show_no_mercy

Reading all four gospels, it seems as though Luke is the only one that originally has an Ascension. Mark originally ends with just an empty tomb, Matthew and John end with Jesus shootin' the shit with his disciples.

Does anyone know when Jesus having ascended to heaven after his resurrection became tradition? It looks like this ascension was added to the story (in Mark and Luke) as a deliberate precursor to "Acts of the Apostles".

"Acts" type literature seems to have come about at the time when Christians were curious about what happened after the resurrection, not satisfied with how the gospels ended. This might be responsible for all of the "Acts" literature written in the 2nd century. Could that be used as a dating period for when the additional ending to Mark was added and when Luke was written?

bacht

There does seem to be an expansion of Jesus' career at both ends as the gospel genre develops: Matthew and Luke add geneologies as well as post-crucifixion appearances. Maybe the ascension is to be connected with Luke's story of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

As for Acts there's the argument that apostolic authority was one of Luke's aims, balancing the careers of Peter and Paul and tidying up any hint of fundamental conflict (cf Galatians).

aa5874

Justin Martyr although only calling the Gospels memoirs of the Apostles, and did not mention Acts of the Apostles or any letters with the name Paul, did appear to have been aware of a tradition where Jesus Christ was believed to have ascended to heaven.

Excerpts from Justin Martyr's First Apology 21