the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

As a result, “each is appropriate to different circumstances and reflects different needs and interests on the part
of those who employ it at any particular time.” See A.F. Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period
before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (WUNT, 2.169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck); idem, “The
Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007), 459-72, here 459, 470. Rowe
contends that although Irenaeus accepts the Lukan authorship of both Luke and Acts, as well as making use of
Luke’s literary coordination of the beginning of Acts with the end of the Gospel, he does not, however, give
evidence to support a reading of the two volumes as a single work. Furthermore, according to Rowe, the
Muratorian Fragment’s claim is for a common authorship of Luke and Acts, not a decisive reading strategy for
both works, in which case “the author of the fragment reads Luke not with Acts as Luke-Acts but, as did
Irenaeus, with the other three Gospels.” As a consequence, Rowe goes further by claiming that it is appropriate
to read and study the Gospel independently. In addition, Rowe elicits a wide variety of reading strategies from
these results, that is, reading strategies which are connected with “the author’s intention and literary character of
the work, or with the evidence for Acts’ early reception and its textual and canonical history.” See C.K. Rowe,
“History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” JSNT 28 (2005), 131-57, here 136-38, 152-54; idem,
“Literary Unity and Reception History: Reading Luke-Acts as Luke and Acts,” JSNT 29 (2007), 449-57. Parsons
and Pervo correctly pointed out that the unity of Luke-Acts is a largely unexamined hypothesis, and Rowe and
Gregory also contributed to directing scholars’ attention to Reception History in studying the unity of Luke-Acts.
However they have failed to convince the majority of Lukan scholars, and have not overturned the consensus
that Luke’s Gospel and Acts are really two volumes of one work which must be considered together. Even
though there are differences between the Gospel and Acts in the theological, narrative, and generic aspects, it
does not overrule the affinities between Luke’s Gospel and Acts. In what follows, I will present a few arguments
demonstrating the unity of Luke-Acts. H.J. Cadbury claims as follows: “Even the recognition of the common
authorship of Luke and Acts is not enough. They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen;
they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part
of the author’s original plan and purpose.” See Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, 8-9. Literary critics are
certainly more concerned with the unity of the story than with the unity of Luke’s theology. See Stephen Moore,
“Narrative Commentaries on the Bible: Context, Roots, and Prospects,” Foundations & Facets Forum, 3 (1987),
29-62; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1. p. xiii; Tyson, The Death
of Jesus in Luke-Acts (London: SCM Press, 1987), pp. ix-x. In the same vein, Green also argues that Luke’s
design is not to simply record the story of Jesus, but to write the story of the continuation and fulfillment of
God’s redemptive purpose to include both the work of Jesus and of the followers of Jesus after his ascension. In
his view, the unity of Luke-Acts lies in narrative purpose, not in narrative. See Green, The Theology of Luke, 47;
idem, Luke, 10-14. In accordance with consensus of the majority of scholars, J. Verheyden holds that “the
Gospel is the introduction to Acts and the basis upon which Acts is built, but also that the Gospel, in a sense,
needs Acts and calls for the continuation in which its message is realized in the world, and consequently that Lk
and Acts together constitute one work.” See J. Verheyden, “The Unity of Luke-Acts. What are up to?” in The
Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 3-56, here 56; idem, “The Unity of
Luke-Acts,” HTS 55 (1999), 964-79. All things considered, it is legitimate to say that Luke-Acts is two volumes
of one work, that were written by the same author. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn here is that Luke-Acts
must be considered together in attempting to determine the purpose of Luke. For more on this argument, see
C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth Press, 1961); idem, “The Third Gospel as a
Preface to Acts?” in ed., F. van Segbroek et al., The Four Gospels 1992, II. (3 vols.; BETL, 100; FS Frans
Neirynck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1451-66; idem, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles, I. (ICC; Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1994); D.E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary
Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987); J. Dawsey, “The Literary Unity of Luke-Acts: Questions
of Style-A Task for Literary Critics,” NTS 35 (1989), 48-66; J.B. Green and Michael C. McKeever (eds.), Luke-
Acts and New Testament Historiography (IBR Bibliographies; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994); F. Neirynck,
“Luke 4:16-30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1999), 357-95; Beverly Roberts, Gaventa, Acts (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003); Markus
Bockmuehl, “Why not Let Acts Be Acts? In Conversation with C. Kavin Rowe,” JSNT 28 (2005), 163-66; Luke
Timothy, Johnson, “Literary Criticism of Luke-Acts: Is Reception-History Pertinent?,” JSNT 28 (2005), 159-62;
263