Re: Historical accuracy?

From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 15:26:17 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Historical accuracy?"

    Why should we assume that the conclusion of Luke 24 refers to the
    ascension? Is it the comparison between Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4? The KJV
    of Luke 24:51 says that He was carried up into heaven, but this clause is
    not contained in what are judged to be the most reliable manuscripts. The
    scriptural accounts seem to indicate that after his resurrection Jesus
    suddenly appeared or disappeared on several occasions such as in Luke
    24:31 and 36.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Robert Schneider wrote:

    > I could even point to a discrepancy within one writer, Luke, in his two
    > accounts of Jesus' ascension. In the one (Luke 24) it appears from the
    > timeline of the chapter that Jesus' ascension took place the evening of his
    > day of resurrection. In the second (Acts 2--Acts was written by Luke), the
    > ascension took place 40 days after the resurrection. The Church accepted
    > the chronology of the second account, and that is why the Feast of the
    > Ascension is set on the fortieth day after Easter. Why the discrepancy? I
    > have no idea, but perhaps Luke had his reasons that might be teased out of
    > his writings with careful reading and reflection. If anyone wishes to get
    > bent out of shape over this discrepancy, that's fine with me. Personally,
    > it is not a problem.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 15:26:36 EDT