For decades scholars have reached no consensus on the writing order of Luke's gospel. The author, through a thorough study of the word "e;orderly"e; in Luke 1:3; a comparison of Luke's writing methodologies with those of the Greco-Roman historians; and a detailed investigation of the differences in the narrative accounts among the Synoptic Gospels, concludes that Luke writes in chronological order. The author also explains how Luke has employed writing methodologies commonly used by Greco-Roman historians to write the prefaces in Luke-Acts and divide the Gospel into sections, and the implications of these writing methodologies on Luke's writing order. He explicates the possible reasons behind the differences in the writing style between the "e;travel"e; section (9:52b to 19:44) and the rest of the Gospel, proposes the central theme of Luke-Acts, and assesses the possible implications for accepting Luke's chronological writing order on biblical studies.

For decades scholars have reached no consensus on the writing order of Luke's gospel. The author, through a thorough study of the word "e;orderly"e; in Luke 1:3; a comparison of Luke's writing methodologies with those of the Greco-Roman historians; and a detailed investigation of the differences in the narrative accounts among the Synoptic Gospels, concludes that Luke writes in chronological order. The author also explains how Luke has employed writing methodologies commonly used by Greco-Roman historians to write the prefaces in Luke-Acts and divide the Gospel into sections, and the implications of these writing methodologies on Luke's writing order. He explicates the possible reasons behind the differences in the writing style between the "e;travel"e; section (9:52b to 19:44) and the rest of the Gospel, proposes the central theme of Luke-Acts, and assesses the possible implications for accepting Luke's chronological writing order on biblical studies.