The Muslim Claim:
Ascension of Lord Jesus
It is not mentioned in
Four Gospels
Translators changed text
My Response:
There is no credible documentary evidence that I have ever seen which would confirm your assertion.
Muslim Reply:
ASCENSION OF JESUS
Ascension of Jesus can’t be proved from the four gospels and Acts.
Matthew is completely silent on the subject.
John is also silent but it appears from his following statement that perhaps he did not want to go into the details. John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Mark tells his vision as he saw Jesus on the right hand of God.
The case of Luke and Acts is quite complicated. Both Luke and Acts were written by Luke and both did not mention Ascension in Greek version.
Luke and Acts were both modified by translators to include it.
Luke 24:50-51 is quoted as under according to Greek version.
“And he led out them until toward Bethny and lifting up his arms he blessed them. And it came to pass in the blessing him he withdrew from them while he blessed.”
To compare it, Luke 24:50, 51 is quoted hereunder:
“When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany he lifted up his hands (51) While he was blessing them he left them AND WAS TAKEN UP INTO HEAVENS”
The words in capital letters at the end of verse 51 were added by the translators.
Similarly in Acts 1:2 the words “he was taken up” had been added.
The above modifications have been discussed by famous Bible scholar Mr. F. F. Bruce, a professor of University of Manchester in his book titled The New Testament Documents. Are they reliable?
We quote page 24 of his book as under:
“When the four gospels were gathered in one volume it meant the severance together of the two parts of Luke history. When Luke and Acts were thus separated, one or two MODIFICATIONS were apparently introduced into the TEXT at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts.
“Originally Luke SEEMS to have left all mention of ascension to his second treatise, now the words “AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVENS” were added in Luke 24:51 to round off the narrative and IN CONSEQUENCE “WAS TAKEN UP” was added to ACTS 1:2.
“Thus the inconsistencies which some have detected between the accounts of Ascension in LUKE and ACTS are most likely due to the ADJUSTMENTS made when the books were separated from each other.”
The confession by F. F. Bruce about the modification in text by the translators is greatly appreciated as it reveals that in Greek manuscripts of Luke and Acts it did not existed.
The Ascension can’t be proved from gospels and we still have to search the place Jesus went after 40 days of his saving from death on the cross and coming out of Tomb!
My Refutation of Muslim Claim:
From the same book by F. F. Bruce:
The date of the writing of Acts will depend on the date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first.
Bruce, F. F. (2018). The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (pp. 17–18). Kingsley Books.
From the same book by Bruce:
When the four Gospels were gathered together in one volume, it meant the severance of the two parts of Luke’s history. When Luke and Acts were thus separated, one or two modifications were apparently introduced into the text at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts. Originally Luke seems to have left all mention of the ascension to his second treatise; now the words ‘and was carried up into heaven’ were added in Luke 24:51, to round off the narrative, and in consequence ‘was taken up’ was added in Acts 1:2. Thus the incongruities which some have detected between the accounts of the ascension in Luke and Acts are most likely due to these adjustments made when the two books were separated from each other.
Acts, however, naturally shared the authority and prestige of the third Gospel, being the work of the same author, and was apparently received as canonical by all except Marcion and his followers. Indeed, Acts occupied a very important place in the New Testament canon…
Bruce, F. F. (2018). The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (p. 30). Kingsley Books.
I choose to disagree with F. F. Bruce regarding his statement that “Originally Luke seems to have left all mention of the ascension to his second treatise” because:
(1) Regardless of the proposed status of Acts 1:2, the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ is reported in full later in the same chapter, Acts 1:9-11,
Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
(2) What F. F. Bruce claims about the separation of the book of Acts from the Gospel of Luke,
“When the four Gospels were gathered together in one volume, it meant the severance of the two parts of Luke’s history. When Luke and Acts were thus separated, one or two modifications were apparently introduced into the text at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts.”
assumes that Luke and Acts comprised a single manuscript volume. The likelihood of this is nil, because:
(a) Manuscript rolls were not made to be this length.
(b) The internal testimony of the text of Acts indicates it was written separately at a later time than Luke,
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
(c) F. F. Bruce admits this in my first citation from his book above:
“The date of the writing of Acts will depend on the date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first.”
(3) There is no textual evidence that supports Bruce’s claim that Luke originally had a different ending than it does now or that Acts had a different beginning than it does now. Bruce’s claim is based on conjecture not on textual evidence based on extant early manuscripts.
My statement can be verified by consulting Bruce Metger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament with reference to Luke 24:51,
24:51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν {B}
Here א* and geo1 join D and ita, , , , , , in supporting the shorter text. (The Sinaitic Syriac condenses ver. 51 by omitting διέστη and εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, reading ܘܟܕ ܒܪܟ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܬܪܝܡ ܡܢܗܘܢ “And while he blessed them, he was lifted up from them”; thus, though shortened, syrs still alludes to the ascension.) A minority of the Committee preferred the shorter reading, regarding the longer as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53).
The majority of the Committee, however, favored the longer reading for the following reasons. (1) The rhythm of the sentence seems to require the presence of such a clause (compare the two coordinate clauses joined with καί in ver. 50 and in verses 52–53). (2) Luke’s opening statement in Acts (“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up [ἀνελήμφθη]”) implies that he considered that he had made some reference, however brief, to the ascension at the close of his first book. (3) If the shorter text were original, it is difficult to account for the presence of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν in so many and such diversified witnesses, beginning with 75 about A.D. 200. (4) If the clause were a copyist’s addition, prompted by his noticing the implications of Ac 1:1–2 (see point (2) above), one would have expected him to adopt some form of the verb ἀναλαμβάνειν, used in Ac 1:2 and other passages referring to the ascension, rather than the less appropriate ἀναφέρειν, which in the New Testament ordinarily has the specialized meaning “to offer up.” Finally, (5) the omission of the clause in a few witnesses can be accounted for either (a) through accidental scribal oversight occasioned by homoeoarcton (καια … καια …) or (b) by deliberate excision, either (i) in order to relieve the apparent contradiction between this account (which seemingly places the ascension late Easter night) and the account in Ac 1:3–11 (which dates the ascension forty days after Easter), or (ii) in order to introduce a subtle theological differentiation between the Gospel and the Acts (i.e., the Western redactor, not approving of Luke’s mentioning the ascension twice, first to conclude the earthly ministry of Jesus, and again, in Acts, to inaugurate the church age, preferred to push all doxological representations of Jesus to a time after the ascension in Acts, and therefore deleted the clause in question as well as the words προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν from ver. 52—for when the account of the ascension has been eliminated, the mention of Jesus being worshipped seems less appropriate).
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 162–163). United Bible Societies.