Mark, Luke, And Acts: The Ascension

Matthew 28 ends with the Great Commission; it does not even hint at the Ascension of Jesus to heaven on its own.  Similarly, John 21 does not address the Ascension.  Vitally, it does nonetheless anticipate the Ascension (John 20:17).  Both of these books end with Jesus having resurrected but still on Earth, interacting with his followers.  Mark, Luke, and Acts are where one finds actual accounts of the Ascension as opposed to various events leading up to it--but Luke's version might initially seem to contradict that of Acts.  Of relevance is the fact that the oldest manuscripts of Mark are supposed to not contain verses 16:9-20, which include the Ascension, much like the original gospel of John is supposed to not contain 8:1-11.  All the same, regardless of whether these verses are truly part of the Bible as originally intended, they are very plainly consistent with Acts.

Mark 16:9-20 does not present anything more than a sequence of events, saying nothing about how chronologically close together in timing Jesus appeared to two of his followers walking in the country after his resurrection (Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-32), appeared to the Eleven altogether (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:33-49), and ascended to heaven (Mark 16:19-20, Luke 24:50-53).  It uses terms like "Afterward" or "Later" in the NIV without conveying the passage of any precise amount of time between these things.  The literal statements of the text are compatible with the Ascension happening within a small number of days after the crucifixion or more than a month later, or any amount of time in between.  Thus, Mark 16 in no way limits the series of appearances of the resurrected Christ to Mary Magdalene, whom is visited first (Mark 16:9-11), the two travelers on the road, and all of the Eleven to the same day.

What about the book of Acts, addressed to the very same Theophilus as the gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2)?  Acts 1:1-3 is rather clear in insisting that Jesus appeared to different people across a 40 day period prior to his ascension to heaven.  Only at the end of this time does he leave his disciples for God's dwelling place (1:4-11), with angelic beings telling the disciples that he will return physically and visibly just as he departed.  These details do not contradict anything in Mark.  Likewise, they do not contradict those of Matthew, but this would be by default, since Matthew contains little direct information about the Ascension whatsoever.  At most, John 20:24-27 only establishes that its author says Jesus appeared to Thomas at least a week after the resurrection, consistent with Acts 1.  Why, then, does Luke 24, seemingly written by the same author as Acts, tell its story as if the Ascension happened on the same day as the resurrection?

Now, consistency with reason and itself (which is still a subset of consistency with logical axioms and other necessary truths, which render contradictions false) does not make something true, but it makes it possible.  Contradiction renders at least one of the conflicting concepts false.  In the case of logical axioms and by extension all other necessary truths rooted in them, the falsity of axioms is impossible, since it still requires their veracity.  There is no exception where their non-truth even could be correct (i.e., it would still follow logically from the nature of reality that nothing follows by logical necessity from anything if the latter was true, and thus it cannot be).  In all other cases, it just intrinsically requires that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true simultaneously; an individual idea is only false if reason necessitates otherwise and so the idea contradicts this, which reduces down to the inherent truth of logical axioms.

Luke truly contradicting Acts would mean the author contradicts himself, if he indeed wrote both as the texts themselves suggest.  There is nothing logically impossible about either account being true on its own even if they did exclude each other.  Nevertheless, it would still have nothing to do with whether Matthew or Mark or John are false, just as Matthew or Mark or John contradicting the Torah would not mean that the Torah is false in its narratives or moral prescriptions.  Luke conflicting with Acts would merely necessitate that at least Luke cannot be true if Acts is.  It does not even require that Acts is false as opposed to Luke or vice versa.  They just both could not be correct at once.  Jesus could not have singularly ascended 40 days after his resurrection and also have singularly ascended the same day all.  

Is the latter genuinely what Luke teaches, though?  Luke 24:1-16 does directly teach that Jesus appeared to two disciples on their walk after Mary Magdalene and two other women found the empty tomb.  Verses 17-34 detail how the two travelers go to the Eleven that same day and tell them about the resurrection.  Verse 36 says that Jesus appears to all of them while they are still speaking and introduces a scene that lasts until verse 49.  Verse 50 of Luke 24 could be intended to simply communicate that Jesus led the Eleven out to the vicinity of Bethany at some time after revealing his resurrected body to them, though the text does indeed imply as much.  At the same time, nothing about Jesus ascending multiple times contradicts any of the gospel accounts.  He is already said to vanish and appear after his resurrection (Luke 24:30-31, 36-37, John 20:19-20), and there is nothing impossible about ascending more than once as long as the departure in Acts 1 really is the final ascension until the Second Coming.