/lit/ - Literature

>>10923575
I like Mark specifically because it has, in my opinion, the most care put into any gospel to its larger composition. Mark frames each section of the gospel with similar narratives that fit in thematically to the chunk as a whole. You can see this most clearly with the fig tree episode, but my favorite instance of it is definitely the healing of the deaf man, and then the healing of the blind man at Bethaisda much later. Matthew and Luke based their gospels at least partially on Mark, but they change his composition. In Matthew and Luke, stories such as the fig tree or the healings are put in at seemingly random points in the respective gospels, where in Mark it was very clear he was trying to focus the reader around a larger idea or a larger point he was trying to make by using these smaller stories to frame a wider narrative.

Also, I like Mark because it provides a complicated picture of Jesus that you don't really get from the other gospels. John is the exception here, but his gospel portrays Jesus as almost this godlike being far separated from humanity, where Mark's Jesus is a far more human, and therefore a far more compelling figure.