^{page 611 note 1} Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper and Row, 1961) 167, n. 1;Google ScholarDanker, F., Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 29;Google ScholarWink, W., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS 7; Cambridge: University, 1968) 42Google Scholar. This position has the difficulty of explaining away the plain sense of Luke, 7. 27Google Scholar. A related problem handicaps Dabeck, P. (‘Siehe, es erschienen Moses und Elias’, Bib 23 [1942] 175–89)Google Scholar, who detects an elaborate Elijah typology for Jesus in Luke and concludes, ‘Der Christus des Lk-Ev ist ein neuer Elias’ (p. 189). However, Dabeck fails to consider the material which relates Elijah to John. The narrow scope of the inquiry severely limits its usefulness for our understanding of how Luke employs Elijah in his Gospel.

^{page 611 note 2} ‘Our Lord, not John, becomes the New Elias, and explicit references to the Baptist are almost eliminated.’ Hastings, A., Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem (Baltimore: Helicon, 1958) 75 (emphasis added)Google Scholar. Luke ‘…in general avoids the Elijah–John the Baptist parallel’. Zehnle, R., Peter's Pentecost Discourse (SBLMS 15; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) 58 (emphasis added)Google Scholar. By acknowledging the discrepant data without accounting for it, Hastings and Zehnle fall short of a full solution. Dubois, J. -D. (‘La figure d'Elie dans la perspective lucanienne’, RHPR 53 [1973] 155–76)Google Scholar discusses all the evidence and concludes that ‘…le nouvel Elie, pour Luc, est Jésus, duquel Jean-Baptiste reçoit toute sa force’ (p. 155).

^{page 611 note 3} Robinson, J. A. T., ‘Elijah, John, and Jesus: An Essay in Detection’, NTS 4 (1958) 263–81, esp. pp. 276–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrown, R., The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977) 276;Google ScholarFitzmyer, J., The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 213–14Google Scholar. Fitzmyer believes that this tension in the tradition indicates Luke's selective identification of Jesus with Elias redivivus: ‘Jesus rejects the idea that he has come as a fiery social reformer (see Sir 48. 10); but he tolerates the identification of himself with Elijah because of his miracles …’ (p. 214).

^{page 611 note 4} Franklin, E., Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 200, n. 41Google Scholar.

^{page 612 note 1} Gaston, L. (No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels [Leiden: Brill, 1970])CrossRefGoogle Scholar recognizes this process at work in the special Lukan material. He believes that the notion that Jesus was the prophet like Elijah ‘was in every case corrected by Proto-Luke to make Jesus rather the eschatological prophet like Moses’ (p. 293, emphasis added). As important as this insight is, Gaston's treatment of Elijah is of limited value to our investigation since he confines it to the material unique to Luke, which he calls ‘Proto-Luke’.

^{page 612 note 2} Given its prominent position, the ἔρχεται in 3. 16 (as in Mark, 1. 7)Google Scholar alludes to Mal 3. 1, 23. See Fitzmyer, , Gospel, 472Google Scholar.

^{page 612 note 3} Dubois, (‘Le figure Elie’, 171)Google Scholar adds ‘le service des anges’ (Luke, 4. 10Google Scholar, 1 Kings 19. 6–8) to this parallel. However, the stories are not similar in this respect, for an angel actually assists Elijah, whereas angels are merely mentioned in the scriptural quotation in Luke, 4. 10Google Scholar.

^{page 613 note 1} The acclamation of the crowd echoes the hymnic predictions in Luke, 1. 32, 68, 78Google Scholar. See Gaston, , No Stone, 285Google Scholar. Curiously however, 1. 68 and 1. 78 refer to John and not to Jesus. – For a full study of the relationship of Luke's pericope to this OT story, see Brodie, T. L., ‘Toward Unravelling Luke's Use of the Old Testament: Luke 7. 11–17 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17. 17–24’, NTS 32 (1986) 247–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 613 note 2} 'Ο έρχομενος is commonly understood as a designation of the Messiah (e.g., Schneider, J., TDNT, 2.670)Google Scholar. Gaston, , No Stone, 285Google Scholar, believes it refers to the Prophet-like-Moses, as does Cullmann, O. (The Christology of the New Testament [rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 29)Google Scholar. Fitzmyer, (Gospel, 666)Google Scholar argues forcefully that while the designation may be a messianic title in Matthew, in Luke it refers to Elias redivivus.

^{page 613 note 3} 2 Kings (4 Kings LXX) 2. 11: άνελήμφθη 'Нλίον…είς τỦν ούρανν. See also 1 Macc 2. 58 and Sir 48. 9.

^{page 613 note 4} 1 Kings 18. 38 and 2 Kings 1. 10, 12, the language of which is very close to Luke, 9. 54Google Scholar. The allusion to Elijah must have been obvious, for ώς καί 'Нλίας έποίησεν is a prominent textual variant in v. 54. Still, the allusion is a strange one, for it is James and John, not Jesus, who would perform the miracle.

^{page 613 note 5} This may account for the image of the plough in v. 62. It is not completely certain that Luke is responsible for the modelling, for vv. 61–62 may belong to Q despite the absence of a Matthean parallel. See Polag, A., Fragmenta Q (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979) 42–3Google Scholar and Kloppenborg, J., The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 92Google Scholar.

^{page 613 note 6} Nestle-Aland (26 ed.) decisively rules it out. For a complete discussion of the manuscript evidence see Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Scribner, 1922) 544Google Scholar.

^{page 614 note 1} John the Baptist, 44Google Scholar.

^{page 614 note 2} ‘La figure Elie’, 171–2.

^{page 614 note 3} See Brown, Birth, 474Google Scholar.

^{page 614 note 4} See Fitzmyer, , Gospel, 1513–14Google Scholar.

^{page 614 note 5} ‘La figure Elie’, 173.

^{page 614 note 6} Ibid., 172.

^{page 614 note 7} An exception is at 9. 54–55, where commentators recognize that Jesus forbids the performance of an Elijah miracle (e.g., Fitzmyer, , Gospel, 213 and 830)Google Scholar.

^{page 615 note 1} See Fitzmyer, , Gospel, 664Google Scholar.

^{page 615 note 2} It goes beyond the evidence to find a prefigurement of the mission to the Gentiles. Here I agree with Gaston (No Stone, 284)Google Scholar rather than with Hastings (Prophet and Witness, 73)Google Scholar.

^{page 615 note 3} Deut 18. 15:

Luke, 7. 16:Google Scholar προφτης μέγας ήγέρθη έν ήμîν.

^{page 615 note 4} Hahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (New York: World, 1969) 379Google Scholar.

^{page 616 note 1} Even if there is some specific Elijah-Jesus connection here, it has been thoroughly over-written by the Moses-Jesus typology which dominates this scene, with its echoes of the story of Moses: the vocabulary of ascent (Luke, 9. 28Google Scholar – Exod 19. 3, 20); the mention of Jesus' ‘exodus’; the overshadowing cloud (9. 34 –Exod 24. 18); the onlookers' fear (9. 34 – Exod 20. 18); and the ‘listen to him’ (9.35 – Deut 18. 15).

^{page 616 note 2} For Enoch, see Sir 49. 14 and for Moses, , see Assumption of MosesGoogle Scholar (ΆνάλημΨıς Мωνσέως). C. F. Evans suggests the latter document directly influenced Luke's travel narrative. See ‘The Central Section of St. Luke's Gospel’, Studies in the Gospels (ed. Nineham, D. E.; Oxford: University, 1955) 37–53Google Scholar. For a discussion of the meaning of άνάλημΨıς see Stempvoort, P. A. van, ‘The Interpretation of the Ascension in Luke and Acts’, NTS 5 (1958–9) 30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the response by Dupont, J., ‘ΆΝΕΛНМΦΘН (Act. I.2)’, NTS 8 (1961–2) 154–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 616 note 3} Commentators seem to miss this point and read this passage as if a Jesus-Elijah comparison were at issue. E.g., Fitzmyer refers to ‘Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples, James and John, who expect him to act like the OT prophet and call down fire from heaven’ (Gospel, 214Google Scholar, emphasis added).

^{page 616 note 4} The same applies to the similarity between Luke, 22. 39–46Google Scholar and 1 Kings 19. 4–8, if Luke, 22. 43–44Google Scholar is authentic, which is highly doubtful. See note 6, page 613.

^{page 617 note 1} Danker (Luke, 29)Google Scholar asserts that because Luke ‘wished to separate John from Elijah’, in 1. 17 he substitutes έπıστρψαı for the άποκαταστήσεı of Mal 3. 23. (See also Dubois, ‘La figure Elie’, 165.) This is wholly unconvincing. If Luke desired to separate John from Elijah, why does he add that John will have the ‘spirit and power of Elijah’ to the scriptural citation? Besides, the word substitution does not prove Danker's point. Luke's choice of words is influenced by Sir 48. 10, which restates Mal 3. 23 and like Luke, uses στρεψαı (see Brown, Birth, 277)Google Scholar. In 1 Kings (3 Kings LXX) 18. 37, Elijah prays, ἔστσρεψας τήν καρδίαν τού λαοû. – Wink (John the Baptist, 79)Google Scholar believes that 1. 17 deemphasizes John's identity with Elijah: ‘…he is merely endowed with the same spirit and power as Elijah’. Since Dubois concludes that the Lukan Jesus is the New Elijah, he interprets 1. 17 to mean that John is endowed with the Holy Spirit bestowed by Jesus. According to this dubious exegesis, ‘Luc fait de Jean-Baptiste le premier prophète de l'église primitive’ (‘Le figure Elie’, 176).

^{page 617 note 2} Brown, Birth, 389Google Scholar.

^{page 617 note 3} Brown, Birth, 276;Google ScholarFitzmyer, , Gospel, 671–3;Google ScholarGaston, , No Stone, 286Google Scholar. This interpretation is confirmed when 7. 27 is set in the context of the preceding pericope (7. 18–23), to which it is connected by the in v. 24. In 7. 18–23, John wonders whether Jesus is the coming Elijah (ό έρχμενος). In this context, 7. 27 definitely settles the question by applying the Elijah prophecy of Mal 3. 1 to John.

^{page 617 note 4} Richter, G., ‘Bist du Elias?’, BZ 6 (1962) 254Google Scholar.

^{page 617 note 5} Richter (Ibid.) believes his interpretation is supported by two features of 7. 27: Elijah is not mentioned by name and Mal 3. 1 is blended with Exod 23. 20 which also fails to name the messenger. But since these features also are in Q, the same objection applies.

^{page 617 note 6} Ibid., 246.

^{page 618 note 1} Theology, 24Google Scholar.

^{page 618 note 2} Theology, 167Google Scholar.

^{page 618 note 3} Luke, 29Google Scholar.

^{page 618 note 4} John the Baptist, 31Google Scholar.

^{page 618 note 5} John the Baptist, 43Google Scholar.

^{page 618 note 6} Dubois, , ‘La figure Elie’, 166Google Scholar.

^{page 619 note 1} Luke also omits Mark, 1. 6Google Scholar which mentions John's camel-hair mantle and leather belt. This is sometimes taken to be an allusion to Elijah (e.g. Wink, John the Baptist, 3 and 42, n. 1)Google Scholar because of 1 Kings 19. 19 and 2 Kings 1. 18. But Zech 13. 4 proves the hairy mantle to be a traditional prophetic ‘uniform’. See Scobie, C., John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964) 128–9Google Scholar, and Windisch, H., ‘Die Notiz über Tracht and Speise des Täufers Joh.’, ZNW 32 (1933) 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thus it goes too far to claim that in omitting Mark, 1. 6Google Scholar Luke suppresses an association of John and Elijah.

^{page 619 note 2} Dubois, (‘La figure Elie’, 167–8)Google Scholar points out that several of Jesus' miracles are similar to those of Elijah and Elisha. Be this as it may, it is difficult to see how this supports Dubois' argument that the Lukan Jesus is a New Elijah. The parallels Dubois lista refer as much to Elisha as to Elijah and if Brown, R. (‘Jesus and Elisha’, Perspective 12 [1971] 84–104)Google Scholar is right, the parallels to Elisha are the more relevant. Furthermore, certain miracles worked by Peter and Paul in Acts exhibit similar parallels (see Dubois, , ‘La figure Elie’, 174)Google Scholar.

^{page 619 note 3} Although I have argued that this identification is clear and unambiguous, it is difficult to determine in what precise sense Luke asserts it, for Elijah appears in person at the Transfiguration. This means either that Luke is inconsistent at this one point or that Luke does not literally identify John with Elijah (i.e., that John is not Elias redivivus). This same problem bedevils the other synoptic gospels and is acute in Matthew where John is explicitly named as Elias redivivus (Matt, 17. 13 and 11. 14Google Scholar, the εί θάλετε δέξασθαı of which manifests Matthew's awareness of the problem). This should warn us against drawing a sharp contrast between Matthew and Luke on this issue. Marshall's, I. H. suggestion is worth considering: ‘Luke was unwilling to make a direct identification of John with Elijah in a literal manner. He took the prophecy of Malachi to mean the coming of a person like Elijah, not of Elijah himself.’ Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970) 147Google Scholar.

^{page 620 note 1} Duhois would add here the abbreviation of Mark, 6. 17–29Google Scholar to the brief comment in Luke, 3. 19–20Google Scholar (and 9. 9). According to Dubois (‘La figure Elie’, 160), Luke reduces Mark's text ‘sans doute parce que le récit de la mort du Baptiste évoque très directement l'intervention d'Elie auprès d'Achat’ in 1 Kings 21. This assertion seems strained at best.

^{page 621 note 1} The fact that Acts 3. 22–23 makes Jesus the Prophet like Moses shows Luke's concern to counteract any Elijah christology which Acts 3. 19–21 may suggest. See Gaston, , No Stone, 278–9Google Scholar.

^{page 621 note 2} This further qualifies the ‘identification’ of John with Elijah. Luke understands John to be the Elijah foretold in Malachi, and yet he denies to him the role which Malachi assigns to this Elijah, i.e. The one who ‘comes before the great and terrible day of the Lord’. Scholars routinely refer to a widespread characterization of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah. E.g., see Schneider, , TDNT, 2.670;Google ScholarJeremias, J., TDNT, 2.931;Google ScholarBietenhard, H., New International Dictionary of NT Theology (ed. Brown, C.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 1.544Google Scholar. However, if Fitzmyer is correct, this notion owes more to Christian assumptions than to textual evidence. Fitzmyer, (Gospel, 672)Google Scholar reviews the available evidence but can find no attestation to such a belief about Elijah in pre-Christian Judaism.

^{page 621 note 3} 9. 30 (and possibly 7. 18–23) also associate Jesus with both Moses and Elijah, though in these cases their connection to Jesus is much weaker.

^{page 621 note 4} Dubois, , ‘La figure Elie’, 174–5Google Scholar.

^{page 621 note 5} Acts 7.36 and 2. 43, 5. 12, 6. 8, 14. 3, 15. 12.