the ‘ascension’ is nothing more than this appearance of the risen Christ to
his assembled disciples.”).
At most, to speak as Paul, the resurrection of Jesus represents, in Luke-
Acts, the first occurrence of a general event (cf. 1Cor. 15:20). In this regard,
Jesus in Luke-Acts would be simply primus inter pareseschatologically. Luke
continues early Christian and Jewish discourse about the resurrection of the
dead as one of the signs of the end of the world in its current manifesta-
tion. But—this is my main point—Luke does not use the language of res-
urrection in order to characterize what would be unique or even especially
notable about Jesus. Rather, it is Jesus’ ascension that renders him a sin-
gular figure in Luke-Acts. In fact, it seems to me that, for the evangelist,
Jesus’ resurrection merely serves to undo the evident injustice of his death;
just as previously in the gospel, Jesus, and subsequently in Acts, the apos-
tles occasionally bring dead people back to life in order to rectify their
undeserved or premature demise.
Consider, then, the extent to which Jesus’ ascension in Luke-Acts is
recounted as a Roman imperial apotheosis. It is hardly identical (cf. Bick-
ermann 1929). Not merely the soul, in Jesus’ case, is supposed to have
gone skyward, but the whole carnal carriage. No bird (eagle) was on hand
to register the successful transfer. Jesus is supposed to have undergone his
translation when (once again) alive. On the other hand, the whole point of
apotheosis was to claim a greater ongoing life for the (ostensibly) deceased.
In claiming that Jesus’ ascension in Luke-Acts is like a Roman impe-
rial apotheosis, I understand both ascension and apotheosis to be forms of
the ancient notion of assumption versus any attempt to distinguish between
the latter and ascension (cf., e.g., Plevnik 1984, esp. p. 278n. 16; D.A. Smith
2001, 89). Jesus is described here, in the standard language of ancient
assumption narratives, as having been “borne up to heaven” (anephereto
eis ton ouranon, Luke 24:51; see, further, Acts 1:9: epêrthê kai nephelê hypelaben
auton;1:11: houtos o Iêsous ho analemphtheis...eis ton ouranon); after which
the disciples, who were with Jesus at his take-off site, are said to have
“worshipped him” (proskynêsantes auton) before returning to Jerusalem
(Luke 24:52; cf. Lohfink 1971, 48f.). Most importantly, once Jesus’ farewell
speech has been delivered in Acts 1:9, it is underscored that the disciples
“saw him” as he was “lifted up” (kai tauta eipôn blepontôn autôn epêrthê) until
a cloud obscured their view. In fact, it could hardly be underscored more
emphatically that indeed Jesus was seenascending into heaven: “And...
while they were watching (blepontôn autôn)...a cloud took him away from
their eyes (apo tôn ophthalmôn autôn) and as they were staring (atenizontes)
into heaven...why do you stand looking (blepontes) into heaven...in the
Why Christianity Succeeded (in) the Roman Empire 263