^{page 182 note 2} Zahn, Th., Das Evangelium des Lukas (1913), p. 712, has claimed that Mark xvi. 13 f., is dependent upon Luke xxiv. 13 f. I prefer to say that they are closely connected for reasons which will appear later. The apocryphon, quoted by Puech in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, N.T. Apokryphen (3rd ed. 1959), 1, 245, will also be discussed later.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} Schubert, P. in Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann (2nd ed. 1957), pp. 165 f.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Smith, Harold, Ante-Nicene Exegesis, VI (1929), 131. Th. Zahn, op. cit. p. 712 n. 41, has built an edifice of hypotheses on this foundation, which it is impossible to take seriously.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 5} This follows from the parallel in I Cor. xv. 5. The now fashionable view (cf. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels (1955), p. 570), that v. 34 should be expunged as an interpolation, seems a violent simplification.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} It is at least doubtful whether Knox, W., Some Hellenistic Elements (1944), p. 17 n. 1, is correct in regarding the phrase as un-Lukan because of its Semitic flavour.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 2} Cf. Schubert, P., op. cit. p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} Winter, P., ‘The Treatment of His Sources by the Third Evangelist’, Studio Theologica (1954), pp. 167 f.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} See below, pp. 189 ff. In general cf. Sanders, J. N., ‘Those whom Jesus loved’, N. T. S. 1 (1954), 29 f.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 5} The same view is held, though without reasons being given for it, by P. Schubert, op. cit. p. 170, and it is to be regretted that it has not influenced more deeply his research into the literary composition of Luke xxiv.

^{page 183 note 6} Leaney, A. R. C., ‘The Resurrection Narrative in Luke‘, N.T.S. 1 (1955), 110 f., has made a fairly strong case for a Lukan rewriting of the Emmaus story, mainly on lexicographical evidence. His chief aim is, however, to plead for the genuineness of the verses 12, which I think unlikely, and 36 f., which does not concern us here.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1} Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge, 1 (1921), 25.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} Moule, C. F. D., N.T.S. IV (1957), 58 f.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 3} Fr. Blass-Debrunner, , Grammatik des N.T.lichen Griechisch (6th ed. 1931), 159, §277.3.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 4} Cf. H. Gunkel, loc. cit.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. Rom. xi. 8–10, which, of course, is also dependent upon Isa. vi. 9.

^{page 185 note 2} In the LXX άφανής γίνομαι and είς άφανισμóν γίνομαι occur, but mean ‘to be annihilated’, and not ‘to vanish’.

^{page 185 note 3} Cf. the references in Harold Smith, op. cit. vi, 131 f.

^{page 185 note 4} Sophia, Pistis 1. i, edd. Till, C. Schmidt-W., Koptisch-gnost. Schriften (2nd ed. 1954), p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} ‘Ein antikes Königsideal’, Evang. Theol. (1948), p. 101 f.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Käsemann, E., Exegetische Versuche 1 (2nd ed. 1960), p. 64 f.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} It is not only the unanimous, but incorrect, opinion of N.T. scholars that in the Emmaus story ‘the accent lies on the recognition scene’, P. Schubert, op. cit. p. 172; but even Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, iii, 2 (1960), 472 f., gives all his attention to the breaking of the bread, and none to the instruction preceding it. A eucharist without the Word?Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 4} Cf. Leaney, A. R. C., op. cit. p. 110, ‘άντιβάλλειν. does not recur in the N.T., and elsewhere is found only in II Macc. xi. 3.’Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} Found also in Matt. vi. 16, but missing from the Greek Job, which has, however, the idea frequently, especially in xxi. 5.

^{page 186 note 6} It is rather surprising to note that Mildenberger, F., ‘Auferstanden am dritten Tage nach den Schriften’, Evang. Theol. (1963), pp. 269 f., has not seen that the Emmaus story denies–at an early date–the possibility that human reason alone, without any special revelation, can come to the conclusion that the Messiah should rise again ‘according to the scriptures’.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} A. R. C. Leaney, loc. cit., refers to Jas. i. 19, but it has to be noticed that here the word is given a very positive stress. The author of the epistle obviously did not remember the Emmaus story; perhaps he did not know it.

^{page 187 note 2} Schubert, P., op. cit. pp. 176 f., states that ‘Luke's proof-from-prophecy theology is the heart of his concern in chapter 24.’ I am not certain that his elaboration of this thesis (p. 180) bears out his assertion with regard to his proposed analogy between the Emmaus story and Luke vii. 19 f. For here we have no more than a rearrangement by Luke of Q material without any significant addition or change; and it may well be held that the all-over proof-from-prophecy theology belonged already to Q.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 3} On the translation of αγει as ‘he delays’, cf. Th. Zahn, op. cit. p. 772 n. 64.

^{page 188 note 1} Acts iii. 17; xiii. 27, with regard to the Jews, and xvii. 30, with regard to the Gentiles.

^{page 188 note 2} Cf. I Cor. ii. 8. Much mythological early Christian material is found in Kroll, J., Gott und Hölle (1932), pp. 43 f., 49 n. 2. The ‘Apocryphon of John’, ed. Till, W., T.U. LX (1955), 79 f., is full of this idea.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} Billerbeck, 11 (1924), pp, 273 f.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} ‘According to the scriptures’ is part of Paul's evangel, I Cor. xv. 3. As such it is earlier than Luke's ‘proof-from-prophecy theology’, P. Schubert, op. cit. p. 176 f., and not as uncontroversial as Mildenberger, Evangel. Theologie (1963), pp. 266 f., in his turbulent reassessment of the resurrection reports seems to assume.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 5} Williams, A. Lukyn, Adversus Judaeos (1939), pp. 3–6.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 6} Hatch, E., Essays in Biblical Greek (1889), p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 7} Harris, J. Rendel, Testimonia, 1/ 11 (1916–1920).Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} The fact is that Rendel Harris himself did not face up to the necessity of the distinction between Jewish and Christian testimonia concerning the Messiah. His contention that there existed only one book of testimonies of an almost canonical authority, prevented him from a clear analysis of the historical situation. His exegesis, Testimonia, 11, 70, of John v. 39, the motto of any book of testimonia, is simply futile.

^{page 189 note 2} Williams, A. Lukyn, op. cit. p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} This, I think, was the cause for the just complaint of Prigent, P., L'épître de Barnabé (1961), p. 218, that the Messianic testimonia are different in kind from the midrashic ones found in Barnabas.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 4} Bultmann, R., Studia Theol. 11 (1948), 22 f. It is also to be noticed that the ‘formulae of fulfilment…have practically no equivalent in the Qumran literature’, J. A. Fitzmyer, N.T.S. viii (1961), 303.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 5} Cf. Bruce, F. F., Bull. J. Rylands Libr. XLIII, 336 f.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} Bruce, op. cit. p. 352 n. 2, refers to A. Guilding who suggests that this indicates a loan from the synagogue lections. This, I think, may probably be correct in the case of Matthew, but I feel uncertain about it in the case of John.

^{page 190 note 2} There is a profound gap between the meaning of τελεσθηναι, used here, which signifies the ‘end of the Law’, and πληρωθηναι.

^{page 190 note 3} Such references to the same verse of the O.T. in Matthew and in John are infrequent. A check on Nestle‘s index of the O.T. quotations in the N.T. has produced the following six: I Kings xvii. 18 in Matt. viii. 29, John ii. 4; Ps. xxii. 19 in Matt. xxvii. 35, John xix. 29; Ps. lxix. 22 in Matt. xxvii. 48, John xix. 29; Ps. cxviii. 25 in Matt. xxi. 9, John xii. 13; Isa. vi. 9–10 in Matt. xiii. 15, John xii. 40; Isa. xl. 3 in Matt. iii. 3, John i. 23.

^{page 191 note 1} The formula πλησθηναι πάντα τά γεγραμμένα does appear in Luke xxi. 22 in the context of the prophesied doom of Jerusalem, and this may correspond with the use in Matthew. In general, however, this was hardly a Messianic prophecy in the traditional sense.

^{page 191 note 2} Cf the remark of Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (1961), p. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 3} Acts xxiv. 14, ‘believing all which is written in the law, and that which [is written] in the prophets’, is perhaps the best example for a non-polemical use of the formula ‘all the law and the prophets’ by Luke.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} W. Bauer, Wörterbuch (4th ed. 1952), p. 198, says that the sense is doubtful, but ibid. p. 252, admits that βιαστής has always a pejorative meaning.

^{page 192 note 2} This would show also that ‘according to the scriptures’ (I Cor. xv. 3) was controversial already when Paul wrote it.

^{page 192 note 3} The Gospel according to Thomas, edd. Guillaumont, etc. (1959), p. 31; Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, edd. Leipold and Schenke (1960), p. 18, log. 53. The two translations tally.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 4} Epist. Apost. 19 fin., ‘if therefore all the words which were spoken by the prophets were fulfilled in me (for I myself was in them)…’ (M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T. (1924), p. 492); Heb. i. 1, ‘God spoke to the fathers in the prophets.’ The relation ’God in me’ is always reversible.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 5} Bousset-Gressmann, , Religion des Judentums (3rd ed. 1926), p. 147 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 6} Cf. Victorious Petav., Comm. in Apoc., ed. Haussleiter (1916), p. 50. There were, of course, other numbers mentioned, e.g. 35 in Hermas, Sim. iii, 15, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Puech, H. C. in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, N. T. Apokryphen, 1 (3rd ed. 1959), pp. 258 f., has given a concise but comprehensive summary of recent theories concerning Marcion's euangelion.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 2} Cf. Harnack, , Marcion (2nd ed. repr. 1960), p. 238^*; Blackman, Marcion and his Influence (1948), pp. 46, 157 f.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} Tertullian, , Adv. Marc. IV, 43, in translation in Smith, Harold, op. cit. vi, 130 f.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 4} The two fragments in Coptic of an apocryphal ‘Book of James’ which Revillout (Journal asiatique, ser. x, vol. 6 (1905), 116 f.), has published (cf. above p. 182), are late. The first gives an account of the apparitions of the risen Lord at the sepulchre, clearly dependent on John xx. 1 f., whilst the second is the beginning of a report intended to enlarge on the Emmaus story. Both come from a coherent story, and the first offers means of dating it: in it Mary Magdalen is replaced by the mother of the LordGoogle Scholar. This was probably caused by the gnostic veneration for the Magdalene, cf. Wilson, R. McL., The Gospel of Philip (1962), p. 115. Thus the book is probably of a late fourth-century origin, since the theotokos mysticism can hardly be much earlier, and gnostic influence did not last much longer.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 5} For recent literature see F. Mildenberger, op. cit. pp. 266 f., and E. Pax, R.A.C. v, 867 f.

^{page 194 note 1} A representative for many is Campenhausen, H. v., Tradition und Leben (1960), on p. 59, and in other casual remarks.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 2} Gunkel, H., op. cit. p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 3} Dion. Hal., Rom. Ant. 11, 63, 3 f., ed. C. Jacoby, 1 (1885), 245.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 1} Livy i, 40, 3, mentions it quite casually; but a search among the fragments of the Roman historians, ed. H. Peter (1883), yielded no result, neither did A. Gellius or Valerius Maximus.

^{page 195 note 2} Plutarch, Romulus 28, 1–7.

^{page 195 note 3} Here Plutarch's enlargement of the myth is significant: ‘His armour adorned and shining with lightnings’ (loc. cit. §2).

^{page 196 note 1} I have tried W. Bousset, F. Cumont, A. Dieterich, E. Norden, R. Reitzenstein, E. Schwartz, H. Usener, and P. Wendland, but without success.

^{page 196 note 2} Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge, III (1923), 547.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 3} Philostr., Vita Apollonii, VIII, 11 f.

^{page 196 note 4} It is to be hoped that scholars will no longer believe with Norden, E., Agnostos Theos, repr. 1927, 36 f., that Damis and his ‘memoirs’ ever existed in real life: Damis is the Dr Watson of Apollonius-Sherlock.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} Quoted from an undated reprint by Bell and Bain, Glasgow, which, however, gives the page numbers of the original, p. 347.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} Philostr., Vita, viii, 8 and ibid. 12, 4.

^{page 197 note 3} Op. cit. iii, 547.

^{page 197 note 4} Cf. Bieler, L., Theios Aner (1935), p. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 5} Rohde, E., Der griech. Roman (2nd ed. 1900), p. 167, claimed for Philostratus the view that even Apollonius had been subject to the Platonic and Neo-Pythagorean sentence σῶμα–σῆμα. The opposite is shown by the Puteoli miracle. The only doubt that remains is whether, as Ed. Meyer held, the man of god had acquired the full dominion over his body at his triumph over the tyrant, which I think is correct, or on any other occasion.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 1} Philostr, , op. cit. viii, 30, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Ed. Norden, , op. cit. pp. 35 f., 45 f., 332, 337 f.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} Lact, ., Div. Inst. v, 3, 7, and 16, where the comparison between Jesus Christ and Apollonius may be found.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 4} Arnob, ., Adv. nat. 1, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 5} Baur, F. Chr., Apollonius von Tyana (1832).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 6} Cf. Hausrath, , Richard Rothe und seine Freunde, 11 (1906), 284.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} First perhaps by Réville, cf. Friedländer-Wissowa, L., Sittengeschichte Roms, III (9th ed. 1920), 155 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} Rohde, E., Kl. Schriften, 1 (1901), 102 f.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 3} Reitzenstein, R., Hellenist. Wundererzählungen (1906).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 4} Sidon. Apollin., Epist. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 5} L. Friedländer-Wissowa, op. cit. p. 155. Unfortunately, Buresch, Klaros (1889), quoted ibid. n. 4, has not been at my disposal.

^{page 199 note 6} The discussion about Apollonius continued from then onwards throughout the middle ages. He, like Theophilus, and to a higher degree Cyprian, ‘the magician’, were never fully rejected by the Christians.

^{page 200 note 1} S.H.A. (Lampridius), Alexander 29, 2. A connexion with the ‘Tübingen Theosophy’ seems at least possible.

^{page 200 note 2} Cf. his complaint about Aspasios of Ravenna blocking his ascent to ‘the supreme chair’, Vita Apollonii, 11, 33, 2.

^{page 200 note 3} However much one feels tempted to read into this a reference to Caracalla, the position of Philostratus at the Court of the Severi probably prevented him from aiming at anybody but Macrinus as ‘tyrant’.

^{page 201 note 1} Mildenberger, F., Evang. Theol. (1963), pp. 266 f.Google Scholar