Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts

New Explorations of Luke's Narrative Hinge

David K. Bryan, David W. Pao, David K. Bryan, David W. Pao, David K. Bryan, David W. Pao

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781451496444
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506418964
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Lukes two-volume work contains the only narrative depictions of Jesus ascent into heaven in the New Testament. The significance of the event at the end of the Gospel and the beginning of Acts have long been recognized. While select studies have focused on particular aspects of these accounts, however, the importance of the ascension to Luke-Acts calls for renewed attention to the narratological and theological significance of these accounts. Here, leading scholars discuss the ancient, literary and theological contexts of the ascent-into-heaven accounts for the next generation of interpreters.

2

Lukan Ascension Narratives within Luke’s Literary Program

6

The Unity of Luke-Acts and the Ascension Narratives

Stanley E. Porter

Introduction

The ascension narratives are found only in Luke-Acts. Whereas we have resurrection accounts of various types in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–10) as well as John’s Gospel (20:1–8), and mention of the resurrection (or resurrection-ascension) in other places in the New Testament (NT) (see especially Paul’s writings: 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; Eph 1:20; etc.), and whereas we also have exaltation passages at various places in the NT (e.g., Acts 2:33–34; 5:31; Eph 1:20; Phil 2:9–11; Col 3:1), the ascension itself is only specifically depicted within Luke-Acts (some have suggested hints in such a place as Rom 10:6–7). That means that even where other NT authors might mention the resurrection and/or exaltation of Jesus, they do not mention the kind of visible and observable ascension that Luke-Acts seems to depict.^[1] Besides Luke 9:51, which is not an ascension narrative but a brief mention of it, there are two accounts of the ascension in Luke-Acts: Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:6–11 (see also 1:2, 22). In Luke 24:50–53, as the concluding episode of the Gospel, Luke says that Jesus led his followers to Bethany, where he blessed them, and, while blessing them, he departed from them and was carried up into heaven. They worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were in the temple praising God. In the Acts account, the first major episode depicted, Luke mentions in Acts 1:2–3 that his first book was concerned with Jesus’s instructions to his disciples until he was taken up and that he presented himself alive after his suffering in many proofs, while being seen by them for forty days as he spoke about the kingdom of God. In Acts 1:6–11, especially verses 9–11, Luke says that Jesus told his followers that knowledge of the time of the kingdom was not theirs to know and that they could expect to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Then, after saying these things, while they were watching, he was taken up out of their sight with a cloud supporting him. While they were staring into heaven where he had gone, two men in white garments stood alongside and asked why they were standing and looking into heaven, when they could expect this Jesus who was taken from them into heaven to come back to the place where they saw him go into heaven.

These two accounts have aroused significant discussion within NT studies, pretty much from the advent of the historical-critical study of the Gospels with David Friedrich Strauss to the present,^[2] even if not to the same extent as some other topics. There are a number of factors that have aroused such discussion, several of which will be part of my larger discussion of the unity of Luke-Acts in relation to these ascension narratives. I am treating unity in the sense of how the accounts relate to each other and how they relate to the unity of Luke and Acts. There is a complex interplay of various factors that has precipitated the continuing discussion of these ascension accounts. Some of this complexity is caused by the textual variants found in both the Gospel and Acts passages, and some of it by differences in vocabulary in the two different accounts, both of which suggest early interpretive difficulties. Some of these solutions have involved various source theories, while others have led to diverse speculation about types of parallel accounts within the wider Greco-Roman world, of which Judaism was a part. I will examine a number of these issues in the following discussion with an eye on how they affect the question of unity. Once I have done so, I will explore how the Lukan ascension narratives function within their respective contexts of Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts, as well as in relation to each other and the Lukan two-volume narrative of the early events surrounding Jesus and his followers.

Major Issues in Interpreting the Ascension Narratives
of Luke-Acts

At least four major issues often emerge in interpreting the ascension narratives of Luke-Acts and have a bearing on the question of unity. I have isolated these four as a basis for examining the role that the ascension narratives play in the unity of the individual NT works and Luke-Acts as a whole. These four major issues include: textual variants within the two major Luke-Acts passages; the differing language regarding resurrection, ascension, and exaltation; various perceived conceptual discrepancies regarding the ascension in Luke and Acts; and the possible sources of the ascension accounts from Lukan and religio-cultural perspectives.

Textual Variants

As noted above, there are two major passages in Luke-Acts in which the ascension of Jesus is depicted (I am excluding Luke 9:51, which makes a brief mention of it, in anticipation of the later passage): Luke 24:50–53 and Acts 1:6–11. Within these two passages, major textual variants regarding them as ascension accounts are found in Luke 24:51, 52, and 53a, and Acts 1:9 and 11 (there are also variants in Luke 24:53b, as well as some manuscripts that include the pericope of the woman in adultery, but those are not germane to my discussion; nor is the issue of Acts 1:2). These variants have been examined a number of times, especially since Westcott and Hort identified those in Luke’s Gospel as Western non-interpolations.^[3] I first summarize and examine the textual evidence for each, and then draw conclusions regarding the implications of the textual issues for unity.

Luke 24:51

The question in this verse is whether the verse reads καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς διέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“and it came to pass while he was blessing them that he was set aside from them and he was carried up into heaven”) or simply καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν (“and it came to pass while he was blessing them that he was set apart from them”). The shorter reading is without an explicit reference to the heavenly ascension, stating only that Jesus departed from his disciples. Most contemporary editions contain the longer reading, including the UBSGNT⁵, NA²⁸, and SBL. Some earlier editions, such as Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf’s eighth edition, did not. The evidence for the longer reading is found in 𝔓⁷⁵ א A B and most other majuscules, the Byzantine tradition, most lectionaries, some Italic manuscripts, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian² versions, and some church fathers. The evidence for the shorter reading (omitting the wording noted above) is א* D, some Italic manuscripts, one Syriac manuscript, Georgian¹, and Augustine in one place. On the basis of this evidence, the longer reading with the ascension to heaven is to be preferred, as it combines all but a single (though admittedly important) Alexandrian manuscript, the Byzantine tradition, and the vast majority of versions. It is hard to see why the UBSGNT⁵ originally gave this a D rating, although it quickly inflated to a C and then B in subsequent editions (even though the manuscript evidence did not change significantly).

Despite this strong evidence, there has been support for the shorter reading along several different lines. Westcott and Hort treated this as one of their Western non-interpolations, instances in which the shorter (as opposed to its usual tendency to lengthen) Western edition preserved the original reading over the Alexandrian tradition. There are several problems with this solution: the problem with Acts 1:2 indicating that the previous book (Luke’s Gospel) had mentioned the ascension (but see discussion below); the widespread manuscript evidence of the longer text; the unique use of the verb ἀναφέρω (“carry up”) (see discussion below); and various possible reasons for excision, not least an attempt to eliminate possible contradiction between an ascension on the same day as the resurrection (in Luke) and one forty days later in Acts (see below).^[4] Mikeal Parsons has argued that the longer text represents an attempt made by the scribe of 𝔓⁷⁵ to enhance the Christology of the passage by emphasizing Jesus’s physical resurrection and ascension as a counter to gnostic opposition.^[5] Bart Ehrman has argued that the shorter reading is original but that later orthodox corruption occurred when church scribes wished to counter docetic tendencies (and, hence, to lower the Christology) and emphasize the physical reality of Jesus’s ascension.^[6] Arie Zwiep counters such tendential hypotheses (whether attempting to heighten or lower Christology) by show...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Contributors
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Ascension Scholarship
• Lukan Ascension Narratives in their Ancient Contexts
• Lukan Ascension Narratives within Luke’s Literary Program
• A Theologian’s Postscript
• Selected Bibliography on the Ascension in Luke-Acts (1995–2015)
• Ancient Sources Index