rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_203eca9c-e80f-509c-8228-34b33a5150f9">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).
