Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article addresses the role of the rhetorical questions in the resurrection account in Luke 24–Acts 1 in order to provide insight into the rhetorical strategy of the author of Luke-Acts. The preface to Luke implies that Jesus's story was met with uncertainty (Luke 1:4). Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus was a central point of debate. I propose that in each of the four postresurrection appearance narratives— those of the two angelic men (Luke 24:1–12, Acts 1:9–14) and those of the risen Jesus (Luke 24:13–35, 36–53), the rhetorical questions raised by Jesus and the two men (Luke 24:5b, 26, 38; Acts 1:11) function to identify clearly, and ultimately defend, the crucial issues in the debate over Jesus's resurrection. I argue that the author employs these rhetorical questions in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory to help provide a cogent argument for the truth of Jesus's resurrection in the face of skepticism. This argument depends on three areas of investigation: (1) the criticism directed at the Christian tradition of Jesus's resurrection; (2) the use of rhetorical questions in ancient rhetorical theory; and (3) the function of rhetorical questions in Luke 24 and Acts 1 in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical standards. The goal of this article is to further scholarly understanding of the concern Luke-Acts manifests for the utilization of rhetorical standards in narrative composition and to give insight into Luke's apologetic purpose.

This article addresses the role of the rhetorical questions in the resurrection account in Luke 24-Acts 1 in order to provide insight into the rhetorical strategy of the author of Luke-Acts. The preface to Luke implies that Jesus's story was met with uncertainty (Luke 1:4). Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus was a central point of debate. I propose that in each of the four postresurrection appearance narratives-those of the two angelic men (Luke 24:1-12, Acts 1:9-14) and those of the risen Jesus (Luke 24:13-35, 36-53), the rhetorical questions raised by Jesus and the two men (Luke 24:5b, 26, 38; Acts 1:11) function to identify clearly, and ultimately defend, the crucial issues in the debate over Jesus's resurrection. I argue that the author employs these rhetorical questions in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory to help provide a cogent argument for the truth of Jesus's resurrection in the face of skepticism. This argument depends on three areas of investigation: (1) the criticism directed at the Christian tradition of Jesus's resurrection; (2) the use of rhetorical questions in ancient rhetorical theory; and (3) the function of rhetorical questions in Luke 24 and Acts 1 in light of Greco-Roman rhetorical standards. The goal of this article is to further scholarly understanding of the concern Luke-Acts manifests for the utilization of rhetorical standards in narrative composition and to give insight into Luke's apologetic purpose.

This dissertation provides an important new perspective on the function of visionary narratives in Luke-Acts by describing the formal features of the Lukan narratives, reviewing ancient standards of evidence and locating the resurrection narratives in the context of Greco-Roman narratives of post-mortem appearances. The resurrection narratives in Luke 24–Acts 1 are central to the author's intent to present an accurate narrative that would provide its recipient(s) with certainty ([special characters omitted] regarding the received teachings about Jesus (Luke 1:4). These narratives were composed in response to questions raised about the plausibility of Jesus' resurrection, which are based upon ancient expectations regarding assurances of credibility. Scholars have suggested that Luke 24 functions to “prove” that Jesus has been raised from the dead (Chapter 1). This investigation seeks to broaden and contextualize that claim in the following ways: (1) by describing the literary context that both demands and makes possible such an apologetic endeavor; (2) by delineating the formal manifestation of this function in the Lukan resurrection accounts. The argument of the dissertation is dependent upon the methodological claim that there must be a “context of expectation” that the author and the audience share. Specifically at issue is the repertoire of literary standards for credibility that a first-century hellenistic reader would bring to a reading of the text and that the author could expect his readers to know. This dissertation demonstrates that Luke's resurrection narratives are guided by ancient Greco-Roman conventions concerning the testimony of witnesses and the presentation of evidence for the provision of proof. A review of ancient rhetorical standards for proof (Chapter 2) and narratives of post-mortem appearances that respond to these standards (Chapter 3) discloses that narratives of wondrous events, such as the resurrection and ascension, require an even greater level of engagement with standards of reliability than less controversial accounts. Rhetorical techniques and formal characteristics present in Luke's vision narratives meet these expectations (Chapters 4–5). This is evident in Luke 24 and Acts 1 in the employment of the double dream-vision form and the presentation of multiple witnesses, material evidence and rhetorical argumentation based upon such proof.