Compared with these primary incentives, the Old Testament precedents which the ascension of Jesus has in the translation of Enoch ([Gen. v. 24]; comp. [Wis. xliv. 16], [xlix. 16]; [Heb. xi. 5]), and especially in the ascension of Elijah ([2 Kings ii. 11]; comp. [Wis. xlviii. 9]; [1 Macc. ii. 58]), together with the Grecian and Roman apotheoses of Hercules and Romulus, recede into the background. Apart from the question whether the latter were known to the second and third Evangelists; the statement relative to Enoch is too vague; while the chariot and horses of fire that transported Elijah were not adapted to the milder spirit of Christ. Instead of this the enveloping cloud and the removal while holding a farewell conversation, may appear to have been borrowed from the later representation of the removal of Moses, which however in other particulars has considerable divergencies from that of Jesus.[33] Perhaps also one trait in the narrative of the Acts may be explained out of the history of Elijah. When this prophet, before his translation, is entreated by his servant Elisha that he will bequeath him a double measure of his spirit: Elijah attaches to the concession of this boon the condition: if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so; whence we might perhaps gather the reason why Luke ([Acts i. 9]) lays [[756]]stress on the fact that the disciples beheld Jesus as he went up (βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη): namely, because, according to the narrative concerning Elijah, this was necessary, if the disciples were to receive the spirit of their master. [[757]]
[3] As is done by Teller, im excurs. 2, ad Burneti I. de fide et offic. Christ, p. 262. [↑]
[4] The work of Beckhaus, über die Aechtheit der sog. Taufformel, 1794, met with general approval. [↑]
[5] Comp. De Wette. exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 246. [↑]
[6] Comp. Baur, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, Jahrgang 1830, 2, s. 75 ff. [↑]