[1] The opening paragraph extends to Acts 1. 14. Acts 1. 15 begins a new episode on a different occasion (‘in these days’), and with a larger audience (of ‘about one hundred and twenty persons’). In Acts 1. 2 Luke introduces ‘the apostles’, who in accordance with Lucan usage are ‘the Eleven’ at this stage; and they remain the sole observers until Acts 1. 13, where they are individually named. Acts 1. 14 rounds off the paragraph with a reference to the apostles' subsequent activity in Jerusalem; the association of a restricted group of ‘women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers’ with them at this point is incidental.

[2] In the following discussion the priority of the non-Western textual tradition will be assumed. Cf. Epp, E. J., ‘The ascension in the textual tradition of Luke-Acts’, New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in honour of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. Epp, E. J. and Fee, G. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 131–45.Google Scholar Western readings show a significant degree of consistency in toning down the objective features of the ascension in Acts 1. Cf. already Plooij, D. J., The Ascension in the ‘Western’ Textual Tradition (Amsterdam, 1929) 15, 17Google Scholar; also Selman, M. R., ‘The intention of the ascension narratives in Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:1–12’ (unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Bristol, 1969) 9.Google Scholar

[3] See Larrañaga, V., L 'Ascension de Notre Seigneur dans le Nouveau Testament (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1938) 322–3, summarizing his preceding analysis.Google Scholar

[4] See Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles (corrected ed.; Oxford, Clarendon, 1966) 376–83; the quotation comes from p. 382.Google Scholar

[5] Lohfink's analysis of the ascension accounts of Luke 24 and Acts 1 has shown how the two passages, while told in different but not complementary terms, are nevertheless intended to portray the same event. See Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (München: Kösel, 1971) 160–1.Google Scholar

[6] Characteristically the Western text has attempted to smooth the transition by the insertion of ϕησìν δìα τοū στόματος between ἠκούσατε and μον. The suggestion of Schmithals – that μον denotes Luke as author, and ἠκούσατε his readers – is hardly convincing; see Schmithals, W., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982) 21.Google Scholar

[7] Schubert, P., ‘The structure and significance of Luke 24’, Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolph Bultmann (ed. Eltester, W., Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954) 165–86, esp. 176–7.Google Scholar

[8] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 199, with references.Google Scholar

[9] The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles (5 vols.; ed. Jackson, F. J. F. and Lake, K.; London: Macmillan, 1920–1933) 4.4.Google Scholar

[10] Palmer, D. W., ‘The resurrection of Jesus and the mission of the church’, Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris (ed. Banks, R. J.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1974) 205–23.Google Scholar

[11] For the ‘commission’ type of appearance, see Palmer, ‘The resurrection…’, 208–9. B. J. Malina offers a more detailed study of Matt 28. 16–20 in his article, ‘The literary structure and form of Matthew xxviii. 16–20’, NTS 17 (1970) 87–103.Google Scholar More recent study of a supposed ‘commission’ form (not limited to resurrection appearances) perhaps carries analysis beyond what the material will allow, and forces too many passages into the one category. See, e.g., Mullins, T. Y., ‘New Testament commission forms, especially in Luke-Acts’, JBL 95 (1976) 603–14Google Scholar; Hubbard, B. J., ‘Commissioning stories in Luke-Acts. A study of their antecedents, form and content’, Semeia 8 (1977) 103–26Google Scholar; id., ‘The role of commissioning accounts in Acts’, Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. Talbert, C. H.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 187–98.Google Scholar

[12] This holds true for the wider range of passages considered by Mullins (‘NT commission forms…’) and Hubbard (‘The role of commissioning accounts…’). Mullins and Hubbard both classify Acts 1.6 as the ‘Reaction’ to the initial ‘Confrontation’ in their analyses.

[13] Cf. Palmer, ‘The resurrection…’, 207, with reference to gospel appearances of this type. The absence of any reference to the terror of the viewers at Acts 1. 11 is explained by Lohfink on the grounds that the apostles could not very vell show fear before the angels, when they have shortly beforehand spoken with the risen Jesus himself (Himmelfahrt 197). But brevity may have been sufficient reason for Luke.

[14] In this section, reference will be made to the following works: Stauffer, E., Die Theologie des neuen Testaments (vierte und fünfte Auflage; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1948) 321–4Google Scholar, Beilage VI, ‘Abschiedsreden und Abschiedsszenen’; ET: New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1955) 344–7Google Scholar, Appendix VI: ‘Valedictions and Farewell Speeches’; Munck, J., ‘Discours d'adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la littérature biblique’, Aux Sources de la Tradition chrétienne. Mélanges offerte à M. Maurice Goguel (Paris & Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1950) 155–70Google Scholar; Michel, H.-J., Die, Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20, 17–38. Motivgeschichte und theologische Bedeutung (München: Kösel, 1973) 47–53Google Scholar, where the author enumerates defining characteristics of the farewell discourse; and Cortes, E., Los Discursos de Adiós de Gn 49 a Jn 13–17: Pistas para la historia de un género literario en la antigua literatura judía (Barcelona: Herder, 1976) esp.Google Scholar 54, where the author outlines three main features, which he discusses in the following pages. (Reference will be made to the German edition of Stauffer's book.)

[15] Munck, 156 with n. 3.Google Scholar

[16] Stauffer, 321Google Scholar; Michel, 48 (1)Google Scholar; Munck, 155, 159.Google Scholar

[17] Stauffer, 321Google Scholar; Michel, 49 (2)Google Scholar; Munck, 157, 159Google Scholar; Cortes, 54 (1).Google Scholar

[18] The ‘present’ (i.e. imperfect aspect) participle may be taken in an iterative sense, and the past aorist παρήγγειλεν understood as complexive: ‘gathering (them) together (on various occasions) he instructed them …’.

[19] See Munck, 157.Google Scholar

[20] Stauffer, 322Google Scholar; Michel, 49 (3).Google Scholar

[21] Michel, 50 (4)Google Scholar; cf. Stauffer, 322Google Scholar; Munck, 159 (2),(4)Google Scholar; Cortes, 54 (3).Google Scholar

[22] Stauffer, 323Google Scholar; Michel, 52 (6)Google Scholar; Munck, 156.Google Scholar

[23] So Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 58, with reference to J. G. Davies (n. 175) and M. D. Goulder (n. 176).Google Scholar

[24] Stauffer, 323Google Scholar; Michel, 52 (9)Google Scholar; Munck, 159Google Scholar; Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 74.Google Scholar

[25] Stauffer, 323Google Scholar; Michel, 53 (13)Google Scholar; Munck, 159.Google Scholar

[26] Stauffer, 323Google Scholar; contrary to Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 203–4.Google Scholar

[27] Stauffer, 324Google Scholar; Munck, 157.Google Scholar

[28] Cf. Plu. Rom. 27.8; Luke, 24. 52.Google Scholar

[29] On the basis of a synagogue inscription, T. C. G. Thornton (Exp Tim 83 [23–4) suggests for προσευχή the meaning ‘prayer-meeting’ or ‘worship-meeting’.

[30] Cf. now Kurz, W. S., ‘Luke 22:14–38 and Greco-Roman and biblical farewell addresses’, JBL 104 (1985) 251–68, which appeared after the completion of the present paper.Google Scholar

[31] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 38 (with n. 40), 41Google Scholar; Palmer, D. W., ‘The assumption of Romulus’, Australasian Universities Language and Literarure Association, Papers and Proceedings of the 19th Congress (1978) 114–26, at 116, 119.Google Scholar

[32] Philo, Life of Moses 2.291.

[33] J. Ant. 4.326; cf. 3.96–97. The phrase, ‘gone back to the deity’, is used also at Ant. 1.85 (Enoch) and 3.96 (Moses).

[34] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 192; similarlyGoogle ScholarLuzarraga, J., Las Tradiciones de la Nube en la Biblia y en el judaismo primitivo (Analecta Biblica 54; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973) 222–3.Google Scholar

[35] Davies, J. G., He Ascended info Heaven. A Study in the History of Doctrine (London: Lutterworth, 1958) 57.Google Scholar

[36] Luke heightens the emphasis on the voice: compare Luke 9. 36 with Mark 9. 8 and Matt 17. 8.

[37] Acts 1. 9–10. Lohfink (Himmelfahrt 195) takes εìς ον οὐρανόν with πορενομένου in Acts 1. 10. But άτενίζειν εìς (‘look at’, ‘gaze up to’) is frequent in Acts, occurring also at 3. 4; 6. 15; 7. 55 (τενίζειν εìς ον οὐρανόν!); 11. 6; 13. 9. Otherwise in NT the phrase occurs only at 2 Cor 3. 7, 13.

[38] This was too much for part of the Western textual tradition, which omitted the third of the four occurrences.

[39] So also Boobyer, G. H., St Mark and the Transfiguration Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1942) 83.Google Scholar In the preceding paragraphs Boobyer discusses the cloud as the conveyer of divine or messianic figures in OT and Intertestamental writings. For further references to those who favour the conveying function of the cloud, see Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 187 n. 85.Google Scholar

[40] A. Oepke, (‘νεϕέλη, νέϕος’, TDNT 4 [1967] 905) wants to see a ‘storm-cloud’ behind the ‘whirlwind’ and ‘chariot of fire’ (2 Kgs 2. 1, 11).

[41] J. Ant. 4.326: the cloud ‘descended upon him and he disappeared’. However, Josephus does not say that Moses disappeared in the cloud, but in a ravine (in accordance with Deut 34. 6). The cloud may therefore be presumed to have conveyed Moses to the ravine. Cf. Lohfink (Himmelfahrt 44 n. 91), who refers to passages of Homer and Ovid where a concealing cloud is a vehicle of ‘translation within the earthly sphere’. Josephus does not use the cloud to convey Moses ‘back to the deity’.

[42] Zenobius (second century A.D.?) quotes the sentence of Apollodorus verbatim (Cent. 1.33 fin.).

[43] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 43–4.Google Scholar

[44] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 32–41, 75Google Scholar; Bousset, W., ‘Die Himmelsreise der Seele’, ARW 4 (1901) 136–69, 229–73.Google Scholar

[45] See Palmer, D. W., ‘The origin, form and purpose of Mark xvi.4 in Codex Bobbiensis’, JTS n.s. 27 (1976) 113–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The assumption of Romulus’, AULLA Papers and Proceedings 19 (1978) 114–26Google Scholar; ‘The end of Alexander in Ps.-Callisthenes’, Prudentia 13 (1981) 75–9.Google Scholar

[46] For the stereotyped phrases, ‘from men’ and ‘to the gods’ or ‘to heaven’, see Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 37 with nn. 33, 34, 35.Google Scholar

[47] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 38.Google Scholar

[48] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 39.Google Scholar

[49] E.g. T:Job 53; Luc. Herm. 7. Cf. the discussion of this point in Plu. Rom. 28. 7–8.

[50] 2Kgs 2. 10–12.

[51] Liv. 1.16.1; D.H. 2.56.2; Plu. Cam. 33.7; Rom. 27.6.

[52] Elijah: 2 Kgs 2.16–18; cf. J. Ant. 9. 28. Romulus: cf. Plu. Rom. 27.

[53] Romulus: Cic. Rep. 2.20; Liv. 1.16.6–7; Ov. Fast. 2.499–509. Hercules: Sen. Her. 0. 1940–1975.

[54] E.g. Apollo confirming the assumption of the emperor Trajan; see Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U., Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde 1, 2 (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1912) 571, no. 491.Google Scholar

[55] Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 38–9.Google Scholar

[56] Cf. Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt 197 n. 129.Google Scholar Subsequent veneration and establishment of a cult, Lohfink's final assumption motif (Himmelfahrt 47–50), finds a Lucan echo only at Luke 24.52.

[57] Palmer, , ‘The origin, form and purpose of Mark xvi.4’, 120, with references in n. 3.Google Scholar

[58] Palmer, , ‘The assumption of Romulus’, 118.Google Scholar

[59] Palmer, , ‘The origin, form, and purpose of Mark xvi.4’, 120.Google Scholar

[60] In the broader literary context of Luke-Acts, Jesus will pass on to his successors the Spirit which he has received from his Father. See Luke 3. 21–22 and 24. 49, together with Acts 1. 4–5, 8; also Luke 3. 16.

[61] Palmer, , ‘The resurrection…’, 213–21 (Function), 222.Google Scholar

[62] Cf. Rev 11. 9–12, with Lohfink's comment (Himmelfahrt 59); and in subsequent Christian literature see, e.g., Epistle of the Apostles 9, 10, 51.