The topos of Divine Testimony in Luke-Acts. James R. McConnell
Читать онлайн книгу.
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,