Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Its too trusting of Tertullian to think that Marcion really had the scribes praising what Jesus said against the Sadducees. Since, obviously, if Jesus had said that each age has its own god, the scribes wouldn't praise that. The scribes praising the answer is Luke's invention, once he has changed the answer to support the Pharisaic version of the resurrection. Also, why would only Sadducees be targets of Marcion's polemic? That would only make sense if Pharisees didn't exist yet. If both Sadducees and Pharisees existed, then teaching two gods would make both of them polemical targets. Tertullian is not dealing straightforward with the text.

Yes, I think that it is a weak argument by Vinzent to emphasize the presence of sadducees and not of the scribes in the Jesus's answer.

But even so, I think that the ''enigma'' put by the sadducees is too much ridicolous even if the sadducees did mean it seriously. In Paul, the ''enigma'' put by the his opponents is too much ridicolous when they did ask: ''But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish!'' (verse 35).

The argument in Paul and in Mcn is that it is foolish to meditate about the nature (or the marriage affairs) of the risen bodies, since the our future bodies will be not more the our physical bodies, but entirely spiritual, ''like the angels in heaven''.

It seems an argument pro Mcn priority.

The " enigma " is a an excellent question which no one could answer then.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe in the resurrection of the body. The question is asking the believer to explain how this miracle should be understood .

Islam provides one like a woman for the pleasure of the resurrected. Jesus shows the wound on his side to doubting Thomas. Paul explains the resurrected body will be a perfect new body free from the needs of the old one.


Imperfect mortal becomes immortal.Amen

Giuseppe wrote:Even if Paul had done a long escursion of 1000 pages ''on the nature of the resurrection body'', it is sufficient the verse 50 alone to make my case.

Naa, you misunderstood what I said. Of course, Paul is not advocating a physical resurrection body: he's dealing with and disagreeing with a belief in circulation. So the notion of a physical resurrection was around.

Ok with that. But what do you think about the link between gMark and gMarcion on the Sadducees episode?

From the tenorikuma's post:

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... urrection/

does it seem or not that the Luke's negative view about marriage represents more faithfully a pauline point than Mark's view?

Giuseppe wrote:Ok with that. But what do you think about the link between gMark and gMarcion on the Sadducees episode?

From the tenorikuma's post:

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... urrection/

does it seem or not that the Luke's negative view about marriage represents more faithfully a pauline point than Mark's view?

I'm not much help to you.

1. I don't think there is much hope of Sadducees asking any questions in the first century. Herod had to import Sadducees for high priestly candidates, so there were so few left, they were not asking questions in the street. There seems to me no historical basis to the event.

2. I find the notion that Sadducees rejected resurrection improbable, as Hebrew literature from Daniel to Qumran feature the idea, so it was significant and why should Sadducees reject it? It's more likely that the story was factionally aimed rather than representative of real historical viewpoints.

3. Gospels were probably developed continuously though at punctuated points, so one view in a text cannot represent some generic writer of the gospel, such as "Luke".

4. Paul was expecting a coming end which left some believers in his day alive at the end. He didn't care about the world as such, so people were free to carry on as they wished (within limits of decorum). As long as they held to Paul's tenets it didn't matter what else they did. That said Paul personally probably favored a celibate life.

5. The view in Lk 23:27-29 represents a thought founded on the negative impact of the coming eschaton. In that time it would be better not to have children: mothers will only suffer grief when they see what happens to their children. It is not anti-marriage per se, but despondent for the future.

Giuseppe wrote: But even so, I think that the ''enigma'' put by the sadducees is too much ridicolous even if the sadducees did mean it seriously.

I agree with you that their question was rhetorical. They were making a point that bodily resurrection is stupid, not asking for an answer.

The scenario they present though is not impossible and for their society nowhere near as absurd as for ours.
They had leviritical marriage. Also, their scenario is similar to the story in Tobit of the demon posessed future wife of Tobit who married 7 different men, murdering each on the wedding night. Finally with the help of the angel posing as his cousin Tobit casts out the demon, marries her, has kids, lives happily ever after. They may have borrowed from this story for their rhetoric. And remember also women with no husband and no kids would have a hard time surviving in old age back then. Kids were your welfare system, which explains why the woman in the Sadducee scenario would keep trying.

spin wrote: 3. Gospels were probably developed continuously though at punctuated points, so one view in a text cannot represent some generic writer of the gospel, such as "Luke".
.

Agreed it was a product of a community not a single person, but as an example, the temple falling was the compilation period, more so then a punctuated point. I believe prior to the temples destruction, multiple textual traditions were used by different communities. Before the temple fell they were going to Passover each year and still adding to their collections.

I also look at the names attributed as later rhetorical prose, authority building using famous names to the early movement.

When the temple fell and Christians could no longer share traditions yearly. A need for textual means of sharing developed the actual need for written means of transmission.

iskander wrote:Neither do I
Commentary : both Mark and Luke say there is no marriage in heaven.
Luke says marriage is for mortals,, but for those whom God considered worthy to attain of that age ( that is resurrection in heaven) for those there is no marriage.
There is no need to replicate in heaven for they are no longer mortal

I withdraw the point. It could be that you have the better arguments, but at the end it's irrelevant for what I'm trying to say. I can make the same point with the wording of Mark und Marcion. There are a few thematic similarities, but only two or three in the wording. I think this pericope is a good test case for many synoptic theories, especially if we put Luke in the picture.

It starts with such traditional claims that Marcion “mutilated” GLuke. But to explain differences between Mark and Luke it is often said that Luke stood in a “diffent text tradition”.

X

Mark 12	Marcion
24 Jesus said to them,	34 Jesus answered and said to them,
"Is not this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God?	X
	“The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage.
25 For when they will rise from the dead,	35 But those whom considered worthy the God of that age, the inheritance, and the resurrection from the dead
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,	neither marry nor are given in marriage.
X	36 For they won't die any more,
but are like angels in heaven.	for they are like the angels, and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.
26 But about the dead, that they are raised; have you not read in the book of Moses, about the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.	X
You are therefore badly mistaken."	X
X	39 Some of the scribes said, “Teacher, you speak well.” 40 They didn’t dare to ask him any more questions.

Yes, any two pairs will do .
The gospels were attributed to four different raconteurs telling the same story .
In such situations it is to be expected to face the differences and similarities in their stories that you have so perceptibly indicated.
"The Rashomon effect is where the same event is given contradictory interpretations by different individuals involved. The effect is named after Akira Kurosawa's 1950 film Rashomon,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

PS Who is Marcion?

I never noticed before I guess due to subconscious harmonization to either Matthew or Acts (24:15), but Luke doesn't talk about a resurrection "of the just and unjust." A resurrection of the just is mentioned in 14:14 and then there is this business about being counted "worthy" of the resurrection in Luke 20, but nothing about a general resurrection of everyone. I wonder if the church fathers missed this too...they must have or they would have fixed it with an interpolation.

Actually it seems the general resurrection may only explicitely ocurr in the gospels in John 5:29 which contradicts John 11. This is even more interesting.