Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[robrecht]

When I use the term "embellishment" I am not insinuating, necessarily, that someone lied. I believe that embellishments are a natural part of any oral story that is retold, over and over again, over many years/decades.

It is certainly possible that many of the "events" told in the Gospels were not meant to be taken literally. Maybe the entire Resurrection story is a theological construct, not an historical one. Maybe Bishop Spong is right: Jesus' resurrection was spiritual in nature, not physical. Maybe the authors of the Bible would be horrified to know that millions of Jesus followers, for the last 2,000 years, have come to believe that his dead body was literally resurrected, based on their theological allegories.

The bottom line is this: We will never know. These books were written by anonymous authors, decades after the alleged events, in far away lands, for purposes we can only...assume...

But what about a literary device by a singular author as opposed to oral embellishments of an anonymous oral tradition retold by many? That was my question.

[Gary]

I'm not sure what you're arguing in the first paragraph, but I"m assuming you're saying that the author contradicted himself in his own two works. Why would he do that though? Assuming Luke wrote both works, which you and I agree, and I'm sure you assume he was redacting his work, why would he not fix the contradiction, assuming that you are right and it is a contradiction?

In the second paragraph, you actually proved the historical legitimacy of the story, or at least Luke's attempt to record it as accurately as it was described to him, as opposed to other stories of miracle ascensions into heaven written in that era that are garnished with religious spectacle.

You may be right, but it is also possible that this happened:

Luke wrote down the details of the Ascension in this Gospel based on stories circulating about Jesus at that time. When he wrote the Books of Acts, possibly a few years or even a decade later, new details had circulated about the alleged Ascension. Now the story included angels. Luke simply added this new detail to the story in Acts because that is what his new sources told him was true.

So why would the same author contradict himself in his own two books regarding the location of the Ascension? Answer: I have no idea. It is indeed very odd. I give the author the benefit of the doubt that he did not do this with nefarious motives. No, there isn't much of a difference between 1.5 miles and 0.5 miles...to us today. But that would have been a huge difference to people who traveled by foot. If you were comparing the distance to John's house which is 1.5 miles away and Eli's house which is 0.5 miles away, you are NOT going to say that they are about the same distance.

And more importantly, 1.5 miles is three times the distance of a Sabbath distance. They are not close. So why the discrepancy in the story: I think it is possible that when "Luke" wrote Luke, his sources, at that time, told him the Ascension occurred in Bethany; the later sources for his story in the Book of Acts "corrected" the first sources. "Luke" was simply trying to be as accurate as possible with each new book. Or...both stories are purely theological constructs and the exact geographical details in the story were not important to the author.

[Jedidiah]

Wake me up when Gary says anything new.

That should give you a nice long nap.

[seanD]

You may be right, but it is also possible that this happened:

Luke wrote down the details of the Ascension in this Gospel based on stories circulating about Jesus at that time. When he wrote the Books of Acts, possibly a few years or even a decade later, new details had circulated about the alleged Ascension. Now the story included angels. Luke simply added this new detail to the story in Acts because that is what his new sources told him was true.

So why would the same author contradict himself in his own two books regarding the location of the Ascension? Answer: I have no idea. It is indeed very odd. I give the author the benefit of the doubt that he did not do this with nefarious motives. No, there isn't much of a difference between 1.5 miles and 0.5 miles...to us today. But that would have been a huge difference to people who traveled by foot. If you were comparing the distance to John's house which is 1.5 miles away and Eli's house which is 0.5 miles away, you are NOT going to say that they are about the same distance.

And more importantly, 1.5 miles is three times the distance of a Sabbath distance. They are not close. So why the discrepancy in the story: I think it is possible that when "Luke" wrote Luke, his sources, at that time, told him the Ascension occurred in Bethany; the later sources for his story in the Book of Acts "corrected" the first sources. "Luke" was simply trying to be as accurate as possible with each new book. Or...both stories are purely theological constructs and the exact geographical details in the story were not important to the author.

Your theory is interesting in that it implies Luke was actually very careful about getting eyewitness accounts down as accurately as they were told to him, as opposed to him just redacting and embellishing his work with fiction at will, as a lot of skeptics argue.

My theory is that Luke wasn't specific in his gospel (he was making a general approximation) about the location of the ascension, but was specific in Acts because that's where he continued the story and knew he would continue the story as he set out to write the gospel

In any event, I don't really see it as a big enough deal to warrant a critical argument against it.

[Gary]

But what about a literary device by a singular author as opposed to oral embellishments of an anonymous oral tradition retold by many? That was my question.

Possible. Plausible. Much more possible and plausible than a literal ascension/levitation.

[Gary]

Your theory is interesting in that it implies Luke was actually very careful about getting eyewitness accounts down as accurately as they were told to him, as opposed to him just redacting and embellishing his work with fiction at will, as a lot of skeptics argue.

My theory is that Luke wasn't specific in his gospel (he was making a general approximation) about the location of the ascension, but was specific in Acts because that's where he continued the story and knew he would continue the story as he set out to write the gospel

In any event, I don't really see it as a big enough deal to warrant a critical argument against it.

On just that one point, maybe not, but the cumulative evidence says the story was very likely not an historical event.

[robrecht]

Possible. Plausible. Much more possible and plausible than a literal ascension/levitation.

So a probable interpretation of the original author's intent might be more plausible than an overly literal interpretation of the text. Quelle surprise!

[psstein]

Can Bauckman prove with 100% certainty the sources for Luke's gospel and prove that we can be 100% certain of the accuracy of their testimony?

Answer: Of course not. The best he can do is tell us that he has a high degree of confidence in the sources of Luke's story. Again, educated, rational people must ask themselves this all important question: Which is more probable? That Bauckman is wrong or that "resurrected" dead bodies really do levitate into the clouds?

It's all a matter of probabilities, Stein. If you believe that levitating bodies are more probable than an imminent scholar being wrong, you have demonstrated to all your irrationality.

It's B-A-U-C-K-H-A-M. I wasn't bringing up the Ascension, I was bringing up that impeaching Luke's sources is pointless if you haven't actually done the legwork necessary. Luke-Acts does make mistakes, but Luke-Acts is also a fairly reliable picture.

I think I follow Robrecht on this. The Ascension is an interesting inclusio in Luke-Acts.

[Adrift]

It's B-A-U-C-K-H-A-M. I wasn't bringing up the Ascension, I was bringing up that impeaching Luke's sources is pointless if you haven't actually done the legwork necessary.

No matter how many times it's repeated to the contrary, Gary still seems to assume that historians routinely suggest the historicity of the miraculous in their academic work, not understanding that they deal with these issues from a largely secular point of view. The guy is mind locked. This is what happens when you refuse to read the actual scholarship available on an issue. How embarrassing for him.

[Gary]

So a probable interpretation of the original author's intent might be more plausible than an overly literal interpretation of the text. Quelle surprise!

And your point?

If you are a liberal Christian who believes all the supernatural claims in the Bible are allegorical or metaphorical I salute you; I have no issue with your interpretation of this ancient holy book. I hope you are able to convince the conservatives and moderates here of your views.

[Gary]

It's B-A-U-C-K-H-A-M. I wasn't bringing up the Ascension, I was bringing up that impeaching Luke's sources is pointless if you haven't actually done the legwork necessary. Luke-Acts does make mistakes, but Luke-Acts is also a fairly reliable picture.

I think I follow Robrecht on this. The Ascension is an interesting inclusio in Luke-Acts.

Excellent. So you do not believe that the Ascension was a literal, historical event. Kudos to you. Now if we can only get you to see the same with the Resurrection claim.

I am not impeaching Luke's sources. I am only saying that there is no way we can be 100% certain of the accuracy of their testimonies. Neither Bauckman or Bauckham can prove otherwise.

By the way, I just saw MikeEnders, Bill the Cat, my best bud Adrift, and a few other conservative Christians on TW gathering kindling wood for your burning at the stake. Be careful, Stein.

:)

[Gary]

No matter how many times it's repeated to the contrary, Gary still seems to assume that historians routinely suggest the historicity of the miraculous in their academic work, not understanding that they deal with these issues from a largely secular point of view. The guy is mind locked. This is what happens when you refuse to read the actual scholarship available on an issue. How embarrassing for him.

You need a very serious intervention, my friend. The cult has you so deeply in its grip you can't even think rationally.

[Adrift]

Excellent. So you do not believe that the Ascension was a literal, historical event.

Yeah, that's not what he said. Your fundamentalist thinking is showing again.

[Adrift]

You need a very serious intervention, my friend. The cult has you so deeply in its grip you can't even think rationally.

Pot meet kettle.

[robrecht]

And your point?

If you are a liberal Christian who believes all the supernatural claims in the Bible are allegorical or metaphorical I salute you; I have no issue with your interpretation of this ancient holy book. I hope you are able to convince the conservatives and moderates here of your views.

My only point is to try and understand the point and perspective of the author and his audience. To me this is worth my time and effort. An argument for or against some poorly defined idea of the supernatural totally misses the mark. Any god whose existence can be proved, disproven, or definitively doubted is not God. For Luke, God is known in the community and in the resurrected Christ who is at work in the community, in the Eucharist, and in history. He is real.