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