The ‘Ascension’ of Jesus?

[Abdullah]

According to the earliest full Bible manuscript Codex Sinaiticus , Jesus (peace be upon him) never ‘Ascended’ to heavan ; Mark ends at 16:8 and does not include Mark 16:19 which reads:

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

And Luke Luke 24 :51 does not include the phrase taken up into heaven., James Bentley writes:

The scribe who brought Mark's Gospel to an end in Codex Sinaiticus had no doubt that it finished at chapter 16, verse 8. He underlined the text with a fine artistic squiggle, and wrote, "The Gospel according to Mark." Immediately following begins the Gospel of Luke ( Secrets of Mt. Sinai, James Bentley p. 139)

Ironically, the subject of the Ascension of Jesus Christ is untouched by St. Matthew and St. John in their Gospels and according to textual critic C.S.C. Williams, if the omissions in Codex Sinaiticus are correct there are no references of Ascension in the Gospel text:

The evidence of the manuscript from Mount Sinai was proving more and more difficult to digest. In the received text, Luke chapter 24, verse 51, tells how Jesus left his disciples after his resurrection. He blessed them, was parted from them, 'and was carried up into heaven'. Sinaiticus omits the final clause. As the textual critic C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission is correct, 'there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the original text of the Gospels'.

(The Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bently, pg 131

So if Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't 'Ascend' to heavan, where did he go?

[PatrickHenry]

So literal...

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Abdullah So if Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't 'Ascend' to heavan, where did he go?

Great OP, Abdullah.

If Jesus were a real historical figure, after having recovered for several weeks after his brutal ordeal, and now capable of walking around, so much so that he could visit his deciples, he probably left all Roman occupied lands, most probably going East. And, I would bet he walked or rode an animal as any mortal man would do.

If he did not exist in the first place, then he didn`t go anywhere because he never came from somewhere -- except from the mind of fraudsters.

I lean towards the latter of the two choices.

[ItsDarts]

Here is a snippet from C.A.R.M. one of the more rational apologetic sites on the net (IMHO), even they "can't explain it away"....

It is found in many old manuscripts but is omitted in two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and Sinaiticus (375 AD). Additionally, there is another ending to Mark in some old manuscripts that is substituted for 9-20. The alternate ending reads as follows: "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." Some scholars have asserted that the ending is in a different style than the rest of the gospel and that it contains 16-22 "non-marcan" words used in a "non-marcan" sense. It seems to suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form (v. 12) which could be problematic since Jesus rose in the same body He died in (John 2:19-21). Also, Mark 16:16 can be interpreted to mean that baptism is part of salvation. It isn't as is testified by verses that teach justification by faith Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). Whichever the case, the dispute is not settled and may never be.

What's odd is they just kind of ignore it, if you ask me. Another glaring fact is that these "earliest manuscripts" are roughly 320 years AFTER THE FACT, plenty of time for even those manuscipts to be "edited".

I must give credit to the Bible Gateway and the writers of the NIV of the bible for pointing out and admitting that these verses are in question. If you look up the KJV, it is not noted, also the King James 21 century addition doesn't mention this either. Apparently the King James people don't consider this an issue. Granted, most of the bible is pretty original based on what manuscripts are available and the message still carries, but I hardly think anyone can honestly claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God.

It COULD be (putting on speculation hat) that the Codex's are the earliest corrupted version of the bible. But like CARM says, we may never know.

[Apologist]

Itsdarts,
I believe your question regarding the verses at the end of Mark is answered in your post. The quote says that some scholars believe that the questioned verses are non-marcon styled when compared to the previous literature in Mark. Therefore, it seems they might have been added. I'm not one to believe that the Bible's text is without error however, I do believe that it was when it was originally wrote. Also, Josh McDowell did an excellent job at comparing the present Old Testament text and some of the New Testament to the dead sea scrolls, and there was very little in the way of differences.

Visit this site. Ancient NT Manuscripts

Also, regarding the ascension of Jesus. What about the latter texts involving Jesus' ascension? Acts 1:2, Acts 1:9, Acts 1:22 to name a few.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Apologist Itsdarts, I believe your question regarding the verses at the end of Mark is answered in your post. The quote says that some scholars believe that the questioned verses are non-marcon styled when compared to the previous literature in Mark. Therefore, it seems they might have been added.

OK, this is all that I was saying. These verses have been added.

I'm not one to believe that the Bible's text is without error however, I do believe that it was when it was originally wrote.

Not sure what you mean by this, but if you are saying you believe the manuscipts of the various books of the NT were written at the times listed on the link you referenced, then I'm not in a position to dispute much of that link except to say the the Dead Sea scrolls didn't have this version of Matthew. There were only small portions of matthew recovered.

Also, Josh McDowell did an excellent job at comparing the present Old Testament text and some of the New Testament to the dead sea scrolls, and there was very little in the way of differences.

Again, the verses in question weren't in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so this point is moot.

Visit this site. Ancient NT Manuscripts Also, regarding the ascension of Jesus. What about the latter texts involving Jesus' ascension? Acts 1:2, Acts 1:9, Acts 1:22 to name a few.

As the CARM site said, this is problematic since Matthew is saying that Jesus was risen "in another form" and all other accounts say he rose as Himself. I was only pointing out that the Bible is not the inerrant word of god as many christians like to believe.

[Apologist]

Quote by: ItsDarts Not sure what you mean by this, but if you are saying you believe the manuscipts of the various books of the NT were written at the times listed on the link you referenced, then I'm not in a position to dispute much of that link except to say the the Dead Sea scrolls didn't have this version of Matthew. As the CARM site said, this is problematic since Matthew is saying that Jesus was risen "in another form" and all other accounts say he rose as Himself. I was only pointing out that the Bible is not the inerrant word of god as many christians like to believe.

I believe that when the Apostles and all the writers of the New Testament originally wrote the text, it was inerrant. If scholars say it doesn't fit the previous text, then it was probably added. I don't believe that the current versions of the Bible are inerrant.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Apologist I believe that when the Apostles and all the writers of the New Testament originally wrote the text, it was inerrant. If scholars say it doesn't fit the previous text, then it was probably added. I don't believe that the current versions of the Bible are inerrant.

So the KJV is inerrant even though it includes the added verses? The rest of it is inerrant even though the earliest writings were 30 years after the fact and some stuff (gospel of john) wasn't written til 125 to 150ad? Boy these people must have "Exceptional memory skills" if you ask me. None of it was written during the supposed life of Jesus, why do you suppose that is?

[Apologist]

I never said the KJV is inerrant. Where did you get that from?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Apologist I never said the KJV is inerrant. Where did you get that from?

My bad, I mis-read this quote..."I don't believe that the current versions of the Bible are inerrant."... I was at work and in a hurry LOL....

My whole point is that none of the extant manuscripts are earlier than 300 to 350 years after the fact. Its claimed that the earliest writings ever were 30 to 150 years AFTER the fact. How can anyone trust what one person or a nimber of people said 30 years later? This leaves lots of room for embelishment. In a court of law, this is called Hearsay. I'm not sure how old you are, but I can't remember every lesson my dad taught me 30 years ago...