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

those who have recorded Jesus’ life on the grounds of the apostolic tradition for these
accounts, and also to add something, so as to contribute to this tradition of writing.
The term can basically mean “followed up,” “traced,” “investigated,”
“informed himself about,” “going back and familiarized himself with,” and so on. But its
precise meaning has been very much debated. The dispute can boils down to two options: 1)
The verb refers “to following closely the progress of certain events,” in which case it means
“to keep up with a movement.” 36 This interpretation also implies that Luke simply followed
along as events unfolded, rather than investigated anything, thereby suggesting that Luke was
one of the eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 2) The verb refers to the investigation of
past events. 37 Here, the meaning is ‘to follow an account or events in order to understand
them’. In other words, because Luke did not experience all the events, he pays careful
attention to them. In which case Luke is not one of the eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
so he has no choice but to rely on the result of investigation, in order to follow the events
carefully. 38 The former point of view has a weakness in that Luke was not an eyewitness of
Jesus’ life, since “from the beginning” () (verse 3) dismisses the meaning of “a long
time” which the advocates of the former view assign to the phrase. Furthermore, Luke makes
it clear that he is not an eyewitness, but rather relies on them, distinguishing himself from the
eyewitnesses in the immediate context. 39 On the other hand, the latter view has firmer
support in the sense that the idea fits with Luke’s remarks about his investigation in the
remainder of verse 3, and is also upheld by ancient writers such as Josephus and
Nicomachus. 40
However, in recent years, D.P. Moessner contends that in Josephus’ Against
Apion I.53-56, as opposed to “investigate” it means “a historian’s ability to follow
() ancient events of Israel as depicted in their scriptures”. That is to say, the
term as a credentialing term, joins “the author’s superior qualifications to the
Precedent (Luke 1:1-4),” 193, n. 51.
36. Cadbury, “The Knowledge Claimed in Luke’s Preface,” ExpTim 24 (1922), 401-22; idem, “The Purpose
Expressed in Luke’s Preface,” Exp 8/21 (1921), 431-41; idem, “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” 489-510;
idem, “‘We’ and ‘I’ Passages in Luke-Acts,” NTS 3 (1956-57), 128-32.
37. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4),” 218-19; Du Plessis, “Once More: The
Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke 1:1-4),” 266-67; A.J.B. Higgins, “The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in
Acts,” in ed., W.W. Gasque and P.P. Martin, Apostolic History and the Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1970), 78-91, here 79-82; F.H. Colson, “Notes on St. Luke’s Preface,” JTS 24 (1923), 300-309, here 304, 309;
Marshall, Luke 42-43; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 296-97; Schweizer, Luke, 12; Bock,
“Understanding Luke’s Task: Carefully Building on Precedent (Luke 1:1-4),” 193.
38. Plummer, Luke, 4; A.T. Robertson, “The Implications in Luke’s Preface,” ExpTim 35 (1924), 319-21.
39. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 297.
40. Nolland, Luke, 9.
273