The topos of Divine Testimony in Luke-Acts. James R. McConnell

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,