Discuss Proto-Luke Theory Essay

Whilst other scholars had previously thought of contains evangel as the foundation for Luke, B.H. Streeter refutes these views and suggests the opposite. He named this supposition Proto-Luke, which suggests that while putt together his gospel truth, Luke wrote an early draft which was primarily made up of Q and L sources, before he became acquainted with specialise. This Mar throw out material was utilize as a secondary source, which was later slotted into an existing composition, which makes up the present gospel. The previous draft, which excluded whatever Marcan marrow, was dubbed Proto-Luke. Arguments supporting Streeters possibleness include the very structure of Lukes Gospel. Rather than interweaving the Q, L and Marcon sources together, the gospel alternates amid five large blocks from Mark and the smoothly flowing Q and L sections. Mark is a quarry from which pock is obtained to enlarge an existing building. Taylor.How Q and L are combined together suggests they we re used in harmony with each another, which scoffs with the Proto-Luke theory. It seems that Luke used Q to carefully select sayings of deliverer which would expand his own research. However, material sourced from Mark is dropped in without mixing with Q and L in inventation. The scholar Taylor argues that when we exclude the Marcan content, the Q and L material flows in a perceivable way, a so-c bothed relative continuality. Therefore, the suggestion that a Proto-Luke version of the gospel existed prior to the introduction of Mark is a perfectly acceptable argument. Stanton employ this to the passion narrative by removing the Marcan verses and found that from Luke 2214 and 2353, (163 verses), only twenty were tot completelyy dependant on Mark. If they are remove we cool it seem to take away a coherent non-Marcan passion narrative. Stanton. The set-back and ending of Lukes Gospel contain no material raddled from Mark.If Luke al transformy had a gospel before he came across the Marcan material, hence it makes sense that he would leave his own introduction and conclusions untouched whilst alter the middle in order to insert blocks from Mark. However, Stanton notes that Proto-Luke may have begun at 31, due to the formal introduction In the fifteenth class of the reign of Tiberius Caesar The fact that Luke omits so much of Mark, which accounts for a third of Luke, may suggest that he is giving priority to his original Proto-Luke limitations. Stanton talks of Lukes disloyalty to his Marcan source At many points, only two of which can be mentioned here, Lukes gospel seems to betray its Marcan basis. If Mark was Lukes framework for his gospel, how can we explain the omission of this much Marcan material? Another point to roll is the restrictions of writing on a papyrus scroll, the length of this would limit the course to which Luke could supplement Proto-Luke with Marcan information.On the other hand, many arguments discredit the Proto-Luke hypothesis. As of yet, scholars cannot agree on the verses that came from Mark and the verses which belong to Q and L, but the scholar Tuckett has claimed to have place phrases from Mark in amongst blocks of Q and L. If he is correct in these claims then the Proto-Luke theory is doubtful. Having said that it may have been possible for Q and L to have existed in a coherent order without any Marcan material, there are still holes in the narrative flow that Q and L create. This point can kick in itself to arguments against Proto-Luke, leading some scholars to call it an amorphous collection. If it doesnt read wish a single document, then perhaps Proto-Luke never existed. For example, between 83 and 951, when Marcan material is removed, an awkward gap is revealed, as there is nothing about Jesus time in Galilee. Discontinuity like this in Proto-Luke goes against the hypothesis that it ever existed.Another view twists one crabby argument in favour of Proto-Luke about how Q and L are combined, w ith Marcan content awkwardly slotted in. We are familiar with Lukes compositional style, it is also seen in Acts, which features abrupt shifts between the we sections and the rest of the gospel. There are also suggestions that the early childhood narrative may have been added to Luke later, as it doesnt seem to summate with the rest of the Gospel. These features of Lukes writing indicate his tendency to throw his heterogeneous sources of information together. Then this style may not have been alone(p) to the Marcan material that Luke supposedly added to his Proto-Luke draft. Maybe this is just how Luke prefers to set out all of his writing? Hence, the proto-Luke theory looses credibility if this is solely the manner in which Luke constructs all his documents.Luke may have felt that Marks Gospel was excessively important to alter in any way, so he slotted it into his Gospel in the same manner he did with other important sources. Scholars such(prenominal) as Fitzmyer propose that certain doublets in the Marcan material can depute that Mark was actually a primary source. There are a number of repeated, similar phrases, for example to all those who have more leave alone be given, but for those who have nothing even what they have go out be taken away features in 818 and 1926. When this happens, one version of the phrase comes from Mark and the other originates from Q (shared with Matthew).When we tally up where all of these phrases come from, most are sourced from Mark, leading the theory that Mark was actually an early framework for Lukes Gospel. Whilst piecing his gospel together, Luke may simply have decided to use Mark in block form however that does not mean that Marcan material was added in later, in a two-stage composition (as noted by Taylor). Guthrie commented on this hypothesis, and said that although it had grounding, it was too untoughened to justify a full inquiry although the hypothesis may have explained certain features in the disruption o f Luke, it cannot be said that features demand the hypothesis.