same manner you observed (etheasasthe) him going into heaven” (Acts
1:9–11). Such eyewitness testimony was considered essential for ratifica-
tion of any imperial apotheosis (Bickermann 1929, 8f; cf. Suetonius, Aug.
100.4; Dio Cass. 56.46.2; 59.11.4; Justin, 1 Apol. 1.21; Tatian, Ad Gr.10; Ter-
tullian,Spect.30.3). Indeed, so essential, or stereotypical, a feature of Roman
imperial apotheosis was such confirmation by eyewitness that this became
the stuff of satire (see, e.g., Seneca, Apocol.1; Sullivan 1986, 221). Finally,
another aspect of Jesus’ ascension in Luke-Acts, which corresponds to
accounts of Roman imperial apotheosis, is the concluding “heavenly con-
firmation” of the translation in Acts 1:10–11 (cf. Lohfink 1971, 45f.).
Use of the verb anapherein(Luke 24:51 together with diistênai;also, in
Luke-Acts, analambanein:Acts 1:2, 11; Luke 9:51, and epairein:Acts 1:9) as
well as the language of disappearance (nephelê hypelaben auton apo tôn oph-
thalmôn autôn: Acts 1:9; cf. Luke 24:31: aphantos) are typical of the toposof
heavenly assumption in antiquity (Lohfink 1971:41–42; for use of ana-
phereinplus the prepositional phrase eis ton ouranon,see Plutarch, Num.2.3;
Antoninus Liberalis 25; scholion on Apollonios Rhodios, Argon.4.57, ed. Keil;
also Dio Cass. 56.42). Lohfink notes, however, that the verb analambanein,
which is “Luke’s own terminus technicusfor the ascension of Jesus, plays no
role in Greek assumption texts” (1971:42).
Daniel A. Smith (2001, 88, 108n. 44) claims that the category of assump-
tion should not include Roman imperial apotheosis. Nevertheless, as Smith
himself otherwise argues (2001, 88f and passim), since assumption was
possible not only before or escaping death but also after death, I fail to
understand why Roman imperial apotheosis would not be another type of
post-mortem assumption. This is, in fact, the perspective of Lohfink (1971,
37–41).
It has been debated whether the phrases, kai anephereto eis ton ouranon
andproskynêsantes auton,were originally found respectively in Luke 24:51 and
24:52. Scholars who favour their absence, i.e., the shorter reading or West-
ern “non-interpolation” as the more original text, include Mikeal C. Parsons
(1986; 1987, 29–52) and Bart D. Ehrman (1993, 227–33; cf. Zwiep 1996,
220n. 9). Against this position in favour of both phrases or the longer
Alexandrian reading as the more original text, Zwiep has argued that the
Western reviser removed these phrases together with other modifications
in order to eliminate “any suggestion that Jesus ascended physically—
with a body of flesh and bones—into heaven,” reflecting second- and third-
century criticism of “belief in a physical, observable ascension...in gnostic
and docetic circles” (1996, 243). The motive for these emendations, how-
ever, may not have been only theological but also political, namely, to elim-
nora
(Nora)
#1