Among many, see Hans Dieter Betz, “Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975), pp. 353–79; idem, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Stanley Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico: Scholars, 1981); Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Stowers, ARereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); R.D. Anderson, Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Louvain: Kok Pharos, 1996); Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney (eds.), Paul and Pathos (Atlanta: SBL, 2001); Duane Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Blandford: Deo, 2006).

 Among many, see Hans Dieter Betz, “Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975), pp. 353–79; idem, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Stanley Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico: Scholars, 1981); Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); R.D. Anderson, Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Louvain: Kok Pharos, 1996); Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney (eds.), Paul and Pathos (Atlanta: SBL, 2001); Duane Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Blandford: Deo, 2006).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Kathleen Welch, The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of An­­­cient Discourse (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990), p. 3. Alternatively, TheSAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies identifies three “rhetorics” in New Testament studies: the “antiquarian (i.e., Aristotelian) style that applies the classical rhetorical models of Greco-Roman rhetoric to the New Testament”; the “interactionist style that incorporates sociopolitical motives (in the Burkean sense)”; and the “ideological style that completes the [rhetorical] turn by submitting the analysis itself to a hermeneutic of suspicion” (Andrea Lunsford, Kirt Wilson, and Rosa Eberly [eds.], TheSAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2009], pp. 130–31.

 Kathleen Welch, The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of An­­­cient Discourse (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990), p. 3. Alternatively, The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies identifies three “rhetorics” in New Testament studies: the “antiquarian (i.e., Aristotelian) style that applies the classical rhetorical models of Greco-Roman rhetoric to the New Testament”; the “interactionist style that incorporates sociopolitical motives (in the Burkean sense)”; and the “ideological style that completes the [rhetorical] turn by submitting the analysis itself to a hermeneutic of suspicion” (Andrea Lunsford, Kirt Wilson, and Rosa Eberly [eds.], The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies [Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2009], pp. 130–31.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 John Frow, Genre (The New Critical Idiom) (New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 14.

 John Frow, Genre (The New Critical Idiom) (New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 14.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See Abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William Kurz, “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts,” in D. Balch, E. Ferguson, Wayne Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 171–89.

 See Abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); William Kurz, “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts,” in D. Balch, E. Ferguson, Wayne Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 171–89. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See, for example, Poet. 1.452a; Rh. 1.400b.

 See, for example, Poet. 1.452a; Rh. 1.400b.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Martinus de Boer, “Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the Gospel of John,” JSNT 47 (1992), pp. 35–48 (37).

 Martinus de Boer, “Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the Gospel of John,” JSNT 47 (1992), pp. 35–48 (37). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, p. 6.

 Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, p. 6. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See Stamps, “Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism,” pp. 219–39.

 See Stamps, “Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism,” pp. 219–39. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996), p. 8.

 James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996), p. 8.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, p. 2. According to Kearns, “[T]he study of narrative continues to be bifurcated: there are strong, ongoing interests in the text-based features present in narratives … and in the narrative use of language, but these two approaches have not been scrutinized for their common ground” (p. 30).

 Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, p. 2. According to Kearns, “[T]he study of narrative continues to be bifurcated: there are strong, ongoing interests in the text-based features present in narratives … and in the narrative use of language, but these two approaches have not been scrutinized for their common ground” (p. 30). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 115.

 Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 115.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Darr, Character Building, p. 147. See also my contribution on Lukan characterization in the forthcoming Festschrift for François Bovon, to be published by Mohr Siebeck.

 Darr, Character Building, p. 147. See also my contribution on Lukan characterization in the forthcoming Festschrift for François Bovon, to be published by Mohr Siebeck.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, pp. 50–52.

 See Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology, pp. 50–52. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Aristotle, Rh. 1.3.4–6, and his discussion of structure in 3.13–19; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, pp. 125–26; Soards, The Speeches in Acts, pp. 90–91; Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts, p. 19; Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 453.

 Aristotle, Rh. 1.3.4–6, and his discussion of structure in 3.13–19; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, pp. 125–26; Soards, The Speeches in Acts, pp. 90–91; Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts, p. 19; Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 453. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 450; Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, pp. 60–64 and the citations therein.

 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 450; Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, pp. 60–64 and the citations therein.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Phelan, “Rhetoric/Ethics,” pp. 207–208.

 Phelan, “Rhetoric/Ethics,” pp. 207–208.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Alex T. M. Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis of Acts 14:27–15:35: Literary Shaping in Luke’s Account of the Jerusalem Council,” WTJ 55 (1993), pp. 137–54.

 Alex T. M. Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis of Acts 14:27–15:35: Literary Shaping in Luke’s Account of the Jerusalem Council,” WTJ 55 (1993), pp. 137–54.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” pp. 143–44.

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” pp. 143–44. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” p. 142.

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” p. 142.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” p. 141.

 Cheung, “A Narrative Analysis,” p. 141.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See, for example, William Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), pp. 93–94. Of course, discussion of these themes is not unique to narrative critics; even the earliest Christian interpreters read the account as an ecclesiological model for theological decision-making. John Chrysostom referred to this passage as evidence that ecumenical councils should be orderly, with all participants submitting to the bishop (Hom. Acts 33). A recent example of the “conflict resolution” approach is J. Lyle Story, “Luke’s Instructive Dynamics for Resolving Conflicts: The Jerusalem Council,” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 3 (2011), pp. 99–118. Contemporary debates also concern the relative “Jewishness” of the apostolic decree. See, for example, Joseph Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and the Scholars: Critical Approaches to Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), esp. pp. 117–19.

 See, for example, William Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), pp. 93–94. Of course, discussion of these themes is not unique to narrative critics; even the earliest Christian interpreters read the account as an ecclesiological model for theological decision-making. John Chrysostom referred to this passage as evidence that ecumenical councils should be orderly, with all participants submitting to the bishop (Hom. Acts 33). A recent example of the “conflict resolution” approach is J. Lyle Story, “Luke’s Instructive Dynamics for Resolving Conflicts: The Jerusalem Council,” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 3 (2011), pp. 99–118. Contemporary debates also concern the relative “Jewishness” of the apostolic decree. See, for example, Joseph Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and the Scholars: Critical Approaches to Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), esp. pp. 117–19.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Phelan, “Rhetoric/Ethics,” p. 212.

 Phelan, “Rhetoric/Ethics,” p. 212.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 On this, see Kathy Maxwell, Hearing Between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu (New York: T & T Clark, 2010).

 On this, see Kathy Maxwell, Hearing Between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary Milieu (New York: T & T Clark, 2010). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See Booth, Rhetoric of Fiction, pp. 271–310.

 See Booth, Rhetoric of Fiction, pp. 271–310.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 On this, see Michal Beth Dinkler, Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), pp. 67–82 and 193–201.

 On this, see Michal Beth Dinkler, Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), pp. 67–82 and 193–201.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Parsons, Acts, p. 21.

 Parsons, Acts, p. 21.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation