The Ascension

[fredonly]

Jesus' alleged Ascension to heaven is problematic text. Here's how Luke describes Jesus' ascension into heaven:

Luke 24:50-51
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

Acts 1:8-9
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Implications:
1. Heaven is actually up in the sky. Really?! We know that's where 1st centuryJews believed it to be. But it ain't so!

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? This would have been nearly as remarkable as his alleged Resurrection.

Heaven isn't up in the sky*, and it's absurd to think such a monumental event would be omitted by any evangelists. The best explanation for these curiosities is that the Ascension did not occur, and Luke made it up. Why do this? Perhaps to explain why Jesus wasn't around any more.

Apologists like to point to incidental historical accuracies in the New Testament, as evidence the Gospels are trustworthy history. But fictions like the Ascension show that the evangelists weren't averse to making stuff up to fit their purposes- so the Gospels can't be assumed to be historically accurate in terms of relating alleged miraculous events.

__________________
*William Lane Craig rationalizes Jesus flight as being a show for the disciples. They believed heaven was "up there", and so Jesus vanished from the earthly spatio-temporal plane in this way so they would know where he went. This does rationalize the event, but pure invention is a better explanation, especially in light of the silence of the other evangelists on it.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #260]
According to Luke, Jesus Ascended from the Mount of Olives, which is close to Jerusalem, within Palestine. There's no consensus on precisely where the Gospels were written, but it is agree that they were written in Greek - which means they were not written in Palestine. Any tradition that was being passed along would need to have undergone translation. Also, once traditions are translated - any possible influence by the Aramaic speaking eyewitness would be greatly diminished.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #252]
Jesus' crucifixion is most commonly dated to AD30. The Resurrection and Ascension (we're assuming the Ascension as a premise; this entails a prior Resurrection) would have been the same year.

Mark - AD65-75
Matthew- AD80-90
Luke- AD80-90
John - AD90-100 (final editing)

Okay locations please (all four) ...and year if the ascention.

It's a scam to evade the conclusion that the Ascension was invented by Luke, which is why it isn't in the other gospels. That is the only argument that matters, and the explanations as to why, plausibly, the other gospels should have left it out. Asking for when the gospels were written or where or indeed by whom, and nobody can really say, adds nothing to either side of the argument and is merely an evsive scam, such as we have come to expect from Bible believing denialists.

[JehovahsWitness]

... it is agree that [the gospels] were written in Greek - which means they were not written in Palestine.

• Linguistically, the Greek evidence shows how far Palestine in Jesus' time was a bilingual or multilingual society. - Prof James Barr University of Manchester

• How widespread the use of Koine was can be seen from the fact that the decrees of the imperial governors and of the Roman senate were translated into Koine to be distributed throughout the Roman Empire -Insight on the Scriptures Vol I

• “Although the main body of the Jewish people rejected Hellenism and its ways, intercourse with the Greek peoples and the use of the Greek language was by no means eschewed. . .” - Hellenism, by N. Bentwich, 1919, p. 115

• With little reservation, the speech community of first-century CE Palestine was almost certainly multilingual (with Greek as its lingua franca) - Hughson T. Ong, The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament

Re: ancient Palestine being a multilingual society, see Rydbeck, “Language,” 361–68; see also Fitzmyer, “Languages,” 501–31; James, Language of Palestine. See also Stanley E. Porter,Verbal Aspect, 111–56; Introduction The complex multilingualism of Palestine 11–38.

[JehovahsWitness]

...There's no consensus on precisely where the Gospels were written...

So does this mean that where the gospel's were penned is not part of your argument?

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS THE NARRITIVE OF THE ASCENTION LOST?



If the ascention happened the narrative of the events would have first be registered in their minds of the Apostles that witnessed it. Following this they there are various things that could have happened , amongst which...

(a) they may have witnessed it and promptly forget it
(b) they may have died without communicating it to anyone
(c) they may have deliberately kept the specifics of the event secret
(d) they may have shared the information with the gospel writers

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

[William]

WAS THE NARRITIVE OF THE ASCENTION LOST?



If the ascention happened the narrative of the events would have first be registered in their minds of the Apostles that witnessed it. Following this they there are various things that could have happened , amongst which...

(a) they may have witnessed it and promptly forget it
(b) they may have died without communicating it to anyone
(c) they may have deliberately kept the specifics of the event secret
(d) they may have shared the information with the gospel writers

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Perhaps you have forgotten? The story was not passed on orally by; was it?

The Gospel writers certainly did not just pass things on orally. Is there some believable reason as to why you think the ascension isn't an important event - important enough not to be forgotten or even be written about alongside the other things they altogether did record, re Jesus?

What reason can you offer as to why they would keep this particular event secret? What reason can you offer that the other gospel writers might not have been witness to the ascension event?

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #263]


The most persuasive studies of the use of Greek in Galilee in particular have been produced by Mark Chancey, who shows that scholars who maintain that Greek was widely spoken in the first century have based their views on very slim evidence, in which Palestinian data from over a number of centuries have been generalized into claims about the use of Greek in Galilee in the first half of the first century. There is, in fact, scant evidence that Greek was widely used outside of the major urban areas. People living in rural areas spoke almost exclusively Aramaic.

These and other studies have made it clear that there were few educated people in Palestine in the [1srlt century]. Those who did have the benefits of education would have been taught Hebrew to enable them to read the Torah, unless they came from a fabulously wealthy aristocratic family in a major city. These fortunate few would have made up the bulk of the 3% of Palestine who could read. Moreover, most of the 3% who could read could not compose a sentence or a paragraph. Most of those who could compose a paragraph could not compose an entire book. Most of those who could compose a book could not do so in a foreign language, Greek. Most of those who could do so, could not compose it in elegant Greek.
--source

[JehovahsWitness]

... it is agree that [the gospels] were written in Greek - which means they were not written in Palestine.

• Linguistically, the Greek evidence shows how far Palestine in Jesus' time was a bilingual or multilingual society. - Prof James Barr University of Manchester

• How widespread the use of Koine was can be seen from the fact that the decrees of the imperial governors and of the Roman senate were translated into Koine to be distributed throughout the Roman Empire -Insight on the Scriptures Vol I

• “Although the main body of the Jewish people rejected Hellenism and its ways, intercourse with the Greek peoples and the use of the Greek language was by no means eschewed. . .” - Hellenism, by N. Bentwich, 1919, p. 115

• With little reservation, the speech community of first-century CE Palestine was almost certainly multilingual (with Greek as its lingua franca) - Hughson T. Ong, The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament

Re: ancient Palestine being a multilingual society, see Rydbeck, “Language,” 361–68; see also Fitzmyer, “Languages,” 501–31; James, Language of Palestine. See also Stanley E. Porter,Verbal Aspect, 111–56; Introduction The complex multilingualism of Palestine 11–38.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #263]


The most persuasive studies of the use of Greek in Galilee in particular have been produced by Mark Chancey, who shows that scholars who maintain that Greek was widely spoken in the first century have based their views on very slim evidence, in which Palestinian data from over a number of centuries have been generalized into claims about the use of Greek in Galilee in the first half of the first century. There is, in fact, scant evidence that Greek was widely used outside of the major urban areas. People living in rural areas spoke almost exclusively Aramaic.

So the consensus seems to be that Greek was indeed one of the languages of Palestine although not widely used {presumably this is refering to the Jewish population, as in the Greek cities in Palestine (populated obviously by Greek speaking gentilles, Greek was obviously spoken and written}

These and other studies have made it clear that there were few educated people in Palestine in the [1srlt century]. Those who did have the benefits of education would have been taught Hebrew to enable them to read the Torah, unless they came from a fabulously wealthy aristocratic family in a major city. These fortunate few would have made up the bulk of the 3% of Palestine who could read. Moreover, most of the 3% who could read could not compose a sentence or a paragraph. Most of those who could compose a paragraph could not compose an entire book. Most of those who could compose a book could not do so in a foreign language, Greek. Most of those who could do so., could not compose it in elegant Greek
--source

CONCLUSION Evidently there is no academic consensus on the extent to which Greek was used in Palestine but one thing is agreed on Greek was indeed one of the languaages of Palestine. This being the case it is NOT accurate to say the mere use of Greek indicates the gospels must have been written outside of Palestine.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #268]


Yes....but irrelevant. It is very much like another red - herring. But you may have thought it was a proper point.

Let's assume fsoa That the Gospel story was originally spoken in Aramaic (while talking about it) and it was either written in Greek or in aramaic and then translated into Greek. It is not actually the argument as to whether the Gospels are reliable/believable or not. Again I cite the problems. Not just the ones that make the stories dubious because of contradictions, but the ones that raise doubts because they only make sense in a Greek Christian context.

Right from the start, Herod, alarmed at talk of a King of the Jews, does not search out a birth in his court that could threaten him, but rushes to the scriptures for a messianic prophecy. It's obvious to anyone but 2,000 years of Bible scholars that this is Matthew inventing a story that was written from a Christian point of view. Which is why the story contradicts Luke and why it makes no sense, and is why the nativities are evidence as solid as the cetan sequence that contradictions are real and not just misunderstood.

That Matthew wrote Greek and did not read the scriptures in Hebrew is shown by his misunderstanding of the 'Virgin' and the 'Two donkeys'. I suspect the 'babes and sucklings' is wrong, too, but I must get around to Checking the Qumran version of Isaiah first. But that these writers did not understand Jewish culture and had to be Gentiles is shown by the silly tales about sabbath - breaking or the blasphemy charge. It is polemic for non - Jews to convince them not to listen to the Jews of the time who were arguing against Christianity.

There's also the thing about the Passover exchange custom, which on all evidence wasn't real, and a sprinkling of dust on this mess is the consistent deprecation (or worse) of Jews throughout and the suspicion that Nazareth did not exist at the time, and Bethlehem shows no archaeology for that date, and that the cities of Galilee are cursed (with the Jewish war) without good reason, as well as two major Galilean cities not even being mentioned - because they did not exist after the war when the first version of the Christian story was written - it had to be.

All the evidence points to a Greek Christian authorship of the NT and post Jewish war, too. That, and not whether any educated Jews could write in Greek, is the real case, and JW's point is irrelevant if not a red herring.

[fredonly]

CONCLUSION Evidently there is no academic consensus on the extent to which Greek was used in Palestine but one thing is agreed on Greek was indeed one of the languages of Palestine. This being the case it is NOT accurate to say the mere use of Greek indicates the gospels must have been written outside of Palestine.

Wrong.

Hughson T. Ong is a professor at an Evangelical Christian Bible college, not an institute that promotes critical scholarship and research. I read several of his published papers (see:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?us ... AAAJ&hl=en), and in these papers, he treats the Gospels as historically accurate – which is not the approach critical scholars use. He is an apologist, seeking to rationalize Christian beliefs – not a critical scholar seeking to follow the evidence where it leads.

Ong's book is available online, and he does not address the issue that Mark Chancey addresses: the language of rural areas.

"There is, in fact, scant evidence that Greek was widely used outside of the major urban areas. People living in rural areas spoke almost exclusively Aramaic."

Ong treats Palestine as a whole, and he draws conclusions based on this, and by accepting the Gospels as veridical, rather than critically. So these apologetic claims do not undercut anything I’ve said.

"It is true that Greek was spoken in the major cities of Galilee (all two of them) among the cultured elite. But Jesus was not from a major city and was not a member of the cultured elite. There is no evidence to indicate he ever (EVER!) went to one of the large cities of Galilee (Sepphoris or Tiberius), let alone that he was educated or cultured there, or took language classes at the local high school. Sepphoris is never, ever mentioned in the New Testament. It is not helpful to say that Jesus could / would have walked there from Nazareth. Most lower class rural people then (and now, for that matter, although things are much better since they invented bicycles, motorcycles, trains, and cars) did not travel *at all*. If someone was a common laborer, he worked six days a week. And he had no money for travel. And the one day a week that he could travel, if he was a Jew, because he did not have to work, he could not travel, because it was the Sabbath.

In Nazareth Jesus would have had zero reason to learn Greek, and probably no way to learn Greek. Rural Galilee was completely Jewish (culturally) and thoroughly Aramaic (linguistically). Read Chancey. Even when Jesus was an adult, there is no reference to him visiting a major city (until he goes to Jerusalem at the end of his life), or speaking Greek, or knowing Greek. He was a rural Jew in the Jewish hinterlands of Galilee. He almost certainly could not speak Greek. (His “customers” – if he was in fact a carpenter – or even if he was a stone mason or a blacksmith: the word used of his occupation in Mark 6 – TEKTON – could be any of the above – would have been rural Jews like him, who spoke Aramaic, not Greek speaking urbanites)." (source)

None of your analysis addresses the fact that the literacy rate in Palestine was low. Catherine Hezser researched this, and estimated that "total literacy in Palestine was probably around 3%; those who were literate were largely located in urban areas; some villages and towns had literacy rates of lower than 1%. In this connection Hezser makes the striking historical observation that 'the only literary works which can with certainty be attributed to Palestinian Jews of the first century C.E. are the writings of Josephus and the no longer extant works of his opponent Justus of Tiberias' (both of whom “received a Greek education and were influenced by Graeco-Roman writing”). Moreover, Hezser argues that “writing seems to have mostly – and perhaps almost exclusively — been used by the political, economic, and religious-intellectual elites in late Roman Palestine.”

Everything I've said, all my arguments, are based on the work of CRITICAL SCHOLARS - those who critically examine the materials without religious bias in order to derive probable history. Apologists seek to rationalize their beliefs - it doesn't undercut historical arguments based on critical analysis.