to understand water, but to get a handle of Jesus' way of speaking. There is perhaps some Platonism that could be brought in: like he is talking about the form of water, but that just seems like a starting place. I get the feeling that, for my mental health, I need to back off from symbolic thinking, but if I thought it was a good idea, John is the place I would start.

(5) I originally only wrote four reasons for preferring the Gospel of John, but I remembered a fifth. I don't know what it means that I forgot about this, but the Gospel of John seems to have much to say about knowing the Truth. The man born blind is given a whole chapter in John, whereas he is treated briefly in the Synoptics. Doubting Thomas has a prominent place. Jesus beckons in the beginning of the Gospel to "Come and see". And of course, Christ calls Himself the "the Truth" in this Gospel. I mentioned above that the philospher will find argument fodder if he looks. Of course, he will also find the consummation of his arguing in John. Wayward seeker that I am, I forgot this!