On the answer to Sadducees

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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.

I hope that one day you will be not only interested in ideological arguments, but also in literary style. To me the wording of the part with the question of the Sadducees seems to be in all synoptic gospels direct and straightforward. Therefore the convoluted phrasing in Luke and Marcion such as "those who the God of that age regards worthy of being heirs and of the resurrection from among the dead" or "for they will be like angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" may a bit irritate.

[davidbrainerd]

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.

I hope that one day you will be not only interested in ideological arguments, but also in literary style. To me the wording of the part with the question of the Sadducees seems to be in all synoptic gospels direct and straightforward. Therefore the convoluted phrasing in Luke and Marcion such as "those who the God of that age regards worthy of being heirs and of the resurrection from among the dead" or "for they will be like angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" may a bit irritate.

Its not "convoluted" phrasing. Its an earlier phase in Christian resurrection belief. Today, because of harmonistic tendencies and the invention of hell at some point, Christians believe in a general resurrection where everyone is raised and then judged. Luke is obviously teaching that only those worthy of being raised are raised. This is clearly the earlier stage and not a later development, as the later development is the full embracing of Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." That scripture has not been accepted in Christianity yet when Luke is written, because to Luke you have to be "worthy" to even be raised at all. Same in Paul, Romans 5 and 1st Cor 15, only believers are raised, same in John 11 although contradicted in John 5:29 (an interpolation in my view). Its also undoubtedly the earlier version of rebirth. The resurrection is the rebirth that makes one a son of God "for they will be like angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" but this was felt as not offering enough assurance, so rebirth gets pushed back later to a point in this life.

[Giuseppe]

I hope that one day you will be not only interested in ideological arguments, but also in literary style.

I think that it is pure ''literary style'' to recognize that :

1) if the sadducees are serious in their ridicolous question
2) if Jesus knows that it is a ridicolous question and denies it as ridicolous

...then the radical antithesis seen by Vinzent between old and new is naturally more evident.

Differently:

1) if the sadducees are not serious but tendentious in their question
2) if Jesus is dealing seriously with the 'enigma' of the woman with 7 marriages

...then Mark is the original reading.

We agree that the enigma is a Gordian knot, but we may have two different interpretations of the reaction of Jesus: is he intent on sorting out the problem recognizing it as such and lowering himself to the level of the Sadducees? Or does he want to solve it drastically?

[iskander]

The Kingdom to Come


It is a question put forward for an answer by people of another culture and other ancient times. What happens after men and women die?. That question seems to have been an important subject for Homeric Greece and Gautama's Asia.


Ezekiel had described the " resurrection of bones" in chapter 37


37 The hand of the LORD came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me all round them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord GOD, you know.’ 4 Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.

5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: I will cause breath* to enter you, and you shall live. 6 I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath* in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD.’ ....

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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”.

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?

As I said it My impression is that you will not claim that also Marcion's text is the result of the "Rashomon effect", although the major differences in this pericope are not between Luke and Marcion, but between Mark/Matthew on the one side and Luke/Marcion on the other side.

[iskander]

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”.

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?

As I said it My impression is that you will not claim that also Marcion's text is the result of the "Rashomon effect", although the major differences in this pericope are not between Luke and Marcion, but between Mark/Matthew on the one side and Luke/Marcion on the other side.

Who is Marcion?

Marcion , whoever he may have been , was not affected by the "Rashomon effect".

There are many interpretations to any religious text --( and also others). Marcion may have been one customer with a distinctive opinion on the fare served, but I do not care for his opinions.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Its an earlier phase in Christian resurrection belief. Today, because of harmonistic tendencies and the invention of hell at some point, Christians believe in a general resurrection where everyone is raised and then judged. Luke is obviously teaching that only those worthy of being raised are raised. This is clearly the earlier stage and not a later development, as the later development is the full embracing of Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." That scripture has not been accepted in Christianity yet when Luke is written, because to Luke you have to be "worthy" to even be raised at all. Same in Paul, Romans 5 and 1st Cor 15, only believers are raised, same in John 11 although contradicted in John 5:29 (an interpolation in my view). Its also undoubtedly the earlier version of rebirth. The resurrection is the rebirth that makes one a son of God "for they will be like angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" but this was felt as not offering enough assurance, so rebirth gets pushed back later to a point in this life.

Earlier than what? Perhaps we should start with the observations
- that Daniel is the earlier phase in resurrection belief and
- that in the focus of Jesus' answer in all gospels is the question of marriage and whether there is a resurrection and not
- whether there is a general resurrection or only of the elect. Even Paul didn't make such a distinction in 1 Cor 15:29ff

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I hope that one day you will be not only interested in ideological arguments, but also in literary style.

I think that it is pure ''literary style'' to recognize that :

1) if the sadducees are serious in their ridicolous question
2) if Jesus knows that it is a ridicolous question and denies it as ridicolous

...then the radical antithesis seen by Vinzent between old and new is naturally more evident.

Differently:

1) if the sadducees are not serious but tendentious in their question
2) if Jesus is dealing seriously with the 'enigma' of the woman with 7 marriages

...then Mark is the original reading.

We agree that the enigma is a Gordian knot, but we may have two different interpretations of the reaction of Jesus: is he intent on sorting out the problem recognizing it as such and lowering himself to the level of the Sadducees? Or does he want to solve it drastically?

No, this is also a question of content and not form.

My current intention is not to argue in favor of Markan priority. I think there are few more interesting things in this pericope.

As a first step I only wished to show that this pericope has two parts: the question of the Sadducees and the answer of Jesus - and that the story about the question of the Sadducees is more or less the same in all synoptic gospels including Marcion (with some minor differences), but that in the second part are
major differences between Mark/Matthew on the one side and Luke/Marcion on the other side.

[Giuseppe]

I think there are few more interesting things in this pericope.

Surely the dependence of the episode on Paul is very interesting. Thank you for that.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
The following is the synopsis of the Greek text (NA 28) of the first part of the pericope (the question of the Sadducees) in Matthew, Mark and Luke. There are only minor differences. But the interesting point is that Mark and Luke share whole word groups (not always the inflection) in the same order where Matthew differs slightly. There are also a few agreements of Mark and Matthew against Luke and little agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, sometimes only the inflection.

Matthew	Mark	Luke
23 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Σαδδουκαῖοι, λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν 24 λέγοντες• διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς εἶπεν• ἐάν τις ἀποθάνῃ μὴ ἔχων τέκνα, ἐπιγαμβρεύσει ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστήσει σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. 25 ἦσαν δὲ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί• καὶ ὁ πρῶτος γήμας ἐτελεύτησεν, καὶ μὴ ἔχων σπέρμα ἀφῆκεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ• 26 ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ δεύτερος καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἕως τῶν ἑπτά. 27 ὕστερον δὲ πάντων ἀπέθανεν ἡ γυνή. 28 ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει οὖν τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ ἔσται γυνή; πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν•	18 Καὶ ἔρχονται Σαδδουκαῖοι πρὸς αὐτόν, οἵτινες λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι, καὶ ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες• 19διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. 20 ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν• καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἔλαβεν γυναῖκα καὶ ἀποθνῄσκων οὐκ ἀφῆκεν σπέρμα• 21 καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἀπέθανεν μὴ καταλιπὼν σπέρμα• καὶ ὁ τρίτος ὡσαύτως• 22 καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐκ ἀφῆκαν σπέρμα. ἔσχατον πάντων καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν. 23 ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει [ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν] τίνος αὐτῶν ἔσται γυνή; οἱ γὰρ ἑπτὰ ἔσχον αὐτὴν γυναῖκα.	27 Προσελθόντες δέ τινες τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, οἱ [ἀντι]λέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι, ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν 28 λέγοντες• διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν, ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ ἔχων γυναῖκα, καὶ οὗτοςἄτεκνος ᾖ , ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. 29 ἑπτὰ οὖν ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν• καὶ ὁ πρῶτος λαβὼν γυναῖκα ἀπέθανεν ἄτεκνος• 30 καὶ ὁ δεύτερος 31 καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἔλαβεν αὐτήν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐ κατέλιπον τέκνα καὶ ἀπέθανον. 32 ὕστερον καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν. 33 ἡ γυνὴ οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τίνος αὐτῶν γίνεται γυνή; οἱ γὰρ ἑπτὰ ἔσχον αὐτὴν γυναῖκα.