The question of Luke’s sources is complicated by Streeter’s theory that Luke had composed a gospel before he came into possession of a copy of Mark. As I have said above; we know that Mark was one of Lukes sources as half of Marks Gospel can be found in Lukes. This theory is based on the fact that in large sections of Luke, Mark is not employed as a source, and that it is possible to reconstruct from Luke, omitting all his borrowings from Mark, a gospel-like document of considerable extent. As Luke doesn’t interweave Mark but instead sets down Mark in chunks. Because of the way Luke used Mark; Streeter believes that Mark was not one of Luke’s original sources but extra material with which Luke added to his original copy and that our present gospel is a revised and enlarged edition of his earlier work. This theory that Luke had already written the first draft of his Gospel before Mark came into his possession is known as Proto Luke theory. Proto-Luke itself, according to Streeter, is a combination of two written sources, ‘Q’ and ‘L’, the latter a document compiled by Luke himself, embodying traditions of the Caesarean church. The importance of the proto-Luke theory lies in fact that it narrows the gap between which Mark and Lukes’ were written and possibly Luke being written at an earlier date than the writing of Mark.
On the other hand, the existence of such an earlier ‘gospel’ of Luke is denied by many critics who maintain that, especially in the Passion Narrative, Luke has used Mark as the foundation of his narrative. It is possible to account for Luke’s use of Mark largely in separate ‘blocks’ as due to his methods of utilising his sources, for he apparently treats Q in the same way, inserting Q material in separate sections which are edited but not conflated with other sources on a large scale.
There is a further addition to the equation as the first two chapters of Luke which have their own literary style are unique in the Gospels. It is thought that they are skilful translations of a Hebrew book. The resurrection story also seems to have come from a special source.
In using Mark, Luke frequently abbreviates, and he leaves out a number of passages. It has been thought by some that his copy of Mark did not contain these verses, or that Luke left them out accidentally, but the most probable explanation is that he left them out deliberately. This is thought to be true as Lukes source are most certainly Palestinian. Luke therefore had to adapt the style, culture and theology of these sources so that they suited his audience; which were many Gentiles living outside of Palestine and his purpose. This process is known as redaction.
This explanation fits in with Luke’s rather cavalier treatment of Mark as a whole. He treats the general framework of Mark with respect, and preserves, with some significant exceptions, his order, but whether he is fitting Mark into Proto-Luke or not, he does not hesitate to omit Mark’s stories and sayings when he has what he considers a better version.
There are different structures that Lukes Gospel is argued to have. The first is a simple thematic structure. This states that the Gospel of Luke is organized into seven primary sections that describe the life, ministry and miracles of . The first section begins with a prologue that explains the purpose of this Gospel. The second section, describes the events surrounding the coming of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. This section describes the birth of Jesus and some events of His childhood. The third section details the events leading to the public ministry of Jesus. The fourth section of Luke's Gospel describes the ministry in Galilee including many lessons and teachings of Jesus that are principles for living according to God's way of life. The fifth section of Luke's Gospel describes the journey to Jerusalem. The sixth section describes many teachings and miracles of Jesus in Jerusalem. Jesus almost exclusively uses parables to give lessons about living. The seventh and last section of this Gospel describes the important details about the trial, crucifixion resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ This sorts the material into easily identifiable sections however it can then be presumed from this that there are no links between the individual sections of Jesus’ life and also in using this structure the more important lose their significance.
Another structure that is suggested is a geographical structure where Jerusalem is seen as the centre point for all teaching. However this approach makes everything else seem secondary in terms of importance and significance; for instance as Jerusalem is the centrepiece parables and miracles in Galilee may be seen as less important. Also the resurrection appearances which are of great significance to Christians; don’t actually occur in Jerusalem.
In conclusion we can see that the sources Luke used are many, including ‘L’ ‘Q’ and ‘M’ and also ‘I’ and ‘R’. In relation to the structure of Luke’s Gospel we can establish that there are two different structures that Lukes Gospel is said to have; geographical and thematic structure and also the structure incorporating Proto- Luke needs to be taken into consideration.
(b) Comment on the statement that this gospel succeeds in presenting an ‘orderly account’ of the Good news and justify your answer
Although Luke claims that his Gospel is an ‘orderly account’ this does not mean that his Gospel is chronologically or historically accurate. Luke was writing Salvation history; that is history with a theological outlook. His purpose was therefore salvation history. Luke wanted to teach us about God and he teaches this by using history.
History is a record and a study of past events, facts, people and places. It has often been claimed that Luke comes the nearest out of the Gospel writers; to being an historian. Wilkenhauser called Luke the ‘historical evangelist’. Herder also acknowledges the fact that Lukes Gospel seems to indicate an historical aim; due to the fact of the inclusion of a preface and a six fold dating.
Hence Luke's story of Jesus and the church is said to be dominated by a historical perspective. This history is as I have said; salvation history. God's divine plan for human salvation was accomplished during the period of Jesus, who through the events of his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and this salvation is now extended to all humanity in the period of the church.
However Luke as an historian is still a bit of a mystery as some scholars argue that it is ‘the task of the historian to describe things exactly as they happened. T.R Glover however states that history requires a perspective to move it along and that it is not just the recovery of bare facts. The aim of Lukes Gospel; which is theological doesn’t distract it from its historicity. Luke writes with theological aims but they read in such a way that they tell a history. In other words Luke is an historian but an historian that is writing with a purpose which makes him a theologian. Luke is using theology but it is accurately based on the historical reality. Therefore something can be both historically accurate and theologically sound. Doohan is one of the scholars that accept the fact being a theologian involves using history as you need history to teach theology.
All history is recalled with a bias Luke therefore selected relevant material to suit his purpose which was to teach about the life of Jesus and to show that through history God has offered all people the chance of salvation. Luke therefore needs to use history to show exactly how God offered salvation through the Old Testament, the life of Jesus and through the life of the church. The historical detail in Luke is thus an aid to the overall aim; history is used so that the audience can be certain of what they are reading.
Since the aim is theological the gospel will not be an exact ‘orderly account’ of the Good news as historical accuracies becomes subordinate to the overall purpose. There are scholars; such as Dibelius who say Luke’s history is so inaccurate to the extent that he makes up stories to fit his theological purpose. However Luke’s interest in history is so only that he can enhance, clarify or strengthen his theology
It was believed that something had to be chronological in order to be historical; however Hellenistic recognises that just because something isn’t chronological doesn’t mean it isn’t historical. The Rabbis went even further and said that scripture doesn’t need to be chronological in order to be historical.
In conclusion Luke is a theological historian. History and theology are linked. But at times Luke teaches theology at expense of chronology and this means symbolic alteration therefore, times dates and places are changed but as the events aren’t changed this is acceptable and the Gospel isn’t any less historical or any more wrong.