Luke 24 Footnotes

24:13-35 Though Luke told this story in his characteristic style and emphasized themes important to him, several factors argue that the story itself is historical and that he received it from an earlier source. (1) It presents the first resurrection appearance as happening to two otherwise unknown, non-apostolic Christians. (2) It names one of them. (3) The appearance was less than spectacular or immediately convincing, and the travelers were hardly anticipating it—both facts difficult to reconcile with a theory of purposeful invention. (4) The wealth of detail (such as the location of Emmaus) is not consistent with a story invented to prove the resurrection but is in keeping with an eyewitness account (1:2).

24:36-43 The Gospels record several resurrection appearances that are at once similar and difficult to reconcile with one another. Matthew’s account seems the most summarized, whereas the accounts in Luke and John are the most detailed (they appear to use a common source for some of their material). Any relative discrepancies can be accounted for by the different focuses and the necessary summarizing tendencies of all the Gospel writers.

It is clear from a comparison that the following occurred. (1) A group of women that included Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb early Sunday morning (Mt 28:1-7; Mk 16:1-7; Lk 24:1-9; Jn 20:1). (2) The women reported the discovery to the other disciples, particularly Peter and John (Lk 24:10-11; Jn 20:2). (3) Jesus appeared to the women sometime after the report to the disciples (Mt 28:8-10; Jn 20:11-18). (4) Peter and John investigated the empty tomb for themselves (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:3-10). (5) Jesus appeared to the group of disciples later that evening (Lk 24:36-43; Jn 20:19-23). Luke added the episode on the road to Emmaus, while John added the appearance to Thomas eight days after the resurrection. Matthew and John then both reported encounters with Jesus in Galilee, the one on a mountain and the other at the Sea of Galilee, both of which must have taken place sometime later.

24:50-53 That the ascension was recorded only by Luke has led many scholars to doubt its historicity. But whereas the resurrection is sufficient to conclude the other Gospels, Luke’s narrative continues in the book of Acts, as he recorded the early history of the Spirit-empowered church. The other Gospel writers had less incentive to narrate the ascension than did Luke, for whom it formed the presupposition to the pouring out of the Spirit. The ascension is taken for granted elsewhere in the NT (Jn 20:17; 1Co 15:25; Eph 4:8-10; 1Tm 3:16; Heb 4:14; 1Pt 3:22).