Discuss Proto-Luke Theory
Whilst other bookmans had antecedently thought of Mark’s Gospel as the foundation for Luke. B. H. Streeter refutes these positions and suggests the antonym. He named this theory ‘Proto-Luke’ . which suggests that while seting together his Gospel. Luke wrote an early bill of exchange which was chiefly made up of Q and L beginnings. before he became acquainted with Mark. This Marcan stuff was used as a secondary beginning. which was subsequently slotted into an bing composing. which makes up the present Gospel. The old bill of exchange. which excluded any Marcan content. was dubbed Proto-Luke. Arguments back uping Streeter’s hypothesis include the really construction of Luke’s Gospel. Rather than interweaving the Q. L and Marcon beginnings together. the Gospel alternates between five big blocks from Mark and the smoothly fluxing Q and L subdivisions. “Mark is a prey from which rock is obtained to enlarge an bing edifice. ” – Taylor.
How Q and L are combined together suggests they were used in harmoniousness with each another. which agrees with the Proto-Luke theory. It seems that Luke used Q to carefully choose expressions of Jesus which would spread out his ain research. However. stuff sourced from Mark is dropped in without blending with Q and L information. The bookman Taylor argues that when we exclude the Marcan content. the Q and L stuff flows in a apprehensible manner. a alleged ‘relative continuality’ . Therefore. the suggestion that a Proto-Luke version of the Gospel existed prior to the debut of Mark is a absolutely acceptable statement. Stanton applied this to the passion narrative by taking the Marcan poetries and found that from Luke 22:14 and 23:53. ( 163 poetries ) . merely 20 were wholly dependent on Mark. “If they are removed we still seem to hold a consistent non-Marcan passion narration. ” – Stanton. The beginning and stoping of Luke’s Gospel contain no material drawn from Mark.
If Luke already had a Gospel before he came across the Marcan stuff. so it makes sense that he would go forth his ain debut and decisions untouched whilst redacting the center in order to infix blocks from Mark. However. Stanton notes that Proto-Luke may hold begun at 3:1. due to the formal debut: “In the 15th twelvemonth of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…” The fact that Luke omits so much of Mark. which accounts for a 3rd of Luke. may propose that he is giving precedence to his original Proto-Luke restrictions. Stanton negotiations of Luke’s disloyalty to his Marcan beginning: “At many points. [ merely two of which can be mentioned here. ] Luke’s Gospel seems to bewray its Marcan basis” . If Mark was Luke’s model for his Gospel. how can we explicate the skip of this much Marcan stuff? Another point to see is the limitations of composing on a papyrus coil. the length of this would restrict the grade to which Luke could supplement Proto-Luke with Marcan information.
On the other manus. many statements discredit the Proto-Luke hypothesis. As of yet. bookmans can non hold on the poetries that came from Mark and the poetries which belong to Q and L. but the bookman Tuckett has claimed to hold identified phrases from Mark in amongst blocks of Q and L. If he is right in these claims so the Proto-Luke theory is dubious. Having said that it may hold been possible for Q and L to hold existed in a coherent order without any Marcan stuff. there are still holes in the narrative flow that Q and L create. This point can impart itself to statements against Proto-Luke. taking some bookmans to name it “an formless collection” . If it doesn’t read like a individual papers. so possibly Proto-Luke ne’er existed. For illustration. between 8:3 and 9:51. when Marcan stuff is removed. an awkward spread is revealed. as there is nil about Jesus’ clip in Galilee. Discontinuity like this in Proto-Luke goes against the hypothesis that it of all time existed.
Another position twists one peculiar statement in favor of Proto-Luke ; about how Q and L are combined. with Marcan content awkwardly slotted in. We are familiar with Luke’s compositional manner. it is besides seen in Acts. which features disconnected displacements between the “we” subdivisions and the remainder of the Gospel. There are besides suggestions that the babyhood narration may hold been added to Luke subsequently. as it doesn’t seem to suit with the remainder of the Gospel. These characteristics of Luke’s composing bespeak his inclination to throw his assorted beginnings of information together. Then this manner may non hold been alone to the Marcan stuff that Luke purportedly added to his Proto-Luke bill of exchange. Possibly this is merely how Luke prefers to put out all of his authorship? Hence. the proto-Luke theory Looss credibleness if this is merely the mode in which Luke constructs all his paperss.
Luke may hold felt that Mark’s Gospel was excessively of import to change in any manner. so he slotted it into his Gospel in the same mode he did with other of import beginnings. Scholars such as Fitzmyer propose that certain doublets in the Marcan stuff can demo that Mark was really a primary beginning. There are a figure of repeated. similar phrases. for illustration “to all those who have more will be given. but for those who have nil even what they have will be taken away” characteristics in 8:18 and 19:26. 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. taking the theory that Mark was really an early model for Luke’s Gospel. Whilst patching his Gospel together. Luke may merely hold decided to utilize Mark in block signifier ; nevertheless that does non intend that Marcan stuff was added in subsequently. in a two-stage composing ( as noted by Taylor ) . Guthrie commented on this hypothesis. and said that although it had anchoring. it was excessively weak to warrant a full enquiry: “although the hypothesis may hold explained certain characteristics in the break of Luke. it can non be said that characteristics demand the hypothesis” .