On the answer to Sadducees

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Besides the major differences between Mark/Matthew and Luke/Marcion in the second part of the pericope I think the most interesting points are

- the agreement of all ("neither marry nor are given in marriage")
- the "omitting" by Marcion ("But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord ‘The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living'")
- little agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew
- a possible agreement between Matthew and Marcion against Mark/Luke
- the last clause of the pericope in Matthew and Luke/Marcion because similar texts are in other pericopes of the other Evangelists

Matthew	Mark	Luke	Marcion
29 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς•	24 Ἔφη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς•	34 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς•	34 … ἀποκριθείς … (according to many reconstructions)
πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ• 30ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.	οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ; 25 ὅταν γὰρ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ’ εἰσὶν ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.	οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται, 35 οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται• 36 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν καὶ υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες.	Οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται, 35 οὓς δέ κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου …, τῆς κληρονομίας, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται• 36 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι μέλλουσιν, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν, καὶ υἱοί εἰσιν Θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες.
31 περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ λέγοντος•	26 περὶ δὲ τῶν νεκρῶν ὅτι ἐγείρονται οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ Μωϋσέως ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου πῶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς λέγων•	37 ὅτι δὲ ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἐμήνυσεν ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου, ὡς λέγει κύριον	37 ὅτι δὲ ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροὶ, καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἐμήνυσεν ἐπὶ τῆς Βάτου, ὡς λέγει Κύριον
32 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ οὐκ ἔστιν [ὁ] θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων.	ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ ; 27 οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων•	τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸν Ἰακώβ 38 θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν.	τὸν Θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Θεὸν Ἰακώβ• 38 Θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων•
33 καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ὄχλοι ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ.	πολὺ πλανᾶσθε.	39 Ἀποκριθέντες δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων εἶπαν• διδάσκαλε, καλῶς εἶπας. 40 οὐκέτι γὰρ ἐτόλμων ἐπερωτᾶν αὐτὸν οὐδέν.	… τινες τῶν γραμματέων εἶπαν Διδάσκαλε, καλῶς εἶπας. …

ESV Matthew 20:33 Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.	ESV Mark Whose Son Is the Christ? 12:37 David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly.	ESV Luke 20: 45 Beware of the Scribes 45 And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples,
ESV Luke 20:39-40 Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection 39 Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” 40 For they no longer dared to ask him any question.	ESV Mark 12:28,34 The Great Commandment 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, 12:34 And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.	ESV Matthew 20:34 The Great Commandment 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. ESV Matthew 20:46 Whose Son Is the Christ? 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

[Ben C. Smith]

.
Besides the major differences between Mark/Matthew and Luke/Marcion in the second part of the pericope I think the most interesting points are

- the agreement of all ("neither marry nor are given in marriage")
- the "omitting" by Marcion ("But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord ‘The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living'")
- little agreements between Mark and Luke against Matthew
- a possible agreement between Matthew and Marcion against Mark/Luke

I would suggest that the "possible agreement between Matthew and Marcion" is simply a variant Lucan reading (LaParola, underlining my own):

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται,

[Luke] 20:34 (Münster)
εἶπεν] ‭א B D L 579 892 1241 pc it vg (syrc syrp) cop WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν] A W Θ Ψ f1 f13 (33) Byz itq syrs syrh ς ND Dio

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I would suggest that the "possible agreement between Matthew and Marcion" is simply a variant Lucan reading (LaParola, underlining my own):

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται,

[Luke] 20:34 (Münster)
εἶπεν] ‭א B D L 579 892 1241 pc it vg (syrc syrp) cop WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν] A W Θ Ψ f1 f13 (33) Byz itq syrs syrh ς ND Dio

Thank you Ben. Agreed. Btw the attestion for “ἀποκριθείς“ for Marcion may be also questionable.

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.

My impression is that there is no decisive argument from the text in favour of the priority of one of the texts. Even Matthew’s version could be the first.

Prof. Vinzent’s try could be a good example of how one can fail. He starts with his own reconstruction of Marcion’s text in 20:34 based on Cod. Bezae against the attestion of Tertullian. Then he makes his own interpretation of Marcion based on his questionable reconstruction and his own interpretation of Luke and argues that there are discrepancies between his interpretation of Luke and Luke’s text.

I think the question is not so easy as you have asked. At the end in all Gospels the question of the Sadducees is “In the resurrection whose wife of them will she be?” and the answer of all Gospels is “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”. Therefore I can’t see that Marcion’s Jesus “denies” the question “as ridiculous”.

I stick to the opinion that the strongest argument from the text is the argument against the priority of Luke/Marcion based on literary style, because I think whoever wrote Luke/Marcion 20:34-35 (Luke or Marcion?), it was not the author who designed the pericope. Even in the versions of Luke and Marcion all other verses of the pericope have a different style than 20:34-35. That must not mean that this author was Mark.