2000 - John P. Meier - The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead. an Incident From the Ministry of the Historical Jesus

8/13/2019 2000 - John P. Meier - The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead. an Incident From the Ministry of the Historical

1/22

http://jnt.sagepub.com/New Testament

Journal for the Study of the

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X0002207701

2000 22: 3Journal for the Study of the New TestamentJohn P. Meier

Ministry of the Historical Jesus?The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead: an Incident From the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beJournal for the Study of the New TestamentAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2000Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/22/77/3http://jnt.sagepub.com/


2/22

3

THE DEBATE ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD:

AN INCIDENT FROM THE MINISTRY

OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS?

John P. Meier

Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame,327 OShaughnessy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556

At first glance, Jesus debate with the Sadducees over the question of theresurrection of the dead (Mk 12.18-27 parr.) seems to have little chanceof being judged as an event that goes back to the historical Jesus. Theincident has no parallel, however distant, in the Gospel traditions. Hencethe criterion of multiple attestation cannot be brought into play. More-over, both Jewish and Christian groups in the first century CE spoke ofthe general resurrection of the dead. In contrast, apart from the presentpericope, there is little if any material in the Gospel traditions goingback to the historical Jesus that focuses on the general resurrection ofthe dead. Hence the criterion of discontinuity does not seem to workhere. Then, too, the pericope depicts Jesus citing Scripture to prove his

position in a learned debate-a trait that some critics consider a clearsign that it is a creation of the early church.

Nevertheless, despite this unpromising initial overview, I think thereare good reasons for thinking that the debate over the resurrection does

go back to the historical Jesus. Since, however, notable scholars rejectthis position and prefer to attribute the pericope to Christian invention, Ithink it best to proceed step by step by posing two fundamental ques-tions.

(1) The first question starts from the redactional end of Marks Gos-

pel : Was this dispute story on the resurrection first composed by Markhimself? (2) If our answer to this question is no, then we may move backa bit in time and ask a second question, which poses the basic either-or : Does the story preserve some incident from the ministry of the

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/22

4

historical Jesus, or is its content from start to finish a creation of the

church

earlyon in the first Christian

generation?

I

Interestingly, few commentators hold that Mark created the dispute storyon the resun-ection out of whole cloth. Even skeptical exegetes like Bult-mann and Hultgren discern behind the present pericope a pre-Markanunit that underwent subsequent redaction. The reasons for not assign-

ing the entire unit to Marks creative talent are clear.On the macro-level, the string of Jerusalem dispute stories lacks the

neat concentric structure and thematic links that the Galilean cycle of

dispute stories evinces in Mk 2.1-3.6.- Yet, even in the Galilean cycle,on which Mark has imposed a fair amount of unity, most exegetes dis-cern earlier pre-Markan material. Indeed, as I tried to show in volume 2ofA Marginal Jew, the problem of why the disciples of Jesus do not fast

probably goes back to the actual teaching of the historical Jesus., If,then, even the fairly well-ordered and unified Galilean cycle of disputestories reflects Markan reworking of older material, a fortiori it wouldseem that the more disjointed Jerusalem cycle is not the creation of Markfrom start to finish. One gets the impression instead of various individ-ual dispute stories-probably not even a cycle or collection4-that Mark

1. Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (8th edn;FRLANT, 29; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), p. 25;Arland J. Hult-

gren, Jesus and hisAdversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories inthe Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1979), pp. 123-31. Bultmann seemsto hold that the entire pericope is pre-Markan; while his position on the tradition-

process is more complicated than Bultmanns, Hultgren apparently thinks that most,if not all, of the pericope is pre-Markan.

2. Compare the evaluation of the Galilean cycle of dispute stories in Joanna

Dewey(Markan Public Debate [SBLDS, 48; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980],pp. 131-97) with the evaluation of the Jerusalem cycle in Jean-Gaspard MudisoMb Mundla, Jesus und die Fhrer Israels: Studien zu den sog. Jerusalemer

Streitgesprchen (NTAbh NS, 17; Mnster:Aschendorff, 1984), pp. 299-302; Otto

Schwankl,Die Sadduzerfrage (Mk 12, 18-27 parr) (BBB, 66; Frankfurt:Athenum,1987), pp. 434-38.

3. See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (AnchorBible Reference Library; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991, 1994), II, pp. 439-50.

4. See Mudiso Mb Mundla, Jesus und die Fhrer Israels

,

pp. 299-302.



4/22

5

has brought together as best he could to dramatize the heightening ten-

sions between Jesus and his opponents just before the passion.On the level of the individual dispute in Mk 12.18-27, Mark shows

no interest in the Sadducees beyond this one story. He does not even at-

tempt to link the incident in some concrete way with the Passion Narra-tive that is about to follow. This is all the more striking when one re-members that, to a great extent, the Sadducees arguing with Jesus about

the resurrection represent the party whose leaders were probably themain Jerusalem authorities involved in Jesus arrest and trial. Yet Mark

makes no connection whatever between the Sadducees in the disputestory of Mark 12 and the high priest, the chief priests and elders who

plan and carry out Jesus arrest and trial in Mark 14. In fact, if we knew

nothing except Marks Gospel, we would never think-indeed, doesMark?-that there is some connection between the Sadducees on the

one hand and the high priest, the chief priests and the elders on theother. One gets the impression that Mark is taking over and using for

hisown

purposes a story involving a group about which he otherwiseevinces neither knowledge nor concern.The focus of Mk 12.18-27 is likewise atypical of Marks theological

concerns. While Mark is naturally intent on proclaiming the death andresurrection of Jesus-chs. 14-16 are obviously dedicated to that task-Mark shows no interest outside of 12.18-27 in the question of the pre-cise nature of the risen state of believers and the proper way that the gen-eral resurrection might be proven from Scripture. For Mark, as for therest of the New Testament, eternal life and/or the resurrection of believ-ers flows from and is grounded in the work, death and resurrection ofJesus, not the revelation of God to Moses in the burning bush.A small tell-tale sign that Mk 12.18-27 does not represent a free cre-ation of the evangelist is that only here in the whole of Marks Gospelis the resurrection designated by the use of the noun va1:aau; (resur-rection in vv. 18, 23 ).5 In speaking of the resurrection elsewhere, Mark

uses the verbs avi6irly and ~~y~ipc~, but never the noun va1:aau;.This is true not only when the resurrection of Jesus is directly the topic(e.g. V1atTHll in 8.31; 9.31; 10.34; yElpm in 14.28; 16.6), but evenwhen the bewildered disciples discuss among themselves what risingfrom the dead means (ii an v 1:0 ~K veKpcov avaa~ciwaL, 9.10) or whenHerodAntipas imagines that John the Baptist has risen (YTlyp1:at)

5. I emphasize that I consider this only a confirmatory argument.



5/22

6

from the dead (6.14, 16). Hence the double occurrence of va1:aau; in

12.18, 23 may be a

fingerprintof the

pre-Markanauthor left on the dis-

pute story.While Mark did not create the narrative in 12.18-27, it is possible that

the present form of the pericope contains some phrases added by the

evangelist. Two in particular are often singled out by commentators.6

Both candidates occur in the last verse (v. 23) of part 1 (vv. 18-23) of

the pericope.Verse 23 begins, At the resurrection, when they rise [v Tf1 vaa1:-

am, 6Tav vaa1:wat v]... The redundancy is striking. Since Marksliterary style is noted for its duality (Marks tendency to say the same

thing twice), it could be that the second phrase, when they rise, is hisaddition.~ Yet the whole of v. 23, as it poses the trap-question to Jesus,reflects one overriding rhetorical intention: to highlight the dilemmafaced by anyone who wishes both to maintain belief in the resurrectionand, at the same time, to offer a satisfactory answer to the Sadducees

riddle. Hence the repetitive when they rise may be intended both toemphasize the difficulty that the womans complicated marital situation

poses to belief in the resurrection and to intimate the mocking skep-ticism of the Sadducees. The surface meaning of when they rise mayinclude the sotto voce meaning of if, indeed, they rise.The second possible addition by Mark comes at the end of v. 23. Right

after the trap-question is posed ( Of which of them shall she be the

wife?), the text adds the apparently unnecessary and anticlimactic

6. On these two candidates, see Mudiso Mb Mundla, Jesus und die Fhrer,

p. 72; Schwankl, Die Sadduzerfrage

,

pp. 420-21.

7. Some critics advocate the view that when they rise is a Markan addition bypointing out that the phrase is missing in some important Greek manuscripts, includ-

ing Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae and Washingtonensis. Butthis is to confuse two different questions: (1) whether the phrase belongs to the orig-

inal text of Marks Gospel and (2) whether it existed in the pre-Markan traditionthat the evangelist edited. The first question can be answered, at least in part, by aninspection of the Greek mansucripts and versions; the second cannot. The textualconfusion at the beginning of v. 23 is so great that it is difficult to be absolutely sureabout the original Markan wording. However, it is probable that the phrase whenthey rise belongs to the original Markan text. There is no reason why later Chris-tian scribes would have gone out of their way to insert it, while it is perfectly under-standable that some of them felt the redundancy to be stylistically jarring.

8. See Frans

Neirynck, Dualityin Mark: Contributions to the

Study ofthe

Markan Redaction (BETL, 31; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1972).



6/22

7

clause for the seven had her as wife. Possibly, in a moment of ped-

antry,Mark added this

clause; yetother

explanationsfor the clauses

presence can be offered. This seemingly unnecessary clause, like the

unnecessary when they rise, may purposely overload the verse with

repetitions in order to underline the difficulty, if not the impossibility,of solving the dilemma the Sadducees pose. The reminder of the .sevenbrothers also reinforces the mocking tone of skepticism. Moreover, fromstart to finish, this well-structured pericope uses iiiclitsio to bind thevarious parts of the story together. We may have here another example.The clause for the seven had her as wife, which stands at the end ofthe fictitious case the Sadducees have proposed, harks back to the open-ing words of the case in v. 20 (there were seven brothers), thus form-ing an inclusio.At the same time, the clause sums up the whole case,explained at length in vv. 20-22. In brief, in my opinion, both of the twosupposed Markan insertions in v. 23 could well have stood in the pre-Markan text. Rudolf Pesch may thus be correct in maintaining that Mark

took over this pericope unchanged. Still, one must admit that the sug-gestion that Mark added the two disputed clauses in v. 23 cannot be

completely excluded. In the end, it has no great impact on the largerargument.

II

In any case, it is most

likelythat the

dispute storyin Mk 12.18-27, minus

perhaps a few short phrases, circulated in the pre-Markan tradition ofthe first Christian generation. To be sure, as a full narrative about Jesus,as distinct from sayings of Jesus, the text of the story as we have it is aChristian composition. But does this story preserve the recollection ofsome actual incident in the ministry of Jesus? While various critics have

suggested that not only the present text of the narrative but also the inci-dent narrated is purely a Christian creation, other scholars have argued

that behind Mk 12.18-27 lies an actual debate between Jesus and theSadducees over the question of the general resurrection. In my opin-

9. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT, II/1-2; 2 vols.; Freiburg:Herder, 1976, 1977), II, p. 229; also Mudiso Mb Mundla, Jesus und die Fhrer,pp. 72, 108; more hesitant is Schwankl, Die Sadduzerfrage, pp. 420-42.

10. Againstan

originin

the ministry of the historical Jesusare

Bultmann andHultgren; in favor, Pesch and Schwankl.



7/22

8

ion, two criteria of historicity argue for the authenticity of the basic

story, though not the exact wording of the pericope.

a. Discontinuity

Despite the initial impressions noted above, I think that the criterion of

discontinuity does apply to this pericope in a number of different

ways.&dquo;I

1. First, there is discontinuity with respect to the whole tendency ofthe synoptic tradition to create dispute stories. Most critics admit thatthe early church composed at least some of the synoptic dispute stories,at times building them around authentic sayings of Jesus, at times creat-

ing them out of whole cloth. The lengthy dispute over hand washing,korban and purity rules (Mk 7.1-23 par.) and the dispute over the pluck-ing of grain on the sabbath (Mk 2.23-28) may be examples of this ten-

dency. What is to be noted about these possible creations of the earlychurch is that the stock adversaries appearing in these and other dis-

putes with Jesus-as well as in the denunciations of his opponents byJesus-are almost invariably the scribes (alternately lawyers) and/or thePharisees (see, e.g., Mk 2.6, 16, 18, 24; 3.6, 22; 7.1; 8.11; 10.2; 11.27;12.13, 35, 38; Mt. 22.34; 23.2-36; Lk. 11.37-53). In the Jerusalem dis-

putes, high priests and elders appear at times as well (e.g., Mk 11.27).As we look through the growth of the dispute-story tradition in the

synoptic Gospels, what is striking is the total lack of any tendency tocreate or

multiplystories

involvingthe Sadducees. Mark 12.18-27

pa1T.stands alone in the New Testament as the only dispute story in whichJesus directly debates with the Sadducees. 12Apart from Mt. 16.1 -12 (cf.

11. Schwankl (Die Sadduzerfrage, pp. 466-587) argues for historicity by usingthe criteria of both discontinuity and coherence, as I do here. However, he placesrelatively little emphasis on discontinuity, while basing most of his argument on

coherence.12. Not even the redactional creations of Matthew are exceptions to this sweep-

ing statement. In 3.7, Matthew simply creates a group of many of the Pharisees andSadducees to supply an audience for John the Baptists denunciation of trust in theexternal guarantees of religion. The Pharisees and Sadducees do not engage in a

dispute with John, let alone with Jesus (who has not yet appeared on the scene as anadult). In 16.1, Matthew substitutes his theological odd couple, the Pharisees andSadducees, for the Pharisees of Mk 8.11 as the persons who ask Jesus for a sign

from heaven. Yet Mt. 16.1-4 is not properlya

dispute story in which Jesus debatessome legal or doctrinal question with the Pharisees and Sadducees; still less is Jesus



8/22


9/22

10

Jerusalem ministry. The dispute hardly makes any sense as a creation of

the early church. Not surprisingly, those critics who claim that the dis-pute was created by the church must be highly creative themselves in

imagining what Sit i11l Leben called it forth3. This point brings us to a much more important discontinuity be-

tween Mk 12.18-27 and the early church: the way in which the questionof the general resurrection is treated and grounded.As we can see in the

prime example of Pauls debate with those Corinthian converts who

questioned the idea of the bodily resurrection of the dead on the last day( Cor. 15), first-generation Christians based their hope of a general res-urrection on the resurrection of Christ (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 15.12-13; cf.

Rom. 1.3-4). To put the matter in later philosophical terms, Jesus ownresurrection, already accomplished, was seen as the efficient and/or ex-

emplary cause-the energizing archetype-nf the resurrection of believ-ers, still to come. This nexus between the resurrection of Christ and the

resurrection of believers is hardly unique to 1 Corinthians 15. It can be

found in both the authentic and pseudonymous letters of Paul, the fourGospels,Acts, 1 Peter and the Revelation of John. In contrast, it neveroccurs to any Christian author in the New Testament to base the Chris-

tian hope of a general resurrection of the dead on a single verse from theJewish Scriptures-especially not Exod. 3.6. The whole approach to

speaking about and arguing for the general resurrection in Mk 12.18-27is remarkably lacking in a specifically Christian viewpoint. 16

14. This is especially apparent in the reconstruction of Hultgren, Jesus and hisAdversaries, pp. 123-31, which posits two different Sitze im Leben for two different

parts of the pericope: (1) Mk 12.25 arises out of a question about the freedom ofChristian widows to remarry, as in 1 Cor. 7.39; (2) Mk 12.26-27, dealing with themore general question of resurrection, represents ideas current in Hellenistic as op-posed to Palestinian Judaism (!). Later on, as the two traditions developed, 12.18,24 and 27b were used to join the two units.

15. See, e.g., the argument from the risen Christ as the first fruits of the res-

urrection in 1 Cor. 15.20-22; see also 1 Thess. 4.13-18; 5.9-10; 1 Cor. 6.13-14;15.44-49; 2 Cor. 3.18; 4.10-15; Rom. 8.17, 29; 14.7-10; Phil. 3.20-21; Col. 1.13-20;2.9-15; 2 Tim. 2.8-13. On all this, see David Michael Stanley, Christs Resurrectionin Pauline Soteriology (AnBib, 13; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1961);Scott Brodeur, The Holy SpiritsAgency in the Resurrection of the Dead:AnExegetico-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 15, 44b-49 and Romans 8, 9-13 (TesiGregoriana, Serie Teologia, 14; Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1996).

16. This is denied byAlfred Suhl (Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen ZitateundAnspielungen im Markusevangelium [Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965], p. 68),



10/22

11

4. This point brings us in turn to a further discontinuity that separates

Jesus argument for the general resurrection not only from Christiansafter him but also from Jews before and after him in the Greco-Romanperiod. If Jesus use of Exod. 3.6 as the scriptural proof for the generalresurrection strikes us as strange, it apparently struck his Jewish con-

temporaries as well as later Christians in the same way.As far as wecan tell from the sources available to us, there was no Jewish exegeticaltradition before or after Jesus in ancient times that used Exod. 3.6 to

argue for the

generalresurrection. When belief in the resurrection of the

dead-or, alternately, belief in immortality-appeared late in the OldTestament period (e.g., Dan. 12; 2 Macc. 7.10-1 l; Wis. 2.21-5.23), no

appeal was made to Exod. 3.6. The exegetical treatment of Exod. 3.6 inthe writings of intertestamental Judaism likewise shows no parallel toJesus use of it to ground belief in the general resurrection. Most strik-ing of all is that later rabbinic arguments for the resurrection, notably inb. Sanh. 90b-92a, use all sorts of Old Testament texts, many of which

bear as little ostensible relationship to the resurrection as does Exod.3.6.&dquo;

who attempts to understand Mk12.18-25 in terms of a Christian defense of the res-urrection of Jesus against the Law, which presupposes that there is no resurrection.Verses 26-27, declared a later Christian addition, supposedly address the problem ofthe first cases of death in the Christian community. Suhls arbitrary exegesis reflectsthe

larger theologicalconcerns

ofBultmann

and Marxsen, lacksan

adequatetreat-

ment of the Jewish background of the material (especially the Sadducees), never ad-verts to the unique and isolated situation of Exod. 3.6 within Jewish and Christian

exegetical traditions, and overlooks the many elements in the text that bind it to-

gether as a literary whole. On the lack of Christian traits in this pericope, see D.H.van Daalen, Some Observations on Mark 12,24-27, in F.L. Cross (ed.), Studia

Evangelica,IV(TU, 102; Berlin:Akademie Verlag, 1968), p. 243; Joachim Jeremias,New Testament Theology: Part One. The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCMPress, 1971), p. 184 n. 3. That it was possible for the evangelists, as well as for thewriters of epistles, to present Jesus death and/or resurrection as a cause of the res-urrection of the dead is seen from Matthews redaction of Mark in Mt. 27.51-53;28.2-6.

17. Some critics (e.g., D.E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark [Pelican NTCommentaries; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963], p. 321) have pointed to a sup-posed similarity between Jesus argument in Mk 12.26-27 and statements in4 Macc.7.19 and 16.25 thatAbraham, Isaac and Jacob did not die, but live unto God [&aacgr;&aacgr;

&OHacgr;&igr; &OHacgr; &thetas;ϵ&OHacgr;]. Such critics suggest that this similarity shows that Jesus argumentwas actually a stock argument of the Pharisees. This suggestion suffers from a num-ber of difficulties: (1) The exegetical basis of Jesus argument, Exod. 3.6, is totally



11/22

12

Yet none of these talmudic arguments employs Exod. 3.6. ~ Here,

strange to say, the authors of the New Testament are at one with thelater rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud. Jesus appeal to Exod. 3.6 was

apparently so idiosyncratic that it found no resonance in either Jewishor Christian arguments for the resurrection in the ancient period-apart,

absent from these supposed parallels. (2) The phrase stating that the patriarchs liveunto God finds its proper parallel not in Mk 12.18-27 but rather in Lukes redac-tional addition to the Markan pericope in Lk. 20.38b: For all [humans] live untohim [i.e., God] (&aacgr;ϵ&sfgr; &aacgr; &uacgr;&OHacgr; &OHacgr;&igr;). (3) There is nothing to indicate that4 Maccabees, written in Greek in the Diaspora by a Jew well acquainted withmiddle Platonic, neo-Pythagorean, Stoic, and Philonic philosophical ideas, is a

product of Pharisaic theology in particular.Apart from the problematic cases of the

writings of Paul and Josephus, we cannot identify a single document from the first

century CE that was certainly written by a Pharisee.AntonioAmmassari (Ges haveramente insegnato la risurrezione!, BibOr 15 [1973], pp. 70-71 ) points out that

in the much later Midrash Ha-Gadol

,

we find in a variant reading on Exod. 3.6 ahint of the idea of immortality. However, (1) this midrashic collection belongs tothe medieval period, and (2) the idea of immortality is connected with Mosesfather via the phrase the God of your father in Exod. 3.6the very phrase that

Jesus omits from his citation of Exod. 3.6 in Mk 12.26.

18. See the chart drawn up by Schwankl, Die Sadduzerfrage, p. 278. Schwanklcounts 17 discussions on proving the resurrection in b. Sanh. 90b-92a, with 22 OldTestament passages cited. (One could extend this list with other discussions in

b. Sanh. 90b-92a that touch

tangentiallyon the

topicof resurrection, but that do not

provide a new scriptural argument as proof of the resurrection. The results wouldnot be altered by such an extension.) The texts examined by Schwankl include cita-tions from the Torah (Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the Prophets (Joshua,Isaiah, Jeremiah) and the Writings (the Song of Songs, the Psalms, Proverbs andDaniel). Of these 22 passages, only Dan. 12.2 and Dan. 12.13 (each cited once)would qualify as resurrection texts by modem historical-critical standards. Isa. 25.8and 26.19 (each cited once) might also qualify, though it is unclear whether the orig-inal reference of these two texts was to the resurrection of the individual on the last

day or to the restoration of the people Israel after some historical disaster such asexile. But both of them are at least open to being interpreted in relation to theresurrection without resorting to contorted exegesis. Contorted exegesis (from amodem viewpoint) is what is needed to extort a reference to the resurrection fromthe other 18 texts employed. From the book of Exodus, 6.4 and 15.1 are cited, butnot 3.6. Schwankl (p. 406 n. 232) conjectures that perhaps the lack of any verb inthe key statement I [am] the God ofAbraham... discouraged the rabbis from

using Exod. 3.6, since they could not play off the reading I am the God ofAbra-

ham (in the present, suggestingAbrahams continued existence) against a hypo-thetical reading I was...



12/22

13

of course, from Christian authors of later centuries who cited or bor-

rowed from Mk 12.18-27.19Even the formula Jesus uses from Exod. 3.6 (I [am] the God of Abra-

ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob) occurs only once againin the New Testament, in a slightly different form, inActs 7.32 (I [am]the God of your fathers, the God ofAbraham and Isaac and Jacob),within Stephens speech before his martyrdom. In this speech for thedefense, Stephen constructs an overview of salvation history stretchingfrom the call ofAbraham to Solomons construction of the Jerusalem

temple.A large part of the speechs narrative is given over to the storyof Moses, who is seen as a type of Christ (cf. 7.35). The citation of Exod.3.6 inActs 7.32 occurs, quite properly, during the narration of the callof Moses by God speaking from the burning bush. Indeed,Acts 7.30-34is a digest of Exod. 3.1-10. The important point for us is thatActs 7.32,the only example in the New Testament of a citation of the full formulaof Exod. 3.6 apart from Mk 12.26, simply reproduces the natural sense

of the Exodus text.Absolutely no reference to or proof of the generalresurrection is read into the text by Stephen the orator or Luke the writer.The only other New Testament passage where Exod. 3.6 is cited (or

better, alluded to) isActs 3.13, though here the citation is not as full asinActs 7.32.Acts 3.13 stands at the beginning of Peters kerygmaticspeech in Solomons Portico after the healing of the lame man at theBeautiful Gate of the temple. Peter solemnly announces the resurrection

of Jesus witha

tissue of Old Testament allusions: The God ofAbrahamand the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glo-rified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and denied in the pres-ence of Pilate, although he had determined to release him...

20The open-

ing string of titles could be from Exod. 3.6, though Exod. 3.15 or 3.16

19. Hultgren(Jesus and hisAdversaries, pp. 124-25) claims that the fragmentsof the dispute story on the resurrection that we find in Justins Dialogue with Trypho81.4, On the Resurrection 3 (attributed to Justin), and the pseudonymous Epistle ofTitus are independent of the three Synoptics; to the contrary, Mudiso Mb Mundla,Jesus und die Fhrer, p. 71. I think that a careful inspection of the texts shows thatwe have in these passages typical examples of the meshing and/or paraphrasing ofGospel texts by patristic authors.

20. While Ulrich Wilckens (Die Missionsreden derApostelgeschichte [WMANT,5; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 3rd edn, 1974], p. 38) sees a referencehere to Exod. 3.6, 15, he cautions that we cannot be certain that Luke intended such

a reference, since the God ofAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become a well-knowndesignation of God in early Judaism. Luke expresses the thought ofActs 3.13 more



13/22

14

could equally be the source, since the formula of self-revelation from

3.6 (I [am]...) is missing inActs 3.13. The assertion that God glori-fied his servant probably echoes the reference to the suffering servantin Isa. 52.13. For Luke, this glorification is made up of Christs resur-rection, ascension and being seated at the right hand of God. The desig-nation God ofAbraham... has special value for Luke in this keryg-matic sermon because it stresses that the one God has been planning and

directing the whole course of salvation history from beginning to end,fromAbrahams call to Christs

glorification.21Thus, while the titles of God from Exod. 3.6 are brought into relationwith (though not made a proof of) Jesus resurrection, no link is forgedinActs 3.13 between Exod. 3.6 and the general resurrection of the dead.In other words, while Luke uses Exod. 3.6 twice inActs-indeed, he isthe only New Testament author to use the text outside of Mk 12.26

parr.-it never enters his mind to connect it with the general resur-rection. This is all the more remarkable when one remembers that Luke

does know this application of the text because he takes over the disputestory of Mk 12.18-27 in Lk. 20.27-38. Hence, although he knows the tra-dition that Jesus interpreted Exod. 3.6 in relation to the general resurrec-tion, Luke, no more than any other New Testament author, has the

slightest inclination to imitate his Masters unique hermeneutic. Jesususe of Exod. 3.6 to prove the fact of the general resurrection finds noprecise parallel either in early Judaism before or after him or in the

first-century Christian movement that flowed from hisown

teaching.To sum up, then: In the debate in Mk 12.18-27, Jesus handles boththe how (manner) and the that (fact) of the resurrection quite differentlyfrom the early Christians. Jesus answers the how by a comparison to the

angels and the that by an appeal to Exod. 3.6. The early Christians, in-stead, handle both the how (see Phil. 3.21) and the that (see 1 Cor.

15.12-20) simply by pointing to the risen Jesus.At the same time, Jesus

arguments, especially his grounding of the resurrection in Exod. 3.6, arenot those of Judaism before or after him. The various concepts and mo-tifs that flow into Jesus double answer are indeed drawn from the Old

Testament and early Judaism, but Jesus forges them into a new, creativewhole. The criterion of discontinuity fits Mk 12.18-27 to a remarkabledegree.

tersely in the apostles speech in 5.30: The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom

you killed, hanging [him] on a tree.21. So Wilckens, Missionsreden

,

pp. 160, 164.



14/22

15

b. CoherenceSome critics have doubted the

historicityof the

disputewith the Sad-

ducees over the resurrection because they maintain that the historicalJesus never spoke about a general resurrection of the dead. Such schol-ars reason that Jesus expected the imminent coming of the kingdom,and so his gaze was resolutely fixed on the empirical Israel in frontof him. He was totally taken up with his contemporaries, who were the

object of his passionate call to repentance and renewal in view of thekingdoms coming. He had no time for or interest in speculation about ageneral resurrection of the dead. That a Palestinian Jew could be in-

tensely interested in future eschatology and/or apocalyptic expectationsand yet not be concerned about the resurrection of the dead seems ver-ified by the documents authored by the Qumran community. There wefind eschatological and/or apocalyptic expectations, but little-if any-thing-about a general resurrection of the dead. 21

Nevertheless, to claim that Jesus never spoke of the general resur-

rection is to go too far and at the same time to miss a subtle but impor-tant point. To be sure, at the heart of Jesus proclamation was the king-dom of God, soon to come yet somehow already present in his ministry.With the sense of urgency that such a belief engendered, Jesus thoughtand action aimed squarely at convincing and converting those who were,in his eyes, at risk of final condemnation: his contemporaries-or, asthe sometimes blunt Jesus preferred to call them, this evil genera-tion .2 This main

goalof his mission, and not

speculationabout the fate

of the long-since departed, naturally occupied most of his attention andpreaching. He was interested above all in making sure that the liv-

22. For a detailed consideration of the argument from coherence, see Schwankl,Die Sadduzerfrage, pp. 511-78.

23. See John J. Collins,Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London:Routledge, 1997), pp. 110-29, including his treatment of rare references to resurrec-tion (but in what sense?) in such texts as 4Q521 (pp. 88-89, 128-29).

24. That the historical Jesus did use the word generation(dr in Hebrew,darinAramaic, ϵϵ&aacgr; in Greek) in a pejorative sense to refer to his sinful and unre-pentant contemporaries seems likely in view of the distribution of the term ϵϵ&aacgr; inthe New Testament. The pejorative sense employed by Jesus is scattered throughoutevery Gospel source except John (multiple attestation in Mark, Q, M and L), and

yet it is almost entirely lacking in the sparseuse

of ϵϵ&aacgr; elsewhere in the NewTestament.



15/22

16

ing, standing on the threshold of the final kingdom, would enter into

the kingdomor enter

into life.2In contrast, the idea of a general resurrection, by definition, involvedthe dead, not the living. Such a resurrection beyond this world of timeand space would be the final step into the kingdom for those who had

already died, not for those still living when the kingdom of God camein full reality.Accordingly, the resurrection would be a matter for God,not Jesus, to take care of. Jesus had his hands full with this generation.We need not be surprised, then, that the general resurrection either wasmentioned only in passing by Jesus or remained implicit within hisproclamation of the kingdom. But mentioned or alluded to it was.

1.As I have tried to show in volume 2 ofA Marginal Jew, an im-

portant Q saying of Jesus in Mt. 8.11-12 // Lk. 13.28-29 implies the

general resurrection. 21 Speaking of the eschatological pilgrimage of theGentiles into the kingdom of God, Jesus prophesies (Mt. 8.11 par.),Many from east and west shall come and shall recline [at table] with

Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God. Thus, in his roleas the eschatological prophet, Jesus foretells that, on the last day, the

Gentiles will recline with the long-dead patriarchs (notice, the samethree as in Mk 12.26) at the heavenly banquet, the metaphor for final sal-vation. Obviously, then, the final stage of the kingdom is not just a con-tinuation of this present world in some improved or even miraculousform. The presence ofAbraham, Isaac and Jacob, feasting together withthe Gentiles in the

kingdom,indicates

that,in some sense, the final

kingdom is discontinuous with and transcends this present world.More to the point, the very picture of the long-dead patriarchs now

joining Gentiles (including, presumably, those still living when the endtime comes) at a banquet intimates some sort of resurrection. It is typ-ical of Jesus, however, that we never get beyond symbols, metaphorsand intimations. Jesus is not interested in giving detailed scenarios of thelast day. He is a prophet and a poet, not a systematic theologian. Still, ifJesus is at all serious about this prophecy, the last day seems to involve

25. While various entrance into the kingdom sayings may be the product of theearly Christian tradition or the evangelists, multiple attestation of sources (Mark, Q,M and John) argues that this was one of Jesus regular ways of speaking ofsalvation. See, e.g., Mk 9.43, 45, 47; 10.15, 23-25; Mt. 5.20; 7.13, 21; 19.17; Jn 3.5.

26. See A Marginal Jew, II, p. 317, where I argue that the group referred to asthose who will come from east

and westare most

likely Gentiles rather than Dias-pora Jews.



16/22

17

some kind of resurrection. But it lies on the periphery, not at the center,of his vision.

2. In a few cases, though, it does seem that Jesus spoke in passing-and yet directly-of the resurrection. Within a Lukan symposium,made up of various sayings collected by Luke around the theme of a

banquet, we find an L saying in which Jesus urges his host to be gen-erous in extending hospitality to those who cannot pay him back in thislife. Using a form of beatitude similar to the pattern found at the begin-ning of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, Jesus provides motivation for

his exhortation by promising a future reward beyond this present world(Lk. 14.14): And you will be happy, for...you will be rewarded at theresurrection of the just.As in the beatitudes of the Sermon, Jesus pro-claims the reversal of all values and the radical demand of gratuitouslove in the light of the last day, understood in 14.14 in terms of theresurrection .27

3. In volume 2 ofA Marginal Jew, I looked briefly at the woes that

Jesus the eschatological prophet spoke against the cities of Galilee thatrejected him (a Q saying in Mt. 11.21-24 // Lk. 10.13-15). 2XAs I ar-gued, the mention of Chorazin alongside Bethsaida and Capernaum ascities where Jesus worked argues for historicity. This saying is not

something spun out of other Gospel material-in fact, Chorazin is nevermentioned elsewhere in the New Testament-and there is absolutely noevidence of any early Christian missionary activity at Chorazin. Simi-

larly, despitethe fact that Mt. 11.21 par. presupposes a

largenumber of

miracles worked in Bethsaida, we have only a single narrative recount-

ing a lone miracle worked by Jesus in Bethsaida (Mk 8.22-26). Hencethis Q saying is probably a fossil reflecting activities of Jesus that wereotherwise lost to the Gospel tradition. The saying also coheres perfectlywith the picture of Jesus as the eschatological prophet calling Israel to

repentance in view of the imminent judgment. We hear echoes of the

27. In favor of the beatitude of 14.14 coming from the historical Jesus areI. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978),p. 583; Josef Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977),p. 440. Indeed, one wonders whether the haste with which some Christian exegetes

deny that this saying is authentic is prompted in part by dismay at seeing Jesus urgegenerosity on the basis of a sure reward on the last dayan idea firmly ensconced inthe

teachingof the Jew named Jesus.

28.AMarginal Jew,

II, pp. 620, 692.



17/22

18

fiery mentor, John the Baptist, continuing to speak through his former

disciple.In this Q saying, Jesus warns:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if in Tyre and Sidon

[Old Testament archetypes of evil Gentile cities opposed to God and his

people Israel] had been worked the miracles that have been worked in

you, long ago they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But it will

go easier with Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than with you.

Then

Capernaum,the

city speciallyfavored

byJesus extended min-

istry, is threatened even more graphically: You will descend to Hades[the abode of the dead or hell]. That the Gentile citizens of Tyre andSidon will be arraigned alongside the Jewish citizens of Chorazin, Beth-saida and Capernaum-perhaps thought to be still living when the dayof judgment comes-and will suffer a less grievous fate presupposessome sort of afterlife or coming to life. Granted the stock apocalypticscenario of the gathering together of scattered groups, including the

dead, to a final judgment, the most likely implication is that the day ofjudgment will involve some sort of resurrection of the dead.

4.A similar prophecy of Jesus about the final judgment can be foundin the Q tradition about the sign of Jonah. In Mt. 12.41-42 // Lk.11.31-32, Jesus excoriates his unresponsive contemporaries by compar-ing them once again with more responsive Gentiles. In a two-part say-ing, with each part perfectly parallel to the other, Jesus foretells,

The queen of the south [i.e., the queen of Sheba] shall rise up at the judg-ment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them. For shecame from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon.And

behold, something greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh willrise up at the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it. Forthey repented at the preaching of Jonah.And behold, something greaterthan Jonah is here.

Typicalof the indirect,

enigmatic styleof Jesus is his reference to

something (not someone) greater being present before his audiencess

eyes.As is his custom, he points directly not to himself but to thekingdom of God, already present in his words and works (here). Thisis not the way the post-Easter church proclaimed its Christology in itsvarious forms.

As with the previous saying, we are presented with a scenario of udg-ment day, with Gentiles from the past faring better than Jesus Jewish

contemporaries. Here, unlike the examples of Tyre and Sidon, the Gen-



18/22

19

tiles have in fact been responsive to Israels great wisdom teacher (Sol-

omon) and to one of its great prophets of repentance (Jonah). One mightdiscern here a self-portrait of the historical Jesus (wisdom teacher and

eschatological prophet of repentance); but, as usual, it is at best an indi-rect, allusive reference. The main point of the saying is that the queenof Sheba and the Ninevites, all Gentiles, shall not simply fare better atthe final judgment than Jesus Jewish contemporaries but will even takean active part in witnessing against and condemning them. The scene isclearly that of the general judgment. Since both the queen of Sheba andthe Ninevites obviously died many centuries ago and yet will appearalongside Jesus contemporaries (some of whom are probably presumedto be still living when the final judgment arrives), the natural inferenceis that this final judgment involves some sort of resurrection

5. In Mk 9.43-47 // Mt. 18.8-9 // Mt. 5.29-30, we find various forms

of a string of sayings concerning the seriousness of scandal (in the

weighty theological sense of something that will lead one into serious

sin or apostasy). In Mk 9.43-47, Jesus warns his disciples,If your hand scandalizes you, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into

life maimed than with two hands to depart into Gehenna, into the inex-

tinguishable fire.3oAnd if your foot scandalizes you, cut it off. It is betterfor you to enter into life lame than with two feet to be cast into Gehenna.

And if your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter

into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be cast intoGehenna.

In Mt. 5.29-30, within the Sermon on the Mount, only two of these

sayings, on the eye and the hand, are reproduced, probably with a spe-cific application to impure glances and touches, since the larger contextis the second antithesis (on adultery).A compressed form of Marksthree sayings is found in Mt. 18.8-9. Verse 8 combines the sayingsabout hand and foot (the first two sayings of Mark) into one saying: Ifyour hand or foot scandalize you... Verse 9 continues with the sepa-

29. Nevertheless, the phrase shall rise up with (&eacgr;ϵ&thetas;&eeacgr;ϵ&igr;/&aacgr;&eeacgr;&ogr;&igr;ϵ&aacgr;, with anAramaic phrase like qm im in the background) should not be pressedas though it primarily referred to the general resurrection. The primary meaning ofthis Semitic phrase is to appear in court with someone.

30. For Gehenna used as a metaphor of eschatological punishment of the wickedby fire, see Duane F. Watson, Gehenna,ABD, II, pp. 926-28. Of the 12 occur-

rences of the word in the New Testament, all but one (Jas 3.6) are found in themouth of Jesus in various Synoptic sources (Mark, Q and M).



19/22

20

rate Markan saying on the eye. Whether or not some of the Matthean

forms of the saying represent Q or M tradition as opposed to amere

reworking of the Markan sources is debated among scholars. 31 In anyevent, we have in Marks source (Mk 9.42-50 is clearly a hodgepodgecollection of stray sayings), and possibly in the Q document, a few say-ings of Jesus that speak in most graphic and concrete terms about the en-trance of a person with his or her bodily limbs into the kingdom or intoeternal punishment.A resurrection of the body and/or a bodily entranceinto the

kingdomon the part of those still living is obviously presup-

posed.The shocking imageiy used in these sayings plus the uncompromising

demand for a radical decision in view of imminent judgment coherewell with the style and content of the authentic message of the historicalJesus. Interestingly, while one can find some parallels to these ai-restingimages in later rabbinic literature, the rest of the New Testament andtheApostolic Fathers offer no exact parallels.

6. In volume 2 of A Marginal Jew, I argued at length for the authen-ticity of Jesus prophecy at the Last Supper about his own final fate (Mk14.25): Amen I say to you that I shall no longer drink of the fruit of thevine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.-2 In theface of approaching death and the seeming failure of his mission to all

Israel, Jesus consoles himself (much more than his disciples) with the

hope that God will vindicate him beyond death and will bring him to par-

ticipate in the final banquet in the kingdom. The picture painted by thislogion remains remarkably indistinct: there are no christological titles,no references to Jesus death as sacrificial or saving, no references toresurrection or parousia, no indication that Jesus will be the host at the

banquet or that he will be rejoined there by his disciples. SpecificallyChristian ideas about the consummation are totally lacking. Rather, inthis saying, the historical Jesus expresses his hope that God will bring

31. W.D. Davies and Dale C.Allison, Jr(The Gospel According to Saint Mat-thew [ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997], I, p. 523 and II,

p. 765) favor the view that Matthew is reworking his Markan source in two differ-ent ways; so also Robert H. Gundry, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp.88-89, 363. Yet doublets in Matthew sometimes signal a Mark-Q overlap; cf. Pesch

Markusevangelium, II, p. 116. For later rabbinic parallels to these sayings, thoughin markedly different contexts, see, e.g., m. Nid. 2.1 with the Gemara in b. Nid. 13b;

cf. Targ. Neof.

38.25.32. A Marginal Jew, II, pp. 302-309.



20/22

21

him out of death when the kingdom fully comes and will seat him at the

final banquet, presumably alongside the great patriarchs andeven

theGentiles (cf. Mt. 8.11-12 par.). Once again, the imagery of sharing inthe heavenly banquet beyond death intimates but does not openly pro-claim the idea of a general resurrection on the last day-but not the ideaof a unique resurrection of Jesus within ongoing human history.As the reader will have noticed, I have not spent a great deal of time

arguing about the exact wording of the six texts I have just reviewed. Ihave not even considered at length the question of whether these say-ings go back to the historical Jesus. In some cases, I have done that al-ready in volume 2 of A Marginal Jew; in other cases, I think the briefindications of why the sayings might be considered authentic will suf-fice for the moment. My major point in treating these six sayings is notso much the details of each logion but rather their cumulative effect.

They provide us with an argument from multiple attestation of sourcesand forms for the basic assertion that Jesus spoke at various times, in

various ways, and under various images, of a final judgment on the lastday and that, sometimes overtly but more commonly indirectly, he re-feited to the general resurrection of the dead as part of this eschatologi-cal event. In one way or another, this idea is expressed or implied in

sayings found in Mark, Q, L and possibly M.While the tradition that stands behind the Gospel of John also con-

tains the idea of a general resurrection (e.g. Jn 5.28-29), the compli-cated nature of Johannine

eschatologyand the various

stagesof tradi-

tion and redaction in the Fourth Gospel make it extremely difficult totrace an individual saying on future eschatology back to the historicalJesus. Suffice it to say that the pre-Johannine tradition, for all its differ-ences from the synoptic Gospels, agrees with the other Gospel sources in

attributing references to the general resurrection to Jesus. 33 In any event,the multiple attestation of sources and forms makes it highly probablethat the historical Jesus did at times speak in passing or allude to the

general resurrection of the dead on the last day, though it was not usualfor him to make this subject the direct object of his preaching.

33. For instance, I think that Jn 5.28-29, far from being an invention of the finalredactor of the Fourth Gospel, represents an earlier stage of eschatological teachingin the Johannine tradition. Verse 5.25 should be seen as the evangelists reworking

of the older tradition found in 5.28-29; see R.E. Brown, The GospelAccording toJohn (i-xii) (AB, 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), I, pp. 218-21.



21/22

22

At first glance, this last point might seem to create a major objectionto seeing a historical incident behind the debate with the Sadducees inMk 12.18-27.Actually, the exact opposite is true. If Jesus generallyspoke only in passing or allusively of a general resurrection, what wouldbe the one kind of event that would cause him to address the question

directly? Precisely the type of event that Mk 12.18-27 depicts: the onlyJewish movement that explicitly denied any future resurrection or final

judgment beyond this present world was moved by Jesus passing refer-ences to confront him on the

subject, forcinghim to

spellout and de-

fend his implied position. It is therefore not by accident but rather in

keeping with everything we have seen that the only time Jesus focusesthe theological spotlight directly on the subject of the general resurrec-tion is when he is directly challenged on the matter by the only Jewish

group that would be likely to dispute his position with vehemence,namely, the Sadducees.

In shou, while the argument from coherence has to be built up grad-

ually, saying by saying, its cumulative impact in the case of the debatewith the Sadducees is fairly impressive. Hence I maintain that, when thearguments from discontinuity are joined to the arguments from coher-ence, the most probable conclusion is that the debate with the Sadduceesover the resurrection in Mk 12.18-27 does reflect an actual incident in

the ministry of the historical Jesus that took place, naturally enough, inJerusalem .31 Whether Jesus engaged in any other debates with the Sad-

ducees we cannot say.-5 Such clashes, perhaps spread out over a num-ber of visits to Jerusalem (as the Fourth Gospel indicates), might help

34. Those who hold that Lukes version of the story, esp. Lk. 20.34-36, repre-sents an alternate form of the primitive tradition, might argue for authenticity fromthe criterion of multiple attestation of sources (Mark + L). However, along with

many Lukan commentators, I think that 20.34-36 is best explained as Lukes cre-ative redaction of his Markan tradition, perhaps with a glance at the LXX Mac-cabean literature; on this, see Schwankl, Die Sadduzerfrage

,

pp. 442-61; for the

opposite view, Mudiso Mb Mundla, Jesus und die Fhrer,

p. 79. To argue againsthistoricity on the grounds that Paul does not cite Mk 12.25 in1 Cor. 15 presumeson the part of Paul a much wider knowledge of Jesus sayings than can be provenfrom his epistles.

35. In favor of such a view is Gnther Baumbach, Das Sadduzerverstndnisbei Josephus Flavius und im Neuen Testament, Kairos 13 (1971), pp. 31-35; Karl-heinz Mller, Jesus und die Sadduzer, in Helmut Merklein and Joachim Lange

(eds.), Biblische Randbemerkungen (Rudolf Schnackenburg Festschrift; Wiirzburg:Echter Verlag, 2nd edn, 1974), pp. 8-11.



22/22

23

explain the growing opposition of the chief priests and elders, which

ultimatelyled to

Jesusarrest. But we must admit that we lack the hard

evidence to make these suggestions anything more than speculation.In any event, Mk 12.18-27 is a unique and precious relic that allows

us to appreciate more fully Jesus own views on what the future comingof the kingdom would mean. The historical Jesus believed that, at somepoint in the eschatological drama, past generations would rise from thedead and that faithful Israelites would share in a new type of life similarto that of the angels, one that left behind old relationships established

by marriage and sexual activity. The final state of the kingdom wouldthus entail a transcendence of this present world, not simply an improve-ment of it. In bringing about this new world, the God of creation and

covenant, the God ofAbraham, Isaac and Jacob would fulfill his deep-est commitment to the people of Israel to be their savior and protector,even beyond death. In the end, Jesus proclaims this particular view bothof the manner of the resurrection and of the scriptural proof of the res-

urrection not on the basis of some hallowed tradition but simply on thebasis of his own authority.&dquo; Without any precedent in Jewish tradition,Jesus flatly asserts that Exod. 3.6 proves the truth of the general resur-rection of the dead. He knows that this is so, he teaches it is so, and that

is the end of the matter. We have here the peremptory, authoritative,

it-is-so-because-I-say-it-is-so style that is typical of the charismaticleader. There is no Amen I say to you in Jesus pronouncement on the

resurrection;but that

introductory phrase,so characteristic of Jesus

teaching style, sums up well the air of direct, authoritative, intuitive

knowledge that marks this eschatological prophet from Nazareth. Onecan understand why the Sadducees in particular and the Jerusalem estab-lishment in general would find this Galilean upstart difficult to take or

tolerate.

36. See Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tbingen: J.C.B.

Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 6th edn, 1971), pp. 141-42; Schwankl, Die Sadduzerfragepp. 508-509, 563-66.

ABSTRACT

Despite initial appearances, Jesus debate with the Sadducees over the resurrectionof the dead does have good reason for being considered authentic. The pericope is

clearly not a pure creation by Mark. Indeed, the criteria of discontinuity and coher-ence argue for a basic historicity. The pericope is discontinuous (1) with the ten-

Documents

2000 - John P. Meier - The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead. an Incident From the Ministry of the Historical Jesus