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

“since I observe that since a considerable number of persons ()…, I
consider it my duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points…” (I 2-3). 4
There are also Greek parallels to the preface of Luke’s Gospel. Thucydides (I, I-23) had
established the convention of a preface including the subject matter of the work, its
usefulness for the present, and the historian’s need for accurate investigation and truthful
presentation. His convention had been followed by historians (e.g. Polybius, Dionysius,
5
Lucian, Diodorus Siculus, Dio Cassius, Tacitus, Josephus and so on) since the first century
A.D. stressing the value of history’s education and a record of the past. 6 Given the fact that
Luke’s preface includes the character of narrative and a sequence of events, and his use of
historiographical conventions, his introduction has been considered to belong to the
historiographical genre. 7 A later work, How to Write History 53-55 by Lucian of Samosata
(A.D. 125-180) especially belongs here. Lucian claims that if what is said is evidently
important, essential, personal, or useful, audiences will give their full attention to historians.
He also remarks that, like the orator, the historian is responsible for giving the audience
“what will interest and instruct them.” 8
On the other hand, L.C.A. Alexander claims that the
so-called ‘scientific works’ provide better parallels to Luke’s prologue than the conventions
4. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1,
163. See also D.L. Bock, “Understanding Luke’s Task: Carefully Building on Precedent (Luke 1:1-4),” CTR 5.2
(1991), 183-202, here 185. Except these, the Letter of Aristeas 1:1-8 and Quod omnis probus and De vita Mosis
of Philo of Alexandria can also be mentioned.
5. See Polybius (Hist. I,3.1-6; ect), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. I,5.3; 8.1.4), Josephus (BJ. I,18.30),
Diodorus (Hist. I,4.5), Tacitus (Hist. I,1) and Sallust (Cat. 4,5; Jug. 5,3).
6. C.F. Evans, Saint Luke, 118.
7. See W. den Boer, “Some Remarks on the Beginnings of Christian Historiography,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961),
348-62; Kurz, W.S. ‘The Function of Christological Proof from Prophecy for Luke and Justin,’ (PhD dissertation,
Yale University, 1976), 11-12; idem, “Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible,” SBLSP 19 (1980) 283-
300; D.J. Sneen, “An Exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 with Special Regard to Luke’s Purpose as a Historian,” ExpTim 83
(1971) 40-43; W.C. van Unnik, “Remarks on the Purpose of Luke’s Historical Writing (Luke 1:1-4),” Sparsa
Collecta: The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 6-15; I.J. Du Plessis, “Once
More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Lk 1:1-4),” NovT 16 (1974), 259-71; T. Callan, “The Preface of Luke-
Acts and Historiography,” NTS 31 (1985), 576-81; D.P. Moessner, “The Triadic Synergy of Hellenistic Poetics
in the Narrative Epistemology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Authorial Intent of the Evangelist Luke
(Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-8),” Neotestamenica 42.2 (2008), 289-303, contends that “Dionysius of Halicarnassus’
critique of Thucydides’ prose ‘arrangement’ provides the closest parallel in thought and rationale to Luke’s
opening assertions regarding the clear certainty of the significance of all the events that he will configure in the
sequence of his narrative.” See also idem, “Dionysius’ Narrative ‘Arrangement’ () as the
Hermeneutical Key to Luke’s Re-vision of the ‘Many’,” in ed., A. Christophersen, C. Claussen, J. Frey and B.
Longenecker, Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn
(SNTSup 217, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 149-64 and “The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke
1:1-4),” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999), 84-123.
8. Lucian, De Hist. Conscrib. §53.
267