The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate the value of proper attention to ‘story structure’ in the study of Acts. The thesis works towards this aim in three stages. First, in chapters 1 and 2, the thesis develops the methodological framework of story structure which is proposed to consist of two interacting components: (top down) macro-structure which places an individual episode within the governing context of the story layers to which it contributes, and (bottom up) the way the meaning of an individual episode is shaped from and by its narrative clauses. Second, chapters 3-5 use the methodology of chapters 1-2 to support and guide a close reading of the narrative arc of the twelve apostles as Luke narrates their evolving story in Acts 1–12. This reading is focused by a question, appropriate to the narrative properties of Luke-Acts, about the goals of the Twelve (disclosed primarily in Luke 22:14-30 and Acts 1:1-12) and the steps taken by the Twelve to actualise those goals. Attention to the story structure of Acts 1–12 reveals that the narrative arc of the Twelve complies with Aristotle’s preferred ‘tragic’ shape, pivoting from initial rising success to ultimate failure around the turning point of 6:1-7, which discloses that the downfall of the Twelve is caused by their over-emphasis of the mission to Jerusalem and their ‘tragic flaw’ of hubris. Third, chapter 6 considers the implications of the methodology and application stages of chapters 1-5 for the contested debate over the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6) and concludes against those like Jervell who see a completed restoration of Israel in Acts. The thesis then ends by considering implications of the research for wider exegetical issues such as the genre, plot and purpose of Acts.

This thesis will answer, “How do ethnic labels function in the Gospel of John?” In order to answer this question properly, this thesis draws on social-scientific theories on ethnic groups, deviancy, and labeling. The primary examples of ethnic labeling for this thesis are John 4:9 and 8:48. In each instance, members from “the Jews” (ʼΙουδαῖοι) and “Samaritans” label Jesus as a member of each other’s group. The Gospel of John’s dual ethnic labeling of Jesus participates in a history of discourse between “the Jews” and “Samaritans.” Both people groups adhere to an “us” versus “them” mentality because they both identify themselves as Israelites while rejecting the other group’s claim to that identity. The parameters of the discourse are determined by not only how each ethnic group identifies themselves but particularly how they construct the category for the other’s group. Once the parameters of discourse are in place, then we can address the function of ethnic labels in the Gospel of John. On both occasions Jesus is labeled because he deviates from what are deemed to be acceptable practices as a member of “the Jews.” The function of Jesus’s dual ethnic labeling in the Gospel of John is to establish a new pattern of practices and categories for the “children of God” who are a trans-ethnic group united as a fictive-kinship and who are embedded within the Judean ethnic group’s culture and traditions. The Johannine Jesus is portrayed as “the Jews’” Messiah (1:45; 20:31), who brings “salvation from the Jews” (4:22), and who is “the savior of the world” (4:42). The Gospel of John presents Jesus as broadening the more restrictive boundaries within “his own people” (1:11) in order to “draw all people to myself” (12:32).