Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 08-25-2004, 11:37 AM

It seems to be commonly agreed - even among nonbelievers - that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Why, then, does each book seem to have its own account of Jesus' ascension? Did "Luke" mean to imply that Jesus rose to heaven twice? Maybe the first one didn't take?

What are the strongest arguments - apart from the fact that they are both addressed to the same recipient - to support the idea that Luke and Acts are indeed two parts of the same work?

Toto · 08-25-2004, 12:32 PM

It seems generally agreed that "Luke" took a number of different sources, legends, etc., and wove them into a final work.

I would take any inconsistencies as evidence that Luke and his audience knew that they were dealing with myth and art, and not with cold dry history.

This Christian site claims that yes, there were three ascensions, and that Jesus teleported back and forth between heaven and earth for 40 days - - and shows no embarrassment about it.

Another Christian attempt at harmonization

Quote:

It is certainly appropriate, as we have already seen, that Luke should conclude his first volume and introduce his second with the same event, the ascension of Jesus, since it was both the end of his earthly ministry and the prelude to his continuing ministry from heaven through the Spirit. It is antecedently improbable, however, that the same author, telling the same story, should contradict himself. Yet this is what some modern scholars assert. Ernst Haenchen writes for example: 'Two Ascensions - one on Easter Day (Luke 24:51), the other forty days after (Acts 1:9) - are one too many. But in fact there are no substantial discrepancies, and a harmonization of the two accounts is possible, without forcing the evidence.

It is true that in his Gospel, Luke makes no mention of the forty days. But it is gratuitous to suggest that he must therefore have forgotten them, or that he thought that the resurrection and the ascension occurred on the same day. No, in the Gospel he is simply giving a condensed account of the resurrection appearances, without feeling the need to note their different times and without feeling the need to note their different times and circumstances. He is indubitably recording one ascension not two.

. . .

. . . Thus the evident agreements are greater than the apparent disagreements. The latter are sufficiently explained by supposing that Luke used his editorial freedom in selecting different details from an account or accounts he had heard, without wishing to repeat himself word for word.

But this is entirely unconvincing.

jbernier · 08-25-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would take any inconsistencies as evidence that Luke and his audience knew that they were dealing with myth and art, and not with cold dry history.

Agreed.

Quote:

But this is entirely unconvincing.

Actually, I think that is highly convincing (as long as one is not concerned with proving some sort of ethereal doctrine of Biblical inerrancy). It is important to recognize that even though Luke and Acts were written by the same author and (apparently) to the same person, they are still two documents. It strikes me as an excellent literary technique to repeat the closing story of the first document in the opening of the second: What better and quicker way to make clear to the reader that the story in the second picks up exactly where the story in the second left off. It is kinda like Back to the Future 2 and 3, where they play the last couple minutes of the previous movie at the beginning of the next - continuing right from that point.

Magus55 · 08-25-2004, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

It seems to be commonly agreed - even among nonbelievers - that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Why, then, does each book seem to have its own account of Jesus' ascension? Did "Luke" mean to imply that Jesus rose to heaven twice? Maybe the first one didn't take?

What are the strongest arguments - apart from the fact that they are both addressed to the same recipient - to support the idea that Luke and Acts are indeed two parts of the same work?

Scriptural verses?

Vorkosigan · 08-25-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Scriptural verses?

What would you want scriptural verses for?

Joshua Adams · 08-25-2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Actually, I think that is highly convincing (as long as one is not concerned with proving some sort of ethereal doctrine of Biblical inerrancy). It is important to recognize that even though Luke and Acts were written by the same author and (apparently) to the same person, they are still two documents. It strikes me as an excellent literary technique to repeat the closing story of the first document in the opening of the second: What better and quicker way to make clear to the reader that the story in the second picks up exactly where the story in the second left off. It is kinda like Back to the Future 2 and 3, where they play the last couple minutes of the previous movie at the beginning of the next - continuing right from that point.

I think this is a more than reasonable evaluation. Luke ends thus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 24:50-53, NASB

50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

Acts' narrative picks up by fleshing out this rather sparse account:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 1:1-11

6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." 9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

The "men in white clothing" seem to be nothing more than a literary device allowing ALuke to get his point across: that Jesus will return. This may be to foreshadow the Pentecost narrative, and so had nothing to do with Luke, which is why it was omitted.

I wonder whether ALuke had even yet thought of the Acts of the Apostles story when he wrapped up his gospel, given the way he ends it (that is, he doesn't say "and then they went out and did wonders" or anything, he instead has them go and rejoice in the temple).

08-25-2004, 11:37 AM	#1
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Why Does Luke Provide Two Ascensions? It seems to be commonly agreed - even among nonbelievers - that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Why, then, does each book seem to have its own account of Jesus' ascension? Did "Luke" mean to imply that Jesus rose to heaven twice? Maybe the first one didn't take? What are the strongest arguments - apart from the fact that they are both addressed to the same recipient - to support the idea that Luke and Acts are indeed two parts of the same work?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.