Читать книгу The topos of Divine Testimony in Luke-Acts - James R. McConnell - Страница 7

In the preface to Acts, the author, addressing Theophilus, describes the contents of the Third Gospel (τὸν . . . πρῶτον λόγον) as being about what “Jesus did and taught from the beginning” (Acts 1:1; emphasis added).1 In Acts 4, when Peter and John are called before the council of Jewish elders and admonished to cease their preaching in the name of Jesus, they answer: “[W]e cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20; emphasis added). Thus, one notes that in Luke-Acts (cf., e.g., Luke 7:22) there is an emphasis on what has been said as well as what has been done in various contexts.2 In this study, I will explore this twofold emphasis on what is said and done concerning the testimony of God, specifically what God has said and done in testifying to the innocence and piety of his son and the followers of the son, as well as the lack of piety on the part of those who oppose Jesus and the apostles.

Purpose of the Analysis

The present study will seek to address the idea of authoritative testimony in the combined work of Luke-Acts. Specifically, I will argue that ancient audiences would have understood particular elements in the narrative of Luke-Acts to be instances of the topos of divine testimony, considered by ancient rhetoricians to be the most authoritative form of testimony when seeking to persuade an audience. According to the ancient rhetoricians, the gods testified through their speech (mainly by way of oracles) and their deeds; their deeds included the heavens themselves, the flight and songs of birds, sounds and/or visible emanations from the heavens (such as fire), portents on the earth, dreams and visions, and through the entrails of sacrificial animals.3 This study will examine instances of the elements listed above found in Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early, non-canonical Christian narratives roughly contemporaneous with Luke-Acts, seeking to identify how divine testimony functions in them. I will then turn to the narrative of Luke-Acts and demonstrate that ancient audiences would have understood the topos of divine testimony to function in the same way as in the extra-biblical literature listed above.

History of Research

This study will combine three areas of NT scholarship that have, for the most part, in the past been considered in isolation from each other.4 These three areas include: (i) rhetorical topoi and how they relate to the study of the NT; (ii) the use of scripture citations and references in Luke-Acts; and (iii) the study of the miraculous aspects within the NT documents, with special emphasis on the gospels and Acts. In the following, I will briefly examine the previous research in these three areas, concluding with a discussion of the unique contribution this study will make to Luke-Acts scholarship.

Toposforschung

The history of scholarship regarding the application of the topos to the NT will be treated in some detail in the second chapter of this study. At this point, it is sufficient to provide a summary of those findings. Previously, the application of the concept of topos to NT studies was generally restricted to the consideration of a topos as a stock theme or motif, which the NT writers exploited within their writings in order to persuade their auditors. An example of this would be the topos of friendship in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.5 Lately, this view of a topos has begun to shift, with scholars recognizing that even the ancient rhetoricians allowed for a somewhat wider semantic range as to the definition of a topos. In this study, I will argue that this range be broadened even more, allowing for a definition of topos (based on the ancient rhetorical handbooks) to include a topos as a source of proofs, brought as evidence when arguing a case. In particular, this study will consider the topos of divine testimony, the most authoritative witness one could bring to bear in the law courts and public assembly, and especially how ancient audiences would have understood this use of the topos in ancient speeches, Hellenistic histories and biographies, and finally Luke-Acts.

OT Citations and References

Previous scholarship on the use of scripture in Luke-Acts has emphasized the idea of promise and fulfillment, which, according to S. Porter, as recently as 2006, should be considered the scholarly consensus.6 Most scholars trace the concept of proof from prophecy theology found in Luke-Acts to P. Schubert,7 who acknowledges that his study builds upon the work of H. Cadbury.8 Schubert, in analyzing Luke 24 as a conclusion to the Third Gospel, argues that the glue which holds together the three main scenes in chapter 24 is the idea of proof from prophecy. Having come to this conclusion, he then examines Luke 1–9 and concludes that proof from prophecy theology is the “central theological idea throughout the two-volume work.”9

The idea that Luke promoted a proof from prophecy theology has continued to hold sway in studies of Luke’s use of scripture. Within the last twenty years, D. Bock has been a proponent of a slightly modified version of this concept.10 Rather than proof from prophecy, Bock prefers the term “proclamation from prophecy and pattern,” because, he argues, Luke does not cite Hebrew scripture as an apologetic tool. Rather than defending Jesus’ messiahship through the use of scripture, Luke employs scripture citations and allusions as a way of proclaiming who Jesus is. According to Bock, in most of the Third Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Messiah-servant, the one who fulfills specific scriptures as well as the patterns found in the Hebrew scriptures that describe God’s saving activity. At the transfiguration, the portrayal of Jesus as Lord is introduced; in Luke 20 it is once again established, and from this point in the gospel (and into Acts) Jesus’ lordship is seen in tension with his Messiah-servant image.11

Given this christology in Luke-Acts, Bock then speculates as to what Luke’s purposes might have been for creating this image of Jesus. His conclusion is that Luke is attempting to erase any doubts that may exist in his auditors’ minds concerning the way in which Jesus’ death is part of the βουλή τοῦ θεοῦ. Also, Bock argues that Luke is attempting to reassure his audience that the mission to the Gentiles is also a part of God’s overall plan for the salvation of all human beings.

Not all scholars, however, have been convinced that proof from prophecy is the focus of Luke-Acts. C. Talbert, in a 1984 essay,12 traces the development of the proof from prophecy concept,13 and then proceeds to offer his critique, which he states in three main points.14 First, following M. Rese,15 Talbert points out that not all scripture citations in Luke-Acts are used in a proof from prophecy schema,16 and not all fulfilled prophecy in Luke-Acts has its basis in the Hebrew scriptures. Second, Talbert questions whether one can make the logical leap from proof from prophecy theology to authorial intent.17 Talbert’s third and last point is that it is not valid to extrapolate the purpose of an entire, two-volume work from a single theme found in that writing.

Given this critique, Talbert then moves to his analysis of the theme of prophecy-fulfillment as found in Luke-Acts. Here, Talbert seeks to answer the question of how an ancient Mediterranean auditor would have heard and understood this theme. His answer is that Mediterranean auditors would have been quite comfortable with the idea of prophecy and fulfillment. Parallels between Luke-Acts and the first-century Greco-Roman milieu include: divine necessity as the controlling aspect of history; the course of history being seen in fulfilled oracles (whether those oracles were rightly understood or not); and the mention of fulfilled oracles to legitimate heroes and to give credibility to other utterances by those heroes.18

Recently, scholars have begun to pursue other avenues with regard to the use of scripture quotations in Luke-Acts. In a 1997 essay,19 C. Stanley argues that a rhetorical approach to the use of scripture quotations within NT documents is necessary to balance the overabundance of studies which emphasize the interpretive traditions the author employed in selecting and commenting on the verses which are quoted. Stanley goes on to say that a profitable trajectory of research would explore how quotations of scripture serve the rhetorical, argumentative strategy employed by the author. As evidence, he engages three modern linguistic studies on the use of quotations and concludes that quotations offer an author a powerful, persuasive tool. But, according to Stanley, any study of an author’s rhetorical strategy using quotations must be balanced by examining the implied reader’s understanding of those same quotations.

A second study moves in this same direction. D. Stamps20 suggests that one should consider the Hellenistic context of scripture quotations in NT documents. He argues that this would subsequently lead to the analysis of the quotation of scripture through the lens of ancient rhetoric. He recognizes that the use of authoritative traditions is found in Jewish and Greco-Roman writings from the first century and later. He also cites guidelines from ancient rhetorical handbooks that advise orators on the proper use of quotations and maxims. Finally, in his conclusion, Stamps proposes that NT authors cited the Hebrew scriptures in order to convince their Hellenistic auditors of the ancient foundation of this new religion.

Finally, R. Morgenthaler has conducted an exhaustive rhetorical-critical study of Luke-Acts.21 In this study, Morgenthaler includes a short section in which he discusses the disciples as witnesses. Morgenthaler argues that Luke portrays the disciples in his gospel, and Peter and Paul in Acts, as witnesses; thus, Luke-Acts is the documentation of a trial22 in which God reveals his justice. As part of this trial motif, Morgenthaler mentions the idea of scripture quotations as instances of divine testimony as proposed by Quintilian, drawing an analogy between the quotation of scripture in Luke-Acts and oracles as mentioned in Quintilian’s Inst. A major aspect of the present study will explore and build upon Morgenthaler’s suggestion.

The Miraculous23

Within the last forty years several surveys of past scholarly research into the gospel miracle accounts have been published.24 A cursory review of these essays shows that there has been a multiplicity of approaches used in analyzing the miracle accounts recorded in the synoptic gospels and Acts, especially during the twentieth century and continuing into the present day. Also, according to some scholars, there has been a shift in scholarly attitude towards the miracle stories, especially in light of recent historical Jesus research. The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of the various analytical methodologies applied to the study of miracle accounts in general and to Luke-Acts in particular. The results of these methodologies, especially as they impact the study of Luke-Acts, will also be highlighted.

G. Maier begins his history of miracle research in the eighteenth century; he argues that due to the influences of Spinoza and Schleiermacher, miracle accounts were no longer viewed as descriptions of objective events.25 Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century, rationalism was the controlling factor in the study of the synoptic miracle stories, especially in Germany. Scholars such as D. F. Strauß, F. C. Baur, and A. von Harnack either discounted the miracles completely or sought rational explanations for what was being described in the gospels.26 Therefore, by the end of the nineteenth century, there was a widespread consensus concerning the impossibility of miracles. Only those miracles in the gospels that could be explained through natural causes should be accepted as historical. This led to a division of miracle accounts between those which were possible (healings) and those which were not (nature miracles).27

Early in the twentieth century, scholars belonging to the History of Religions school began to make substantial contributions to the study of the miracle accounts. Works by scholars such as O. Weinreich, P. Fiebig, R. Reitzenstein, and L. Bieler served to demonstrate that the synoptic miracle stories did not emerge out of a literary vacuum; rather, parallel miracle accounts existed in the milieux of both rabbinic Judaism28 and the greater Greco-Roman world.29 One may argue that the cumulative output of the History of Religions school served to continue and even deepen the skepticism concerning the historicity of the synoptic miracle accounts, thus minimizing the significance of these narratives within their contexts, by claiming that the New Testament evangelists were simply borrowing existing stories from other religions.30 For this study, however, the significant contribution made by this group of scholars was to show that the idea of miracles and miracle workers was a commonplace in both first-century Judaism as well as the Greco-Roman milieu in which the Third Gospel and Acts were composed. It is thus possible to use these parallel miracle accounts to reconstruct the authorial audience for which Luke-Acts was written, providing insights into how these stories would have been received and understood by the original audience. We will return to this topic shortly.31

In addition to the contribution of the History of Religions school, a second major emphasis on NT miracle research has come from the form critics. M. Dibelius32 classified the synoptic miracle stories into two categories: paradigms and Novellen. According to Dibelius, paradigms were those miracle stories which were circulated by the early church for preaching (i.e., didactic) purposes. They were terse bits of independent traditions which were infused with religious, missionary language. Normally, the climax of paradigms consisted of words of Jesus. Tales, on the other hand, were circulated as religious propaganda. Through tales, which generally describe epiphanies, Jesus is presented as superior to other deities. Thus, the miraculous element of the story is enhanced through the relation of many details which are not found in paradigms.

Bultmann continued to apply form criticism to the miracle stories,33 emphasizing that the synoptic miracle traditions emerged in the same atmosphere as Palestinian Jewish and Greco-Roman miracle stories. As evidence, from both of these milieux Bultmann lists numerous parallels to the gospel accounts of exorcisms, healings, accounts of people being raised from the dead, and nature miracles. According to Bultmann, this is not to say that these parallels were sources for the gospel miracle stories; rather, the parallels demonstrate the same type of development of the traditions. Bultmann argues that the miracle accounts in the gospels followed the same developmental path as those found in Jewish and Greco-Roman literature; miracle motifs and folktales became oral traditions, which were then incorporated into the gospels themselves.

For Bultmann, the significance of the miracle accounts is not found in their historicity (or lack thereof). Rather, for Bultmann, the importance is in the meaning of the stories. He thus draws a distinction between the exposition of the miracle story and the miracle itself. The miracle stories are narrated in order to draw attention to the miracle worker, and therefore, elements of the miracle itself are highlighted. For example, circumstances surrounding the miracle are mentioned, and/or the problem to be overcome is emphasized.34 This is an important contribution by Bultmann and the form critics, as noted by other scholars.35

Form critical analysis of gospel miracle narratives certainly did not end with Bultmann. This type of study is seen recently in the work of G. Theissen, H. D. Betz, J. Polhill, and G. Sterling. Theissen’s work36 employs a threefold methodology; first, Theissen utilizes a synchronic approach which attempts to create a comprehensive list of motifs which appear in miracles stories. Next, Theissen considers the miracle texts diachronically, seeking to identify how the various motifs identified through the synchronic analysis have been applied, emphasized, and modified in the gospel traditions. Third, Theissen analyzes the miracle traditions with an eye toward their functionality,37 in effect determining the Sitz im Leben of the miracle traditions.

Theissen, as part of the diachronic analysis, also addresses how each evangelist employed and modified the various motifs identified through his synchronic analysis. In his remarks on the Third Gospel, Theissen notes that Luke emphasizes the episodic nature of the miracle accounts he includes through the repeated use of the καὶ ἐγένετο introductory formula. From this, Theissen concludes that Luke understood that the materials he included are paradigmatic of a greater theme. This greater theme, which the miracle reports in Luke support, is that Jesus, who is anointed with the divine δύναμις through the giving of the Holy Spirit, is sent by God to usher in this particular stage of salvation history. Thus Luke, whose account is biographical in nature due to the inclusion of the birth narratives, composes a “salvation history gospel life.”38

In Theissen’s work one sees the same emphasis on the meaning and function of the miracle stories as in the earlier form critics. Through his analysis of the various motifs and how, over time, these motifs were applied in the construction of the miracle accounts, Theissen attempts to determine how these early miracle traditions were understood by the authors and used to compose the gospels.39

Several studies have been completed in recent years that focus exclusively on miracle accounts in the Third Gospel and/or Acts. Most of these studies employ redaction criticism; there are others, however, that make use of other methodologies or have a different point of emphasis. It is to a review of these studies that I now turn.

M. Miller has produced a redactional study of the miracle accounts in Luke and Acts.40 Miller’s stated purpose is rather broad: “to discover as much as possible about miracles in Luke-Acts—how they function and what they mean—to come as close as possible to Luke’s understanding of them, and to draw implications from this for Luke’s purposes.”41 Miller’s work is as wide-ranging as his purpose; he considers parallels from rabbinic sources, Greco-Roman sources, the LXX, and Mark’s gospel. He concludes that the LXX constitutes the backdrop to Luke’s miracle accounts, and that his modifications to his sources prove that he has a theological agenda which causes the gospel to be more than a narration of historical events. Miller argues that this theological emphasis is one of promise and fulfillment.

In considering the technique of how miracles are performed in Luke-Acts, Miller concludes that Luke has emphasized the miracle worker as an agent of God’s power. In this Luke is closer to the OT than the Hellenistic milieu; the focus of miracles in Luke-Acts is the relationship between God and the recipient of the miracle, not the miracle worker himself. Here, Miller favorably compares miracle workers in Luke-Acts with OT prophets; God works through them to proclaim his presence among the people. Therefore, in analyzing the results of the miracles in Luke-Acts, Miller is led to the conclusion that miracles “are a fulfillment of the eschatological hope which had long been nourished in Israel.”42 The miracles thus demonstrate the reality of the kingdom of God, a reality that was foreseen by the OT prophets.

Miller concludes his study by arguing that miracles in Luke-Acts serve as acts of proclamation of God’s presence on earth, and his involvement in the affairs of human beings. As this activity was predicted by the OT prophets, it can be considered a fulfillment of the eschatological hope of the nation of Israel. From this conclusion, Miller then modifies Conzelmann’s concept of salvation history. Rather than Conzelmann’s Israel/Christ/church stages of redemptive history,43 Miller argues for a period of God’s presence in Israel, a time of God’s absence, and finally God’s return to be among his people.

A second redactional study that focuses on miracles in the Third Gospel is from P. Achtemeier.44 In his article, in which he seeks to ascertain the specific Lukan emphases in the miracle accounts recorded in the Third Gospel, Achtemeier proposes that the miracles of Jesus in Luke (as compared with Mark) perform three functions: (i) miracles serve as a balance to the teachings of Jesus; (ii) miracles focus on Jesus and are used to validate Jesus and his ministry; (iii) miracles evoke faith and can contribute to one’s becoming a disciple of Jesus.45 In addition to these three functions, Achtemeier argues against J. Hull’s position that Luke’s approach to miracles and his characterization of Jesus is thoroughly influenced by his view of Hellenistic magic.46 In his conclusions, Achtemeier notes that in Luke, more than Mark and Matthew, miracle stories can be the catalyst for faith in Jesus, for a calling to be a disciple of Jesus, and to legitimate Jesus. Achtemeier also highlights the significant influence that Hellenism has had on Luke’s perspective on the miracles, while simultaneously avoiding portraying miracles as magical practices.47

U. Busse’s 1979 monograph48 is a third example of a redactional study of the miracles in the Third Gospel. In it, Busse disagrees with Conzelmann’s thesis that Luke is writing in light of the delayed parousia; he also rejects the idea of Jesus as a theios anēr.49 After a meticulous exegesis of the miracle accounts in Luke’s gospel, Busse argues that there are three main purposes for the miracle stories in the Third Gospel. First, and most importantly, through Jesus’ miracles one perceives the present salvation of God. Second, the miracles that Jesus performs are signs of his messianic character; i.e., he is God’s agent of salvation. Lastly, miracle stories are used as testimony of God’s salvation and are used as an ethical teaching tool for the disciples.

Busse then makes some overarching comments on the christological, soteriological, and eschatological use of miracle accounts in Luke. Christologically, Busse argues that the miracles are not proof of Jesus’ messiahship;50 rather, the miracle stories serve to characterize Jesus as the one who is God’s agent, fulfilling God’s promises within the greater context of salvation history. Jesus is portrayed as sovereign Lord, but the tension between Jesus’ Macht and Ohnmacht ultimately points to God. Thus, the miracles must be interpreted as pointing to God; Jesus is only God’s instrument of salvation.

Soteriologically, Busse compares the miracle accounts to stones in a mosaic, due to their episodic nature.51 The individual stones show God’s salvation of the poor, the deliverance of the oppressed from demonic possession, and the healing of the sick. The picture the mosaic depicts is thus the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation to the world. Therefore, the miracles are part and parcel of the proclamation of the present kingdom of God on earth. Eschatologically, the miracles thus serve to demonstrate Luke’s idea of a realized eschatology.

Finally, Busse’s exegesis leads him to make some suggestions concerning Luke’s Sitz im Leben and the occasion for the writing of the Third Gospel. Rather than the delay of the parousia (see above), Luke is writing “Erbauungsliteratur”52 to a community that is suffering under some type of duress. Luke thus writes to encourage his community, emphasizing that they are now in that age foretold by the OT prophets, and realized through God’s agent, Jesus.

A more recent redaction-critical study of the miracles in Luke-Acts is found in a 1999 volume by G. Twelftree.53 Twelftree devotes two chapters of this work to a redactional and narrative analysis of the miracle stories in Luke-Acts.54 His results for the most part follow those of Busse; in the area of the meaning of Lukan miracles, however, Twelftree argues that in Luke the miracles of Jesus are not just illustrative of the message of the gospel. Rather, Jesus’ miracles are constitutive of the gospel. Also in disagreement with Busse,55 Twelftree maintains that Jesus’ miracles are indeed evidence that Jesus is the Messiah; in this regard, Jesus’ miracles and words are equal. Overall, miracles in Luke-Acts are more significant than in Matthew and Mark, and serve as a basis for belief and discipleship. Ultimately, this belief is directed towards God.

Other studies, while technically not using a redaction-critical methodology, focus on the special emphases of Luke’s narration of miracles in the Third Gospel and in Acts. An example of this is a study by H. Kee.56 Kee argues that Luke has employed two first-century literary conventions in order to persuade his auditors. These include elements of Hellenistic historiography57 and romances. According to Kee, the genre of romance came to be used in cult propaganda documents; these were literary works which would allow the auditors to relive the mythic foundation of the cult.58 In Luke’s story of Jesus and the church, Israel is the foundation, much as the myth of Isis served as the foundation of the Isis cult.

For Kee, the central component of Luke’s story is the theme of the kingdom of God. Miracles assist Luke in elucidating this theme in that healings and exorcisms are demonstrations of the fulfillment of prophecy. Also, dreams and other wonders function as God’s confirmation of each new phase of the expansion of the kingdom. Thus, while making the narrative interesting to read, miracles also validate that the expansion of Christianity into all parts of the Roman Empire is indeed God’s desire and the fulfillment of prophecy.

G. W. H. Lampe has considered the topic of miracles in Acts,59 and argues that the wondrous deeds performed by the apostles in Acts (and Jesus in the Third Gospel) should be viewed against an OT background. Jesus, according to Lampe, is portrayed as a prophetic figure, one who acts as God’s spokesperson and agent, who comes to announce the beginning of a new age. The same Spirit that empowered Jesus’ miraculous deeds then empowers his disciples after his ascension. Through this and other parallels between Luke’s gospel and Acts, Lampe argues that the apostles in Acts should also be seen as prophetic figures. The deeds performed by Jesus and the apostles are in fulfillment of OT prophecy and function in both Luke and Acts as signs and evidence of the proclaimed in-breaking of the kingdom.

While the studies surveyed above have the advantage of focusing specifically on the theme of the miraculous in Luke-Acts, the methodologies employed tend to focus on the emphases of the author. While offering valuable insights, they, with some exceptions, tend to neglect the greater Greco-Roman milieu in which Luke-Acts was composed and heard. Also, these studies generally focus on the author’s theology, rather than the persuasive aspects of the narrative in which these elements of the miraculous are found. Recently, studies have appeared which help fill this lacuna in scholarship. It is to examples of these studies that I now turn my attention.

M. M. Adams has recently produced a narrative study of miracle accounts in Luke-Acts.60 Adams builds upon Achtemeier’s aforementioned redactional study of the miracles in the third gospel, arguing that miracles are constitutive of a repeated pattern in Luke-Acts. This pattern consists of a call/commission from God, which leads to a ministry characterized by signs and preaching. The results of this ministry are reactions which are often negative, from which persecution ensues. Ultimately, the messenger is vindicated through some type of miracle. The pattern can be seen in the descriptions of Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul, and is also paradigmatic for the church as a whole in Acts.

In a second example of a narrative-critical approach to miracles in Luke-Acts, C. Talbert, in his commentary on the Third Gospel,61 includes a section in which he makes summary comments concerning Luke’s view of miracles (as found in the Third Gospel and Acts) and in the Lukan milieu generally.62 Talbert argues that Luke’s attitude toward the miraculous mirrors the Greco-Roman and Jewish environment in which he composed his writings. In each case, Talbert finds that there was a mixed attitude toward the miraculous. On the positive side, Luke considers miracles as a potential catalyst for faith, as legitimating acts of persons or the proclaimed word, and as proof of one’s virtuous character and innocence. On the negative side, for Luke miracles were not sufficient evidence to bring about one’s conversion. Miracles must be supported by words,63 and are differentiated from magic by the miracle-worker’s character. Also, Luke considers conversion as having priority over being healed in a physical sense.

Lastly, employing a narrative-critical approach to miracles in Acts, M. Myllykoski64 has argued of late that miracle accounts form the backbone of the narrative in Acts 1–12. He claims that each account of the miraculous in Acts 1–12 falls into one of four categories: (i) a witness to the foundational miracle, Jesus’ resurrection and ascension; (ii) a precursor to conflict; (iii) legitimation of the next stage of salvation history; or (iv) the formation of character and the growth of faith of Luke’s community. Myllykoski concludes that Luke wrote to a community under duress in order to encourage his listeners with a highly idealized portrayal of the Urgemeinde from which they have come.

R. Strelan65 analyzes miraculous phenomena in Acts from the ancient auditors’ perspective. Strelan uses a social-scientific methodology which greatly depends on Jewish and Greco-Roman parallel texts in order to understand first-century auditors’ attitudes towards these phenomena in Acts. Strelan argues that these accounts would have been understood as legitimation of the mission to the Gentiles, an apologetic for the continuing work of God, missionary propaganda, and entertainment. Finally, Strelan concludes that although the heroes in Acts are characterized as OT prophets (such as Moses and Elijah), Hellenistic readers would also have understood these acts also by interpreting them through their own cultural grid.

Finally, one study of Luke-Acts does combine the analysis of aspects of the miraculous along with the concept of proof-from-prophecy (i.e., the function of scripture citations). J. Squire’s recent monograph66 includes three chapters which investigate the role of signs, epiphanies and visions, and fulfillment of prophecy in Jewish and Greco-Roman ancient historiography and Luke-Acts. According to Squires, these three emphases67 combine to explicate the role of the plan of God in Luke-Acts.68 Squires concludes that this focus serves an apologetic purpose to encourage Christian auditors to be witnesses of and to remain strong in their faith, as well as to confirm the faith of the auditors.

With this previous scholarship as a foundation, the present study advances the discussion by combining different areas of Toposforschung and Luke-Acts scholarship, thus asking a new question. First, this investigation will argue for an understanding of topos as a source of proofs, used in forensic and deliberative situations in the ancient world. Specifically, I will focus on the topos of divine testimony, an external proof through which the rhetor cites the utterances and deeds of the gods in order to persuade the audience of the innocence or guilt of a client and/or the opposition. Thus, the study will analyze citations of Jewish scripture, as well as certain elements of the miraculous, from a rhetorical, audience-oriented perspective, seeking an answer to the question of how divine testimony through words (both spoken and written) and deeds functions within the complete narrative of Luke-Acts. Specific emphasis will be placed on how these particular elements in the narrative would have been understood by Luke’s ancient audience, an audience which lived in a culture in which persuasion through rhetoric was a commonplace.

Methodology

The overall methodology that will be employed by this study can best be described using S. Chatman’s communication model69 of author → text → reader. All three of the elements in Chatman’s model are significant for the methodology used in the study. Each will be described in turn, beginning with the text.

When analyzing specific passages from Luke-Acts, this study will perform a “close reading” of the text. Agreeing with Kelber,70 this study will take seriously the fact that Luke and Acts are the result of the composition of an author; Luke-Acts has a specific plot and characters, which are developed throughout the narrative. Events that are narrated assume the significance of what has gone before as well as what will follow. Therefore, the analysis of each incident must be accomplished with regard to the whole, considering the entire context of Luke-Acts in each case. In some cases, it may be necessary to compare the Lukan passage with its parallels in Mark and/or Matthew in order to discern the specific focus in Luke.

The present study will be primarily one of rhetorical criticism, which reflects suppositions concerning the author of the text as well as the audience of the text. Concerning the documents in the NT, G. Kennedy asks, “How legitimate is it to approach the New Testament in terms of Greek ideas of rhetoric?”71 Kennedy argues from a historical perspective that one is indeed justified when analyzing the NT through a rhetorical lens due to the significance of rhetoric in Greco-Roman education in the first century.72 Rhetoric formed the core of the secondary education system in the Roman Empire. In addition, rhetorical principles were employed in almost every aspect of public life in the culture in which the evangelists and Paul grew up and lived; therefore, it is safe to assume that they were at least familiar with the rudiments of rhetoric, even if they did not formally study it. To attempt to be persuasive means that they would have had to communicate in a manner that the people around them understood.73 Therefore, an author, who had received at least a basic education and who desired to persuade a first-century audience, would be influenced to some degree by the principles of rhetoric taught and practiced within the culture.

Other scholars, by examining the text of Luke and especially Acts, argue that the author of Luke-Acts had received some level of rhetorical training. For example, Kurz notes that Luke’s use of enthymemes as described by Aristotle, the prologues which conform to Greek literary conventions, the emphasis on the trial scenes and their associated forensic rhetoric, as well as the use of inartificial proofs, including witnesses, contracts, and oracles, all serve as evidence that Luke had received an education in rhetoric.74 P. Satterthwaite finds rhetorical influences in Luke’s selection of material, the arrangement of the material (on both a macro and micro level), and the greater amount of narrative emphasis placed on important theological themes. These areas, along with the general style of the narrative and the use of speeches, cause Satterthwaite to conclude that Luke was attempting to persuade his auditors using the rhetorical conventions of his time.75 R. Burridge suggests that it is not out of the realm of possibility that Luke had some type of rhetorical training. He bases this assumption on Luke’s stylistic treatment of Markan material, the speeches in Acts, and “his command of different Greek styles.”76

Finally, M. Parsons, in his recent commentary on Acts, in which he analyzes the text from a rhetorical perspective,77 reminds his readers that Acts was originally written to be heard. The text would therefore have been read by a lector, one who was most likely skilled to some degree in rhetorical practice. The significant point that Parsons makes is that while Acts (and Luke’s Gospel) is a written document, because it was composed to be rehearsed in front of a group of auditors, it most likely shares characteristics with speeches, written in accordance with the guidelines as described in the rhetorical handbooks. Thus, one of Parsons’s emphases in his analysis is on the Progymnasmata, or preliminary exercises.78 The Progymnasmata comprised a

curriculum . . . featuring a series of set exercises of increasing difficulty, [which] was the source of facility in written and oral expression for many persons and training for speech in public life . . . Not only the secular literature of the Greeks and Romans, but the writings of early Christians beginning with the gospels and continuing through the patristic age, and of some Jewish writers as well, were molded by the habits of thinking and writing learned in schools.79

According to Kennedy, the Progymnasmata were a part of the first-century education process for both written and oral communication. Given that Luke is writing in Greek, he clearly had some level of education which would have included the preliminary exercises. One is therefore justified in analyzing Luke-Acts with an eye toward elements of rhetoric, as described in the preliminary exercises and the rhetorical handbooks.

Performing a rhetorical analysis also has implications for the reader/auditor in Chatman’s model. The auditors on which this study will concentrate are those who make up the authorial audience as described by P. Rabinowitz.80 The authorial audience is that group of auditors for which the text is composed; i.e., the author, in writing the text, makes assumptions as to the ability of the audience to understand. The authorial audience is that ideal audience which understands everything the author presents. To reconstruct the authorial audience, this study will draw from the thought of W. Iser81 and H. R. Jauss.82 Iser argues that readers ultimately construct the meaning of a text, using the text as a set of instructions. To construct meaning from the text, a reader relies on her “repertoire,” which consists of other texts with which the reader is familiar, as well as the social and cultural ethos in which the reader lives. Jauss argues similarly, stating that the reading of a text triggers memories contained in a “horizon of expectations” which has been built up through the reading of other texts. Thus, this study will attempt to understand the text as Luke’s first-century readers understood it by reconstructing their repertoire/horizon of expectations through the analysis of writings which were roughly contemporaneous to Luke’s audience. As rhetoric was the primary form of persuasion used in the legal and political spheres of first-century Greco-Roman culture, an analysis of rhetorical principles as found in the Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks and the Progymnasmata will be a necessary component of this reconstruction, especially in their discussions of the concept of topos/locus.

In sum, the methodology of this study will be that of rhetorical criticism, combined with a close reading of the text in order to discern the persuasive structures within the narrative as well as a vehicle to understand how the text would have been received by first-century auditors. In addition, contemporaneous Jewish and Greco-Roman writings will be analyzed in order to reconstruct the auditors’ horizon of expectations.

Framework of the Argument

The main argument of this study will unfold in five chapters. The first of these chapters will provide an understanding of the topos of divine testimony as described in the ancient rhetorical handbooks as well as the Progymnasmata. The chapter will investigate the ancient rhetoricians’ descriptions of the topos, in order to attempt to define this concept from the ancients’ perspective. The discussion will become increasingly specific, with the goal of arriving at the most effective type of inartificial proof, that of divine testimony. Once this is accomplished, ancient Greco-Roman speeches and philosophical treatises will be surveyed, with an eye toward the function of divine testimony through word and deed in actual arguments. The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate the high value of the topos of authoritative testimony, including the sources thereof, in the ancient world, and to argue that divine testimony was the strongest source of this type of proof.

The third chapter will examine how an ancient audience would have understood divine testimony through utterances by examining passages in Jewish and Greco-Roman histories and biographies, as well as early, non-canonical Christian writings roughly contemporary with Luke-Acts. In these sources, direct speech by the gods, divine speech through an inspired intermediary, and the use of oracles will be analyzed; from this analysis the function within the narratives of this type of divine testimony will be explicated. The expected result of this analysis is that divine speech is often used as testimony, either in favor of or against a person or an event. These results will then be used as a baseline and compared to the accounts of divine speech in Luke-Acts, which are examined in chapter four. As in chapter three, direct speech by God, speech through inspired intermediaries (those “filled with the Spirit”), and written utterances by God will be examined. A significant facet of the argument in this chapter is the equation, from an ancient audience’s perspective, of the use of oracles in Hellenistic narratives and references to Hebrew scriptures in Luke-Acts. The chapter will ultimately demonstrate that an ancient audience would have heard the topos of divine testimony through utterances in Luke-Acts in the same way as in extra-biblical narratives of the same period.

The next two chapters parallel the previous two; here, however, the focus will be on the topos of divine testimony through deeds, rather than speech. The structure of the investigations will follow Cicero’s description of what constitutes divine testimony through deeds (Top. 20.76–77). This description will also control which specific accounts in Luke-Acts constitute divine testimony through deeds. Therefore, not all instances of the miraculous will be considered; only those elements within the narrative that fall under Cicero’s categories will be examined. The goal of these chapters is, as in chapters two and three, to demonstrate that the topos of divine testimony through deeds would have been understood by an ancient audience to function in ways similar to those seen in Hellenistic narratives and biographies.

1. English citations from the Bible are from the NRSV, unless otherwise noted.

2. Danker notes, “Of the four evangelists, Luke makes most frequent use of the word-deed theme” (see Danker, Benefactor, 340).

3. These are described by Cicero as sources of divine testimony; see Top. 20.76–77.

4. Exceptions, of course, do exist. These will be noted in the following summary of the history of research.

5. See, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 32, 221, in which he maintains that Paul, especially in Gal 4, builds his argument around a “string of friendship topoi.”

6. Porter, “Scripture Justifies Mission,” 104–26.

7. Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” 165–86.

8. See Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” 173–74n20, in which he cites Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, 302–5.

9. Schubert, “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24,” 176.

10. Bock, Proclamation.

11. Bock argues that Jesus is characterized as “more than a messiah” from this point on in the narrative; see Proclamation, 264.

12. Talbert, “Promise and Fulfillment,” 91–103.

13. Talbert begins his survey with Schubert, and then reviews the work of Schubert’s fellow Yale scholars N. Dahl, L. Johnson, and R. Karris.

14. It should be noted that Talbert agrees that proof from prophecy theology is a part of Luke-Acts. His argument is that proof from prophecy theology should not be considered the central theme around which Luke-Acts has been composed.

15. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive.

16. Other uses of the OT include: a hermeneutical application in which the OT is used to show that current events are much like those narrated in the OT; a typological use through which the OT can assist in the understanding of current events; and finally an ethical use through which characters in Luke-Acts are portrayed as fulfilling the ethical demands of the OT. See Talbert, “Promise and Fulfillment,” 93–94.

17. Talbert notes that not all instances of proof from prophecy are in support of Luke’s conception of salvation history. He lists three other applications, including divine protection, encouragement of believers, and paraenesis; see “Promise and Fulfillment,” 95–96.

18. Talbert, “Promise and Fulfillment,” 96–101. For Bock’s response to Talbert’s critique, see Bock, “Proclamation,” 280–82.

19. Stanley, “Rhetoric,” 44–58.

20. Stamps, “Use of the Old Testament,” 9–37.

21. Morgenthaler, Lukas und Quintilian, esp. 364–85.

22. In this regard see also Neagoe, The Trial of the Gospel.

23. I am intentionally avoiding the term “supernatural,” as this carries with it a post-Enlightenment assumption that the world is governed by natural laws; this is clearly an anachronism when one considers the worldview of a first-century audience. Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, 115 n. 1). This is the definition used by Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 11 (“a violation of a law of nature by a god”). Swinburne makes a similar point to the one above concerning the supernatural nature of miracles; he argues that through the inclusion of the phrase “by a god” in the definition of miracle one must consider miracles as “in accordance with the divinely ordained natural order as a whole” (Concept of Miracle, 9). More recently, D. Basinger and R. Basinger argue for two definitions of miracle: (i) “a permanently inexplicable event directly caused by God”; and (ii) “an awe-producing naturally explicable event directly caused by God” (Philosophy and Miracle, 23).

24. See, e.g., Kertelge, “Die Wunder Jesu,” 71–105; Polhill, “Perspectives on the Miracle Stories,” 389–99; Weder, “Wunder Jesu,” 25–49; Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 49–87; Engelbrecht, “Trends in Miracle Research,” 139–61; Twelftree, “The History of Miracles,” 191–208; Kollmann, “Images of Hope.”

25. Spinoza argued that reports of miracles actually act as obstacles to faith because they claim the breaking of natural laws established by God. Similarly, Schleiermacher maintained that the universe and its inner workings were creative acts of God; if a miracle occurs which contradicts this natural order found in the universe, it would be a contradiction in the nature of God himself. See Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 52–53.

26. Harnack, for example, maintained that the stories which related healing miracles represented accounts of actual events; he went on to say, however, that the healing itself could be explained through natural means. He rejected any miracles which, in his opinion, seemed to break natural laws. See Harnack, What is Christianity? 23–30.

27. See Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 55. It should be noted that Maier attempts through his essay to argue that since the nineteenth-century scholarly attitudes toward the synoptic miracle reports have slowly changed from that which is described here to a general acceptance of the historicity of many miracle stories.

28. See, e.g., two works by Fiebig: Jüdische Wundergeschichten; idem, Rabbinische Wundergeschichten.

29. Examples include: Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder; Fiebig, Antike Wundergeschichten; Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen; and Bieler, Theios aner.

30. Fiebig denies the historicity of the miracle accounts, and therefore minimizes the significance of these elements of the gospels. But for him this is not a problem, because, as Fiebig states, “das für uns heutzutage Wertvollste in den Evangelien liegt nicht in den Wundergeschichten, sondern in den Worten Jesu” (Jüdische Wundergeschichten, 97–98).

31. One idea proposed by the History of Religions school that continued to influence the study of synoptic miracles is that of the Hellenistic θεῖος ἀνήρ. The idea of the θεῖος ἀνήρ, or “divine man,” was first introduced by Reitzenstein (Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 26–27), and given full expression by Bieler (Theios aner) approximately two decades later. Reitzenstein argues that the origin of the theios anēr can be found in the spread of the cults of deities in the ancient world. Wandering religious figures, prophets for their respective gods, were responsible for the proliferation of these ancient cults in remote areas away from the normal trade routes. These figures were able to foresee the future and know people’s thoughts, heal the sick, and even restore life to the dead. Bieler’s contribution was to survey various first, second, and third-century Greco-Roman works, as well as the canonical gospels and the apocryphal Acts (ibid., 7–8), and from these sources deduce a standardized portrait of the Hellenistic divine man. According to Bieler, such a figure in the ancient sources was characterized by an extraordinary situation surrounding his birth, often involving some type of communication or relationship between the parents and the gods. Also, the divine man was normally an outstanding student who amazed his teachers, eventually becoming a virtuous adult who was able to see into the future and perform miraculous works involving nature, demons, and the healing of those afflicted with illnesses. Finally, amazing events normally surround the death of the figure—signs and portents appear; the body of the figure vanishes, or the figure appears after his death (ibid., 44–48).

Within the last forty years, the concept of the theios anēr as a point of entry for discussing the gospel miracle accounts has continued to be attractive to scholars; summaries of the development of the concept of the Hellenistic divine man and its application to gospel research can be found in the following: M. Smith, “Prolegomena,” 174–99; Tiede, Charismatic Figure; and Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism, 15–45. Holladay’s summary concentrates on the process of transmission of the concept of a Hellenistic divine man through Hellenistic-Judaism (in which it was combined with the OT idea of a “man of God”) to the Christian authors of the NT. For critiques and nuanced perspectives, see Tiede, Charismatic Figure; Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism; Betz, “Jesus as Divine Man,” 114–33; Achtemeier, “Gospel Miracle Tradition,” 174–97; Talbert, “Concept of Immortals,” 419–36. In this last essay, Talbert opines that the idea of a theios anēr is “an auxiliary concern because of its importance in current discussion in NT study” (“Concept of Immortals,” 419 n. 1, citing Achtemeier, “Gospel Miracle Traditions”). Rather than focus on the author’s intention, as Achtemeier and Betz do, Talbert emphasizes what the ancient audience would have understood, arguing that there were originally two concepts of divine men, namely the immortals and that of the theios anēr. These two eventually merged, the point of contact between them being the virtuous life that characterized both types of figures. While some early Christians argued that Jesus was unique, others embraced the idea of a virtuous immortal, and used it in their portrayals of Jesus. For a more recent critique of theios anēr Christology, see Pilgaard, “Hellenistic Theios Aner,” 101–22.

32. The following discussion is from his From Tradition to Gospel, 37–103.

33. See Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 218–44.

34. He states, “It is characteristic of the miracle itself that the actual miraculous event is almost never described, . . . only the accompanying circumstances” (Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 221; emphasis in original).

35. See, e.g., Engelbrecht, “Trends in Miracle Research,” 141.

36. Theissen, The Miracle Stories. This volume is a translation of his Urchristliche Wundergeschichten.

37. Functionality in three different areas is considered: the social function, the religio-historical function, and the existential function.

38. Theissen, The Miracle Stories, 223.

39. Other scholars have subsequently attempted to build on Theissen’s analysis. See, e.g., Polhill, “Perspectives on the Miracle Stories”; Betz, “Early Christian Miracle Story,” 69–81; and most recently, Sterling, “Jesus as Exorcist,” 467–93. Polhill takes issue with the concept of theios anēr as developed within the History of Religions School and argues for the significance of the gospel miracle accounts, suggesting two avenues. First, scholars should consider the eschatological context of the miracle stories; in doing so, the focus of the investigation becomes the uniqueness of the reports, rather than their similarities to other ancient miracle stories. This uniqueness is seen in the account as a whole, not in the details. Second, Polhill proposes further investigation using Theissen’s structuralist approach. He argues that “the very structure of the miracle narratives conveys the eschatological message” contained in them (“Perspectives on the Miracle Stories,” 395; emphasis in original).

Betz is also sympathetic to Theissen’s project; he, however, argues for a stronger emphasis on the artistic contribution of the author through the myriad combinations and foci that result from the author’s use of those motifs identified by Theissen. In this way the distinctively Christian elements can be isolated and the Christian interpretation of the miracle accounts deduced.

Sterling performs a form-critical analysis of the triple tradition that relates the exorcism performed by Jesus following the transfiguration, ultimately arguing that this account is based on an actual event in the life of Jesus.

40. M. Miller, “The Character of Miracles in Luke-Acts.”

41. Ibid., iii.

42. Ibid., 198.

43. Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 16–17.

44. Achtemeier, “Lucan Perspective on the Miracles,” 547–62.

45. See also Tannehill, Luke, 86, who arrives at this conclusion through a literary analysis of the Third Gospel. Tannehill argues that the faith that is evoked through a miracle is ultimately faith in God, not the miracle worker. This theological perspective, according to Tannehill, is found throughout Luke-Acts.

46. Hull, Hellenistic Magic, 87–115.

47. Here Achtemeier specifically refutes Miller’s argument (see above) that through the miracle accounts Luke characterizes Jesus as an OT prophet (“Lucan Perspective on the Miracles,” 561n26). Achtemeier maintains that although there is evidence that Luke portrays Jesus as a prophet, the miracle stories in the Third Gospel have not been modified to promote this characterization (see ibid., 560–62).

48. Busse, Die Wunder des Propheten Jesu. This volume is a condensed version of his dissertation, written at Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, under the supervision of J. Gnilka.

49. Here Busse relies on the work of Tiede, Charismatic Figure.

50. At this point he disagrees with Conzelmann (Theology of St. Luke, 190–93). Busse states that because Jesus’ miracles are misunderstood by the disciples, they cannot serve as proofs. Rather, it is only after the resurrection that the disciples gain understanding.

51. Here (Die Wunder, 450), Busse refers to Luke’s favorite introductory formula, καὶ ἐγένετο, as noted by Theissen and others.

52. Busse, Die Wunder, 484.

53. G. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker.

54. A second study utilizing a similar methodology is Green, “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham,” 643–54. In this article, Green notes the dearth of redaction-critical and “literary-theological” studies of miracles in Luke-Acts. He considers the healing of the bent woman from these perspectives (with priority given to the literary-theological perspective) and concludes that the healing of the bent woman reinforces Luke’s emphases on the balance of teaching and deeds and the elevated status of “outsiders” in the kingdom of God. Also, Green argues that the healing is ultimately an expression of mercy with eschatological overtones, as the woman is delivered from Satan’s captivity.

55. I should note that Twelftree is not in direct conversation with Busse; Busse’s volume does not even appear in Twelftree’s otherwise extensive bibliography.

56. Kee, Miracle, 190–220.

57. Ibid., 190–92; Kee specifically lists three: the prologue, speeches, and historical facts and chronological references.

58. Ibid., 194. Kee states that these works were composed “to foster devotion to the god, and to do so by describing the experiences of the main characters in ways that mirror or even reenact the experiences of the god, as told in the mythical stories of the divine struggles and triumph.”

59. Lampe, “Miracles,” 164–78.

60. Adams, “The Role of Miracles,” 235–73.

61. Talbert, Reading Luke.

62. Ibid., 271–76.

63. This point is also made by O’Reilly, Word and Sign, who argues that Jesus is the prophet like Moses, and his disciples after him carry out his prophetic ministry. O’Reilly comes to these conclusions through a primarily redactional study of word and sign in Acts, arguing that in Luke’s theology, word and sign are both constitutive elements of the proclamation of salvation. Sign, however, is subordinate to word. The connection of word and miracle is also made by Tannehill, Luke, 77–99.

64. Myllykoski, “Being There,” 146–79.

65. Strelan, Strange Acts.

66. Squires, Plan of God; see esp. 78–154 (chs. 4, 5, and 6).

67. Squires also includes God’s direction of events through history and the concept of necessity (δεῖ). On the use of δεῖ in Luke-Acts, see also Cosgrove, “The Divine ΔΕΙ,” 168–90.

68. On the role of scripture and the fulfillment of the plan of God, see also Moessner, “The ‘script’ of the Scripture,” 218–50. Moessner surveys Luke’s use of scripture in the major defense speeches in Acts, arguing that scripture is used to emphasize the fulfillment of three major aspects of God’s plan: the apostles’ preaching that Christ has been raised from the dead; the crucifixion of Jesus; and Jesus’ resurrection.

69. Chatman, Story and Discourse.

70. Kelber, “Redaction Criticism,” 14. I was directed to this through C. Talbert’s citation of same; see Reading Luke, 4.

71. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 8.

72. Ibid., 3–12. See also Kurz, “Hellenistic Rhetoric,” 171–95; Kurz cites Malherbe (Social Aspects, 45) in claiming that the lowest level of education that an NT writer who quotes from Greek literary works would have had would be “the upper levels of secondary education” (Kurz, “Hellenistic Rhetoric,” 192). Cf. Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 340–43.

73. Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 8–10.

74. See Kurz, “Hellenistic Rhetoric,” 172–84, for Luke’s use of enthymemes, and ibid., 185–91, for other evidence of Luke’s knowledge of rhetoric. As will become evident, the present study agrees wholeheartedly with Kurz’s point concerning witnesses and inartificial proofs.

75. Satterthwaite, “Acts.”

76. “The Gospels and Acts,” 507–32; the quotation is from ibid., 530.

77. Parsons, Acts.

78. Parsons, Acts, 9–11.

79. Kennedy, introduction to Progymnasmata, ix.

80. Rabinowitz, “Truth in Fiction,” 121–42.

81. Iser, The Act of Reading.

82. Jauss, Aesthetic of Reception.