^{page 202 note 1} Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1955; German, ed., 1953), 11, 116 f. E. Käsemann, Theologische Literaturzeitung, = LXXIII (1948), 666 ff., Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie, xv (1952), 141.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London, 1960; German editions, 1954, 1957, 1960). He is indebted to Vielhauer, ‘Zum “Paulinismus” der Apg.’, Ev. Theol. x, N.F. v (1950–1), 1–15; ‘Franz Overbeck und die ntl. Wissenschaft’, ibid. 193–207. Compare the following critical reviews of Conzelmann's editions: de la Potterie, Bijdragen, xv (1954), 429; Shekle, Theologische Quartalschrift, cxxxiv (1954), 478 f.; Haenchen, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXVI (1954), 157–60; Pax, Franziskanische Studien, xxxvii (1955), 105 f.; Boismard, Revue Biblique, LXII (1955), 138 f.; Brinkmann, Scholastik, xxx (1955), 297; Reicke, Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel), xi (1955), 130 ff.; Zerwick, Verbum Domini, xxxii (1955), 117 ff.; Henkey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, xvii (1955), 526 ff.; Leivestad, Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, LVI, (1955), 242–7; Viard, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, xxxix (1955), 278 f.; Delorme, L'Ami et Clerge, LXVI (1956), 86 f.; Winter, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXI (1956), 36–9; Turlington, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVI (1957), 319–22; Léon-Dufour, Recherches de Science Religieuse, XLVI (1958), 242–50; Bartsch, Kirche i.d. Zeit, xiii (1958), 365 ff.; Dupont, Lumière et Vie, L (1960), 24; Winter, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXV (1960), 929 f.; Mussner, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift, LXIX (1960),309; Grasser, Theologische Rundschau, XXVI (1960), 110 ff.; Zerwick, Verbum Domini, xxxviii (1960), 315 f.; Haenchen, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LXI, (1960), 376 f.; Viard, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, XLV (1961), 289 ff.; Cox, Theology (London), LXIV (1961), 167 f.; Seidensticker, Franziskanische Studien, XLIII (1961), 91 f.; Cadbury, journal of Biblical Literature, LXXX (1961), 304 f.; Winter, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXVI (1961), 837; Stonehouse, Westminster Theological journal, xxiv (1961), 65–70; Winter, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, xiii (1961), 195 f.; Schnackenburg, Biblische Zeitschrift, vi (1962), 146 f.; Funk, ‘Conzelmann on Luke’, journal of Bible and Religion, xxx (1962), 299–301. See also comments in Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (1960), 1, 199; Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (1961), pp. 40–6; and Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study (1962), pp. 86–91.

^{page 202 note 3} Haenchen, Ernst, Die Apostelgeschichte (Meyer-Kommentar: Göttingen, 1956 ¹, 1957², 1959³).Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 4} O'Neill, J. C., The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London, 1961)Google Scholar. For reviews, compare: Wilcox, , Reformed Theological Review, xxi (1962), 27 f.Google Scholar; Cadbury, , journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXI (1962), 197 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Conzelmann, , op. cit. pp. 16 f.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Ibid. pp. 18–27.

^{page 203 note 3} Contra: Conzelmann, op. cit. p. 25: ‘John is not the precursor, for there is no such thing, but he is the last of the prophets.’

^{page 203 note 4} Haenchen, , op. cit. p. 87: ‘Dieses “Wort Gottes” verbindet die Zeit nach Jesus mit der Jesuszeit.’Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} Haenchen, , op. cit. p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Ibid. p. 92.

^{page 204 note 3} Ibid. p. 91.

^{page 204 note 4} O'Neill, , op. cit. p. 66Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 5} Ibid. p. 70.

^{page 204 note 6} Ibid. p. 168.

^{page 205 note 1} Ibid. pp. 176 f.

^{page 205 note 2} Adolf von Harnack, ‘Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Luk. i. 46–55) nebst einigen Bemerkungen zu Luk. i and ii’, Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testments und der alten Kirche, 1: Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Berlin and Leipzig, 1931), pp. 62–85.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 3} Ibid. p. 84.

^{page 206 note 1} Martin Dibelius, ‘Jungfrauensohn und Krippenkind: Untersuchungen zur Geburtsgeschichte Jesu im Lukas-Evangelium’, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, Abh. 4, 1932. Reprinted in and here cited from Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Martin Dibelius, Bd. 1: Zur Evangelienforschung, ed. by Günther Bornkamm (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953), pp. 1–78.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Ibid. pp. 2 f. On the basis of Mark i he writes: ‘Das εύαγγέλιον macht eine Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu notwendig, die άρχή τού εύαγγελίον aber eine “Vorgeschichte” des Täufers’ (p. 2).

^{page 206 note 3} Ibid. p. 8.

^{page 206 note 4} Ibid. p. 3. The Benedictus was added by Luke to complete the idea presented in i. 64: καί έλάλει εύλογῶν τóν θεόν.

^{page 206 note 5} For these data, cf. ibid. p. 13.

^{page 206 note 6} Ibid. p. 14.

^{page 206 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 206 note 8} Harold Sahlin, Der Messias und das Gottesvolk: Studien zur protolukanischen Theologie (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis edenda curavit A. Fridrichsen, xii) (Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksells Boktryckeri, 1945).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Ibid. p. 9: This work of Luke he designates ‘LK ← AG’.

^{page 207 note 2} Ibid. pp. 48 f.: ‘Um eine Paulusapologie zu schaffen, hat Lukas also die ihm vorliegende Proto-LK-Schrift benutzt und bearbeitet.’

^{page 207 note 8} Ibid. p. 60: ‘Proto-Lukas hat nichts weniger als ein letztes, abschlieβendes Buch des A.T:s schaffen wollen’, and p. 321: ‘Als echter Jude lebte Proto-Lukas in der Gedankenwelt des A.T:s. Als er die Ankündigung und die Geburt des messianischen Vorläufers und die des Messias erzählen wollte, war es ihm ganz natürlich, das in biblischem Stil zu tun; wollte er doch eine Schrift biblischer Art schaffen.’

^{page 207 note 4} Ibid. p. 159. Sahlin thinks Harnack was right in claiming that the original of i. 46 is καί εīπεν to which the name Mary or Elizabeth was later added (p. 160). The Benedictus occurred elsewhere.

^{page 207 note 5} Ibid. p. 167. For a reconstruction of the Hebrew form of the Magnificat in Proto-Luke, see p. 175.

^{page 208 note 1} Sahlin, op. cit. p. 287: ‘Weil Lukassich dazu gezwungen gesehen hatte, das Magnificat xzum Hymnus der Maria zu machen…mußte er irgendwie einen Ersatz-Zacharias in den Mund legen; konnte dieses doch nicht einfach stumm bleiben!’Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 2} Ibid. p. 318.

^{page 208 note 3} Ibid. p. 327.

^{page 208 note 4} Ibid. p. 339.

^{page 208 note 5} Ibid. p. 341.

^{page 208 note 6} Vielhauer, Philipp, ‘Das Benedictus des Zacharias (Luk. i. 68–79)’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, XLIX (1952), 255–72.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 7} Ibid. p. 256: ‘Wir haben also das literarisch und theologisch bemerkenswerte Phänomenon vor uns, daß der Evangelist Lukas seinem Werk ein nicht-christliches, täuferisches Dokument ohne redaktionelle Eingriffe und Korrekturen einverleibt hat.’

^{page 208 note 8} Confusion over the speaker of the Magnificat in the MSS. reflects the likelihood that the psalm circulated anonymously, cf. ibid. p. 257.

^{page 208 note 9} Ibid. p. 266.

^{page 209 note 1} Vielhauer writes further in words provoking part iii of this article: ‘Der Prophet des Höchsten (v. 76) ist natürlich dem “Sohn des Höchsten” (i. 32) untergeordnet, er ist Vorläufer des Kyrios, dem seine Mutter Elisabeth gehuldigt hat (i. 41, 44)’ (p. 264).Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Ibid. p. 271.

^{page 209 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 209 note 4} ‘The Cultural Background of the Narrative in Luke i and ii’, Jewish Quarterly Review, XLV (1954), 159–67, 230–42, 287; ‘Some Observations on the Language in the Birth and Infancy Stories of the Third Gospel’, New Testament Studies, 1 (1954), 111–21; ‘Magnificat and Benedictus–Maccabaean Psalms?’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxvii (1954–5), 328–47; ‘On Luke and Lucan Sources’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XLVII (1956), 217–42; ‘The Proto-Source of Luke i’, Novum Testamentum, 1 (1956), 184–99; “‘Nazareth” and “Jerusalem” in Luke chs i and ii’, New Testament Studies, iii (1957), 136–42; ‘Lukanische Miszellen’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XLIX (1958), 65–77; ‘On the Margin of Luke i, ii’, Studia Theologica, xii (1958), 103–7; ‘The Main Literary Problem of the Lucan Infancy Story’, Anglican Theological Review, XL (1958), 257–64.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 5} Winter, ‘The Proto-Source of Luke i’, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 6} Ibid. p. 186: ‘The pseudo-Philonic narration of the birth of Samson contains a great number of traits that are absent from the story in Judges xiii. At the same time it contains virtually all of the motifs used by the author of the document of John the Baptist's birth.’

^{page 209 note 7} Winter, ‘Magnificat and Benedictus–Maccabaean Psalms?’, p. 342. In the Magnificat, which Winter believes the Third Evangelist intended his readers to understand as spoken by Elizabeth, the word δούλη signifies ‘Israel, the virgin daughter of Zion’ and the phrase ή ταπείνωσις τῆς δούλης αύτού originally meant the ‘subjection of Israel under the Seleucids’ (pp. 341 and 345). In an appendix to his article Winter offers Hebrew reconstructions of the originals of the Benedictus and Magnificat (pp. 345–7).

^{page 210 note 1} Winter, ‘The Proto-Source of Luke i’, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} Ibid. p. 186; also ‘The Main Literary Problems of the Lucan Infancy Story’, p. 262.

^{page 210 note 3} Winter, , ‘The Cultural Background of the Narrative in Luke i and ii’, p. 160. Cf. also, ‘On the Margin of Luke i, ii’, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 4} Turner, N., ‘The Relation of Luke i and ii to Hebraic Sources and to the Rest of Luke-Acts’, New Testament Studies, II (1955), 100–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 210 note 5} Ibid. p. 100.

^{page 210 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 210 note 7} Ibid. p. 108.

^{page 210 note 8} Ibid. p. 103.

^{page 210 note 9} Winter, ‘On Luke and Lucan Sources’.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} Ibid. pp. 218 f. Though Winter does not believe that Luke composed chs. i and ii, he does believe that Luke joined them to the rest of the gospel.

^{page 211 note 2} Ibid. p. 238.

^{page 211 note 3} Laurentin, R., ‘Traces d'allusions étymologiques en Luc i-ii’, Biblica, xxxvii (1956), 435–45; xxxviii (1957), 1–23.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 4} Ibid. p. 435.

^{page 211 note 5} Ibid. pp. 449–56.

^{page 211 note 6} Ibid. pp. 19–23.

^{page 211 note 7} Laurentin, René, Structure et Théologie de Luc i-ii (Études Bibliques) (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 8} Ibid. pp. 14 f. This seems to be somewhat overstated.

^{page 212 note 1} Laurentin, René, op. cit. pp. 37 f.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Ibid. p. 60.

^{page 212 note 3} Ibid. pp. 96 f. About this attitude toward history in a study which makes so much of etymological references, M. D. Goulder [review in Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. ix (1958), 358–60] writes: ‘Has Laurentin not cooked the goose he most cherishes? When he has eaten his symbolic cake, will he not find that the historical one is gone also?’ (p. 360). On Goulder's views, cf. p. 213 ff.

^{page 212 note 4} Père Pierre Benoit, ‘L'Enfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc i’, New Testament Studies, III (1957), 169–94.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 5} Ibid. p. 169.

^{page 212 note 6} Ibid. p. 175. On p. 172 he calls this style ‘coloris vétérotestamentaire’.

^{page 213 note 1} Ibid. p. 179.

^{page 213 note 2} Ibid. p. 188: ‘Comme au v. 17 le Seigneur que Jean doit précéder est normalement Dieu luimême, mais ici il est encore plus clair que la visite de Dieu s'accomplit en la personne de son Messie, Coyne de salut suscitée dans la maison de David, Astre de lumière apportant le pardon des péchés, bref, pour Luc et ses lecteurs, le Kyrios Jésus.’

^{page 213 note 3} Ibid. p. 189. This verse and βάπτισμα μετανοίας in Acts xiii. 24 are viewed as complementary expressions derived from κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μ;οτανοίας είς αφεσιν άμαρτιῶν in Mark i. 4 par.

^{page 213 note 4} Ibid. p. 191.

^{page 213 note 5} Ibid. p. 194.

^{page 213 note 6} Goulder, M. D. and Sanderson, M. L., ‘St Luke's Genesis‘, journal of Theological Studies, n.s. VIII (1957), 12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} Goulder and Sanderson, loc. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Ibid. p. 14.

^{page 214 note 3} Ibid. p. 15. Malachi i. 11 accounts for the creation of the tradition of Zechariah in the Temple.

^{page 214 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 214 note 5} Ibid. p. 17.

^{page 214 note 6} Ibid. p. 20 n. 2.

^{page 214 note 7} Ibid. p. 25.

^{page 214 note 8} Ibid. p. 30. On the same page they admit that the symbols may have been suggested to Luke by the ύπηρέται λόγου whom he acknowledges his debt.

^{page 214 note 9} Leaney, A. R. C., ‘The Birth Narrative in St Luke and St Matthew’, New Testament Studies, VIII (1962), 158–66.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} Ibid. p. 162.

^{page 215 note 2} On source II, cf. pp. 162 f.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} Ibid. p. 160.

^{page 215 note 4} Ibid. p. 161.

^{page 215 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 215 note 6} Luke's special interest in the word υψιστος is evident from the fact that he uses it more frequently than Matthew and Mark.

^{page 216 note 1} On the accuracy of the details of Zechariah's ministry, cf. Winter, ‘The Cultural Background of he Narratives in Luke i-ii’, pp. 160–7, 230–6.

^{page 216 note 2} If some of the theories mentioned in part ii are valid, these words applied originally to Jesus, cf. Benoit, op. cit. pp. 186–8; Vielhauer, op. cit. p. 260; Sahlin, op. cit. p. 288, 329. Since the time of Harnack, ηγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας has been taken to mean ‘resurrected’ (cf. έγείρω in Acts) which could only refer to Jesus. Laurentin, ‘Traces d'allusions étymologiques en Luc i-ii’, p. 9, sees in his Hebrew reconstruction of the phrase ηγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας a play on the names Mary and Jesus = (Jesus) (Mary) . That the times are messianic could indicate an origin within Baptist circles. Luke, possibly unaware of the original character of the terms, is content to use them in describing the work of John.

^{page 217 note 1} Cf. also the προκηρύξαντος 038Aωάννου πρό προσώπου τῆς είτού in Acts xiii 24.

^{page 217 note 2} Sahlin, , op. cit. p. 293. To avoid the rather obvious idea of the ‘Prophet’ as forerunner, Sahlin must amend the text from προπορεύσŋ (ένώπιον κυρίου) which he takes as underlying a Semitic expression meaning ‘to serve God’. He makes a similar conjecture for προελεύσεται in i. 17, cf. p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 3} Benoit, , op. cit. pp. 188–9.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 4} So Vielhauer, , op. cit. p. 264. Cf. p. 209 n. i, above.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 5} Dibelius, , op. cit. p. 13, views this episode as Luke's own composition.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 6} Norden, Eduard, Die Geburt des Kindes: Geschichte einer religiosen Idee (Stuttgart, 1924), p. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Dibelius, , op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Sahlin, , op. cit. pp. 143–4. He uses the phrase ‘ungeborene Vorlaufer’.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Goulder, and Sanderson, , op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 4} Benoit, , op. cit p. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 5} Sahlin, , op. cit. p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 6} Sahlin, , op. cit. p. 81: Proto-Luke reads , meaning ‘Gottes Geisteskraft’, which Luke translated έν πνεύματι; for Luke (ix. 18. 19; iv. 25 f. and ix. 54 v.l.) it is Jesus who is Elijah. On different grounds, Benoit, op. cit. p. 181, believes that Luke avoids identifying John with Elijah in i. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 7} Robinson, J. A. T., ‘Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection’, New Testament Studies, IV (1958), 278.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Cf. Laurentin, , Structure et Théologie de Luc i–ii, p. 34, and Winter, ‘The Main Literary Problem of the Lucan Infancy Story’, p. 262.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} Matthew ii. I makes the same claims for the birth of Jesus.

^{page 219 note 3} Sahlin, op. cit. p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 219 note 5} There seems to be wisdom in the words of Dibelius, op. cit. p.56: ‘Wenn einmal erkannt ist; daß das Interesse des Berichts über die άπογραφή in der Verbindung mit der Weltgeschichte liegt und nicht in der Datierung der Legende, dann scheint mir nicht zweifelhaft zu sein, daß dieser Bericht dem Evangelisten zugeschrieben werden muß.’

^{page 220 note 1} Leaney, , op. cit. p. 163, suggests that έξ οϊκου Δαυίδ was added in i. 27 by Luke to this one of his two sources which did not exhibit the connection of Jesus with the David line. It must be admitted, however, that some of the references to David, Jacob, etc., may have been present already in Luke's sources.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Laurentin, , Structure et Théologie de Luc i–ii, p. 103, counts six occurrences of Jerusalem in i-ii, 24 times in the rest of Luke and 64 times in Acts.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} Sahlin, , op. cit. pp. 308 f. The basis for Sahlin's decision is given in the words on p. 310: ‘In der Erzählung ii. 41–55 tritt dagegen seine übermenschlich-göttliche Wesensart schon während seiner Kindheit hervor, ja er bekennt sich ausdrücklich als den Sohn Gottes (V. 49). Eine solche Auffassung der Jesus-Gestalt ist m. E. mit der protolukanischen Messias-Anschauung ganzlich unvereinbar.’Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Laurentin, , Structure et Théologie de Luc i-ii, pp. 110–12.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} Sahlin, , op. cit. p. 213. Sahlin tries to make the case that ό λαός is Lucan for ‘the Jews’, but a study of πάς ό λαός shows that all the references are incidentally to Jews (because they happened to be the audience of Jesus) or there is some question of identity (as in Acts iv. 10 and xiii. 24) and so the word Israel is added. A case in point, ii. 31, will be dealt with shortly.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Sahlin, op. cit. p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Ibid. p. 261. On p. 263 he adds: ‘das Licht bezieht sich nicht auf die Heidenvölker, sondern nur auf die unter ihnen wohnenden jüdischen Exulanten.’

^{page 222 note 3} Delitzsch reads .

^{page 222 note 4} γlóς (τού) θεού appears in the Genealogy and the Temptation narratives.

^{page 222 note 5} Sahlin, , op. cit. p. 129, thinks υίóς θεού is a secondary addition in i. 35. Laurentin, ‘Traces d'allusions étymologiques en Luc i-ii’, p. 10, notes the following parallels in Luke: Jesus is Son of the Highest () and Son of Mary ().Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 6} Sahlin, , op. cit. 113, takes this as evidence that Proto-Luke was composed in Hebrew, since the meaning of the name ‘Jesus’ would be apparent in the Hebrew form of the word.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 7} Laurentin, , ‘Traces d'allusions étymologiques en Luc i–ii’, p. 447. Here the R.S.V. is used.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Laurentin, , Structure et Théologie de Luc i–ii, p. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Winter, , ‘On the Margin of Luke i–ii’, p. 106. The Hellenistic expression is ó σωτήρ τού κόσμου.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Cited from Winter, ‘Lukanische Miszellen’, p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} Ibid. pp. 68 and 75.

^{page 223 note 5} Sahlin, , op. cit. pp. 217 f.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} Dibelius, , op. cit. p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 7} Laurentin, Structure et Théologie de Luc i-ii, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 8} Ibid. p. 36.

^{page 224 note 1} Cf Vielhauer, , op. cit. p. 259; Dibelius, op. cit. p. 4. The view of Sahlin has been given above, p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Laurentin, ‘Traces d'allusions étymologiques en Luc i-ii’, pp. 447 f., sees in the name Gabriel ( = ‘God is my force’) a representation of the theme of power carried out in the context by words from the stem δυνα- (i. 17 δυνάμει, i. 35 δύναμις, i. 49 δυνατός, i. 52 δυνάστας).

^{page 225 note 1} Schweizer, Eduard, ‘πνεύμα’, Kittel's Th. W. B. VI, 394 ff. (English trans., Bible Key Words, London, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} Ibid. pp. 399 f. (English ed., p. 33).

^{page 225 note 3} Schubert, Paul, ‘The Structure and Significance of Luke xxiv’, Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Beiheft 21, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft) (2nd ed., Berlin, 1957), pp. 165–86.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} Ibid. p. 178.

^{page 225 note 5} Ibid.