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
