Between Resurrection and Ascension

[cloudyday2]

What do you imagine for the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus?

For example, here are some questions I have wished I could answer:
(1) Luke suggests the Ascension happened on the same day as the Resurrection, and Acts says there were 40 days between. Luke and Acts are credited to the same person, so this difference is a mystery.
(2) During these 40 days (if they were 40 days), was Jesus living and eating and sleeping with his disciples and answering their questions regarding theology, organization, and practices of the future Church - sort of like a 40 day intensive training class? Or was Jesus appearing unexpectedly to random people following the pattern of the few appearances described in the gospels?
(3) Why is there no more information about the appearance to 500 disciples simultaneously that is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7? How could such an event be ignored by the gospel writers?
(4) Why are there no teachings of Jesus attributed to that time period?

That's just an example. What do you imagine happened between the Resurrection and the Ascension?

 

[solid_core]

What do you imagine for the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus?

For example, here are some questions I have wished I could answer:
(1) Luke suggests the Ascension happened on the same day as the Resurrection, and Acts says there were 40 days between. Luke and Acts are credited to the same person, so this difference is a mystery.
(2) During these 40 days (if they were 40 days), was Jesus living and eating and sleeping with his disciples and answering their questions regarding theology, organization, and practices of the future Church - sort of like a 40 day intensive training class? Or was Jesus appearing unexpectedly to random people following the pattern of the few appearances described in the gospels?
(3) Why is there no more information about the appearance to 500 disciples simultaneously that is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7? How could such an event be ignored by the gospel writers?
(4) Why are there no teachings of Jesus attributed to that time period?

That's just an example. What do you imagine happened between the Resurrection and the Ascension?

I would go with personal witnesses as the primary source (Matthew, John) and historians like Luke who only collected some unknown sources would go second.

It happens many times that Luke quotes for example Jesus's sayings without a context or even in a wrong context, while Matthew puts them in proper place.

 

[ewq1938]

I would go with personal witnesses as the primary source (Matthew, John) and historians like Luke who only collected some unknown sources would go second.

Luke was an eyewitness and so too were the people he spoke to.

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[solid_core]

Luke was an eyewitness and so too were the people he spoke to.

Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Its a weird translation. Luke was not an eyewitness, its a common accepted historical knowledge.

"just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
NIV

- Luke is saying that he tried to study sources written by the eyewitnesses, not that he includes himself to be in the group of eyewitnesses

 

[ewq1938]

Its a weird translation.

It says the same thing in the Greek manuscripts so this isn't a translation issue.

Luke was not an eyewitness, its a common accepted historical knowledge.

He was an eyewitness.

"just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
NIV

- Luke is saying that he tried to study sources written by the eyewitnesses, not that he includes himself to be in the group of eyewitnesses

Care to explain the scripture you did not comment on?

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Perfect knowledge of all things from the first means he was an eyewitness.

 

[solid_core]

It says the same thing in the Greek manuscripts so this isn't a translation issue.



He was an eyewitness.




Care to explain the scripture you did not comment on?

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Perfect knowledge of all things from the first means he was an eyewitness.

These 3 verses are not our only source of knowledge about Luke. So even if you believe these verses are ambigous in Greek, to read them in your way would contradict other sources.

Saint Luke | Facts & History

If Luke was an eyewitness, it would make no sense that so many of Christ's teachings are simply collected together without a context in the gospel of Luke.

 

[solid_core]

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
.

"With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus..."
NIV

ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε

There is no word "perfect", no word "understanding" etc. in the Greek text, so again, I do not know what translation you use, but its wording is weird.

 

[cloudyday2]

I would go with personal witnesses as the primary source (Matthew, John) and historians like Luke who only collected some unknown sources would go second.

It happens many times that Luke quotes for example Jesus's sayings without a context or even in a wrong context, while Matthew puts them in proper place.

It seems difficult to say that one gospel is more reliable than another gospel. John was the last gospel written, so I would consider it to be the least reliable. But there are also edits made after the initial composition. Luke-Acts has two versions that differ in size by 20%, so maybe the initial composition of Luke-Acts predates John, but the Luke-Acts in our Bibles might have edits that happened after the composition of John. So maybe that makes John more reliable than Luke?

 

[ewq1938]

"With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus..."
NIV

ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε

There is no word "perfect", no word "understanding" etc. in the Greek text, so again, I do not know what translation you use, but its wording is weird.

Yes those words are in the manuscripts, mainly the Textus Receptus.

perfect
G199
ἀκριβῶς
akribōs
ak-ree-boce'
Adverb from the same as G196; exactly: - circumspectly, diligently, perfect (-ly).
Total KJV occurrences: 5


Understanding
G199
ἀκριβῶς
akribōs
ak-ree-boce'
Adverb from the same as G196; exactly: - circumspectly, diligently, perfect (-ly).
Total KJV occurrences: 5

Using the NIV won't help in this situation because it's a terrible translation and doesn't use all the words found in the manuscripts.

 

[solid_core]

It seems difficult to say that one gospel is more reliable than another gospel. John was the last gospel written, so I would consider it to be the least reliable. But there are also edits made after the initial composition. Luke-Acts has two versions that differ in size by 20%, so maybe the initial composition of Luke-Acts predates John, but the Luke-Acts in our Bibles might have edits that happened after the composition of John. So maybe that makes John more reliable than Luke?

Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic, i.e. similar gospels with many differences and disprepancies between them. From those three I think Matthew is the most reliable. Mark does not care about order and Luke cares about order, but has everything from second hands.

John stands quite alone in his concentration on Christology instead of "where" and "when".

 

[solid_core]

Yes those words are in the manuscripts, mainly the Textus Receptus.

Textus Receptus is irrelevant. Its of no authority today. But in this verse there is no difference between the Textus Receptus and other, better editions.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:3 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε,

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:3 Greek NT: Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ἔδοξε κἀμοί, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε,

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:3 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε

Locate the "perfect understanding" part in the Greek for me, if you see it there.

 

[cloudyday2]

Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic, i.e. similar gospels with many differences and disprepancies between them. From those three I think Matthew is the most reliable. Mark does not care about order and Luke cares about order, but has everything from second hands.

John stands quite alone in his concentration on Christology instead of "where" and "when".

I like Matthew best also, but I'm not sure if "reliable" is an applicable word to apply to any of the gospels. Q seems the most reliable, and Matthew has a lot of Q in it. I think the earliest version of Matthew was in fact the missing Q gospel and it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Then I think somebody tried to merge Matthew version 1 with Mark to create Matthew version 2, and that is what we have today. Probably somebody thought it would be nice to have a single gospel that combined the two in circulation at that time. But that's just my wild theory. Papias describes Matthew as a saying gospel written in Hebrew which is obviously not what we have today, but maybe Papias was describing Matthew version 1. Papias was born in 60 CE, so maybe in his 20s the Matthew he knew was version 1. FWIW

 

[solid_core]

I like Matthew best also, but I'm not sure if "reliable" is an applicable word to apply to any of the gospels. Q seems the most reliable, and Matthew has a lot of Q in it. I think the earliest version of Matthew was in fact the missing Q gospel and it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Then I think somebody tried to merge Matthew version 1 with Mark to create Matthew version 2, and that is what we have today. Probably somebody thought it would be nice to have a single gospel that combined the two in circulation at that time. But that's just my wild theory.

I have read that the Q theory is abandoned now.

If we would be traditional, the first Church historians put it as:

1. Matthew wrote short Hebrew gospel which is lost now.
2. Matthew wrote Greek gospel we have today
3. Mark wrote his gospel, main source being Matthew, possibly some influence of Peter
4. Luke wrote his gospel, used "many sources" as he says, so very probably the gospels of Mattew and Mark, too
5. John wrote his gospel as the last one of them

 

[cloudyday2]

I have read that the Q theory is abandoned now.

If we would be traditional, the first Church historians put it as:

1. Matthew wrote short Hebrew gospel which is lost now.
2. Matthew wrote Greek gospel we have today
3. Mark wrote his gospel, main source being Matthew, possibly some influence of Peter
4. Luke wrote his gospel, used "many sources" as he says, so very probably the gospels of Mattew and Mark, too
5. John wrote his gospel as the last one of them

That is basically what I think too.
- Matthew version 1.0 was sayings written in Hebrew and identical to Q.
- Mark was written as a narrative in Greek.
- Somebody upgraded Matthew by translating to Greek and merging with Mark.

So it's not quite the same idea, but pretty close. That would explain why Q is missing - it was an early version of Matthew. The content changed but the name stayed the same.

 

[solid_core]

That is basically what I think too.
- Matthew version 1.0 was sayings written in Hebrew and identical to Q.
- Mark was written as a narrative in Greek.
- Somebody upgraded Matthew by translating to Greek and merging with Mark.

So it's not quite the same idea, but pretty close. That would explain why Q is missing - it was an early version of Matthew. The content changed but the name stayed the same.

If we take into consideration that Paul quotes the gospel of Luke several times in letters he wrote in roughly 50 AD, then we have very interesting early dates for Matthew, Mark and Luke, possibly around 40 AD.

And the Hebrew Matthew or Q, if it existed, would be very close to the life of Jesus. I think its also a plausible idea that Matthew was already making some notes during the life time of Jesus, in Hebrew. Other apostles probably too, I do not think that John would rememebered so many teachings several decades later.

 

[cloudyday2]

If we take into consideration that Paul quotes the gospel of Luke several times in letters he wrote in roughly 50 AD, then we have very interesting early dates for Matthew, Mark and Luke, possibly around 40 AD.

Which of Paul's verses quote Luke? I searched and found 1 Timothy 5:17-18 "the worker deserves his wages".

And the Hebrew Matthew or Q, if it existed, would be very close to the life of Jesus. I think its also a plausible idea that Matthew was already making some notes during the life time of Jesus, in Hebrew. Other apostles probably too, I do not think that John would rememebered so many teachings several decades later.

One indication might be sayings that appear in Thomas and also in the synoptics. If they are very similar then that would indicate a common written source or one quoting the other, but if they are paraphrases then maybe it was an oral memory?

 

[PloverWing]

I have read that the Q theory is abandoned now.

Interesting. Last I heard, the theory that has Mark and Q as the two original sources was held by a majority of scholars. It's always possible, though, that there have been developments in the last decade that I didn't hear about. Where did you read about the Q theory being abandoned?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you imagine for the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus?

For example, here are some questions I have wished I could answer:
(1) Luke suggests the Ascension happened on the same day as the Resurrection, and Acts says there were 40 days between. Luke and Acts are credited to the same person, so this difference is a mystery.

Most likely, given the fact that there's little doubt that they were written by the same author, that Luke is a more abbreviated account and simply omits this information, not that the author forgot this information or provides two competing narratives--omission and silence are sometimes only omission and silence, and mean nothing more than that.

(2) During these 40 days (if they were 40 days), was Jesus living and eating and sleeping with his disciples and answering their questions regarding theology, organization, and practices of the future Church - sort of like a 40 day intensive training class? Or was Jesus appearing unexpectedly to random people following the pattern of the few appearances described in the gospels?

Simply put, outside of what the Evangelists tell us, there's no way to know. That He was doing a bit of both, showing Himself to certain followers and teaching the Apostles is a fair speculation, it may even be true, but we just don't know.

(3) Why is there no more information about the appearance to 500 disciples simultaneously that is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7? How could such an event be ignored by the gospel writers?

The Gospels aren't detail-rich biographies, they are Gospels. As such each of the Evangelists tells the story their own way, with the details they think are most important for the purposes they were writing. Paul assumes his readers in Corinth are familiar with the details he shares, such as the appearing before five hundred; so it's fair to assume that this was a well understood part of the Jesus story which early Christians were already familiar with. Why none of the Evangelists mention it is anyone's guess, though I'd argue that given the Evangelists had their own reasons for writing down the Jesus story that whatever may or may not have been known about this episode simply wasn't considered necessary to write.

(4) Why are there no teachings of Jesus attributed to that time period?

Well, there are. The Evangelists do have Jesus talking and teaching after His resurrection and before His ascension. It is here that Jesus instructs the Apostles to preach the Gospel, baptize, make disciples, to be His witnesses, gives them the authority to pronounce forgiveness of sins, etc. What the post-resurrection accounts do seem to be doing, each in different ways, is to point to the continuing purpose of the Christian community and offer an invitation to come continue Jesus' story in the world.

The abruptness we see in Matthew after the Great Commission, Mark seemingly ending with the aw and wonder at the empty tomb (depending on whether one considers the longer ending of Mark authentic or not), John having Jesus instruct Peter to care for His sheep. It's like the Evangelists have their own way of ending their accounts with a kind of ellipses, which invites the reader to ponder, and to participate, and opens the way forward to the ongoing story of Jesus through His Church in the world. His absence from the world is not real absence, He remains present through His people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[solid_core]

Interesting. Last I heard, the theory that has Mark and Q as the two original sources was held by a majority of scholars. It's always possible, though, that there have been developments in the last decade that I didn't hear about. Where did you read about the Q theory being abandoned?

I am not sure. I tried to google it but I did not find it. So maybe the source article was not so imporant and the Q still stands.

 

[solid_core]

Which of Paul's verses quote Luke? I searched and found 1 Timothy 5:17-18 "the worker deserves his wages".

1Cor 11:23-26, Paul describes the Lord's Supper as a remembrance of Him, which is in Luke.