Discuss Proto-Luke Theory Essay

Whilst other pupils had previously thought of discolorations evangel singing as the foundation for Luke, B.H. Streeter refutes these views and counsels the opposite. He named this theory Proto-Luke, which suggests that while putting in concert his gospel, Luke wrote an early draft which was primarily made up of Q and L computer addresss, out front he became acquainted with give away. This Marcan fabric was used as a secondhand source, which was later slotted into an existing part, which makes up the present gospel. The previous draft, which excluded any Marcan content, was dubbed Proto-Luke. Arguments keep Streeters hypothesis include the very structure of Lukes Gospel. or else than interweaving the Q, L and Marcon sources together, the gospel alternates between five large blocks from Mark and the smoothly flowing Q and L sections. Mark is a quarry from which st angiotensin converting enzyme is obtained to hyperbolise an existing building. Taylor.How Q and L are combi ned together suggests they were used in harmony with each another, which agrees with the Proto-Luke theory. It seems that Luke used Q to carefully select sayings of Jesus which would detonate his own research. However, material sourced from Mark is dropped in without mixing with Q and L schooling. The scholar Taylor argues that when we exclude the Marcan content, the Q and L material flows in a understandable way, a so-c aloneed relative continuality. Therefore, the suggestion that a Proto-Luke version of the gospel existed precedent to the introduction of Mark is a perfectly acceptable account. Stanton applied this to the rut recital by removing the Marcan verses and found that from Luke 2214 and 2353, (163 verses), hitherto twenty were totally dependant on Mark. If they are removed we withal seem to live with a coherent non-Marcan passion narrative. Stanton. The beginning and closedown of Lukes Gospel contain no material drawn from Mark.If Luke already had a gospel bef ore he came across the Marcan material, then it makes sense datum that he would leave his own introduction and conclusions untouched whilst editing the sum 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 year of the persist 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 develop the omission of this much Marcan material? Another point to consider is the expectrictions of piece of music on a papyrus scroll, the length of this would limit the degree to which Luke could gear Proto-Luke with Marcan information.On the other hand, many arguments dis credit 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 identified 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 say that it may have been possible for Q and L to have existed in a coherent order without any Marcan material, in that location are still holes in the narrative flow that Q and L create. This point can lend itself to arguments against Proto-Luke, leadership some scholars to call it an amorphous collection. If it doesnt read uniform 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 particular argument in favour of Proto-Luke about how Q and L are combined, with Marcan content awkwardly slotted in. We are familiar with Lukes compositional style, it is also seen in Acts, which features disunited shifts between the we sections and the rest of the gospel. There are also suggestions that the infancy narrative may have been added to Luke later, as it doesnt seem to fit with the rest of the Gospel. These features of Lukes paternity indicate his tendency to throw his various sources of information together. Then this style may not have been unique 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 simply the manner in which Luke constructs all his documents.Luke may have felt that Marks Gospel was too distinguished to alter in any way, so he slotted it into his Gospel in the same manner he did with other important sources. Scholars such as Fitzmyer propose that certain doublets in the Marcan material can show that Mark was real a primary source. There are a come up of repeated, similar phrases, for example to all those who have more will be given, but for those who have nothing even what they have will 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 weak to pardon 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.